Odds and Ends, 6/30/21

In der news.

One gets tired of this nonsense.

I’ve answered moronic “analyses” like this many times; I’ll just make three brief points here:

1. Mixed-race people are not “White” by any reasonable definition. One can of course re-define “White” to mean anything you want, but then one can define anything to mean anything else. Whites are allowed to have a European racial and cultural identity without others trying to define those identities out of existence.

2. Excusing these redefinitions of “White” based on the past private definitions of Nordicists and Anglocentrics is doubly wrong. First, legally speaking, at the federal level, it was ALWAYS the case that all Europeans were considered “White” with respect to immigration, citizenship, inter-marriage, etc. In some ways, the old definition may have been even wider than it was today – at one time South Asians were “White” and, unfortunately, Jews were always legally considered ‘White.” Second, just because strange definitions and understandings existed among some people in the past doesn’t mean we are obligated to accept equally bizarre definitions and understandings today. At one time, people thought that whales were fish. They were wrong. That doesn’t mean we should, today, accept salmon as whales.

3. It is the job of demographic analysts to provide disinterested evaluation of objective data. It is not their job to try and convince Whites that their dispossession is nothing to worry about.  Everything in academia and “science” and policy has become political, and the politics are always anti-White.

Guide for the perplexed:

Dear Mr. Adams -

I wasted decades of my life on a "movement" that despises my ethnicity, that is "led" by inept affirmative action grifters, and that demonstrates zero judgment, strategic thinking, and honorable behavior. What should I do?

- Swartface

Getting back to the Adams post and the workplace advice - there needs to be more context. If the person is aggressively proselytizing at the job - that's one thing and Adams' advice is sound. If the job is not at all directly connected to sociopolitical aspects and it is merely an issue of several "diversity training" sessions - fine again. But what if the person is involved in the political realm, or is a teacher, an academic, or any sort of other job that actually entails being forced to actively repeat and promote "wokeness?"  What if the person's free speech rights and/or academic freedom rights are being violated?  What if they are asked to break the letter of the law by engaging in frank anti-White discrimination?  What then?  Should they continue to be fully compliant and prudent?  And what is the endgame?  Should one be prudent to infiltrate the System?  To acquire "intelligence?" Or to merely go along to get along and maybe be a lurker or pseudononymous commentator at some "movement" website?  Or just to give "D'Nations" to frauds and grifters?

I'm not saying Adams is right or wrong. I'm saying it depends on context and that the advice - like so much coming from Der Movement - completely lacks nuance.

Writing worth paying for!

His imprisonment sadly prevented him from fulfilling his pledge to “eat his own dick” if Bitcoin didn’t hit $1 million before the end of 2020…A lot of people think McAfee was awesome for snorting bath salts, banging hookers, marrying a black hooker, and living in international waters in order to evade capture by the American government…

…Personally, I had no strong opinion of the guy one way or the other. I caught his 2016 run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, just as I was evolving out of libertarianism…

How come I’m not surprised by the “libertarianism.”  Has even one person emerged out of libertarianism that has been worth a damn for pro-White activism?

…failing to eat his dick when Bitcoin didn’t reach $1 million at the end of 2020, giving some good tips about cybersecurity, talking about shoving his arm up women’s asses…

…There’s supposed to be some super-secret info contained in that Instagram post…

…Just as Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself, so was JFK not shot by a lone gunman…

No, it was Colonel Mustard with the candlestick.

…What if government malfeasance doesn’t rely on covering up, distorting, or presenting false facts to the public, or at least doesn’t solely rely on such distortions, but rather, relies on distorting the processes by which people think so that no skullduggery would be necessary to conceal malfeasance? Malfeasance would simply be done in the open and the people could be conditioned to ignore it, or even love it. 

OK, here Jeelvy and I agree.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Some constructive criticism for Griffin – and I’m serious here, not sarcastic or facetious. If you are going to do fundraising, I would not present it like this:

…so I want to go ahead and start raising some money to offset the cost of my son’s annual tuition. He is growing up fast and will be starting second grade this year. Anything you can chip in to help would be much appreciated.

First, it is not a good idea to discuss private matters on a public site that is obviously read by the opposition.  Second, it is not a good “look” to present the fundraising in terms of needing money for private, lifestyle issues.  All you need to say is “I need money to defray living expenses, to support myself and my family” – and even the second part of that is not strictly necessary.