Odds and Ends, 5/14/22

In der news.

Laugh at this.

This White Revivalist movement seems dead on arrival. For one thing, the Dissident Righters are in the impossible position of being against all people except whites and, not infrequently, express themselves as favoring only North European whites. This reduces them to political hobbyists, unable to compromise. Further, Latinos are simply not behaving badly enough to support a white racial consciousness.

Fred Reed's logic leaves much to be desired. If the whole point of the "White Revivalist movement" is to promote specifically White interests, why should it also promote the interests of non-Whites whose presence in majority White nations is one of the biggest problems for Whites, who are typically hostile to Whites, and whose interests are already well cared for by the System? Reed's inter-racial marriage is not sufficient justification for a pro-White movement to be multiracial (the problem with WN 3.0 Rosie and the Kids White Nationalism). His implied criticism of Nordicism is a bit more relevant, but it is insofar as Der Movement is dishonest about it. If they want to be concerned only about Northern Europeans then they should explicitly state this, instead of practicing an implicit, furtive, crypto-Nordicism. They hide behind a "pan-White" veneer, while making sure that Der Movement is so hostile to White ethnics that such people are repelled. And his positive comments about Latinos are of course connected to the fact of his marriage and family.

My own basic objections to America First are that (in order of importance):

1. It is multiracial civic nationalism, which I oppose

2. It has, in my opinion, inept, juvenile, destructive, money-grubbing leadership

Since that also describes WN 3.0, what objections do the WN 3.0ers have?

In order of importance, it seems to be:

1. Fuentes is a competitor for D'Nations

2. Fuentes is a short, lawn jockey-sized manlet

3. America First criticizes women

America First vs. WN 3.0 - A duel of wits between unarmed opponents.

Observing the Counter-Currents/America First dust-up, it is clear that bioleninism exists on the Right as well as on the Left. Der Movement, and the associated, but different, Alt Lite, is full of freaks and misfits; it is a natural kakistocracy. How can one explain the prominence of individuals such as Johnson, Goad, and Fuentes without invoking bioleninism?

Laugh at this – two nitwits in discussion. The Nordicist Durocher talks to crypto-Nordicist Hood. Although there is some criticism of Marine Le Pen, there is no honest admission of the failure of mainstreaming and no admission that these "movement" heroes are always, always wrong about all of this.

Thus, listening to that nonsense, with all of the "deep" analysis of electoral details and all of the speculation, they do not address the 800 lb. gorilla in the room - the fact that mainstreaming failed once again, it ALWAYS fails, it has NEVER been successful, either in winning elections or in building the coalitions that Durocher thinks are so important.  These types love to sound sophisticated with their knowledge of esoterica, but they miss the forest for the trees.  It is also no surprise that the Nordicist Durocher disapproves of economic populism - that's common among Nordicists and HBDers, the love of "economic liberalism" that is in fact responsible for much of the racial crisis.

The Right needs to contest the centers of power, and not retreat into "twigs and branches" Type I activism. The point is not that the Left would be dislodged (very unlikely), but that some presence of the Right is required to provide assistance and protection for other activities and to cause chaos and disruption in the System. Dedicated, organized minorities can be very effective, at least to delegitimize the establishment.

The Ted Sallis opinion on abortion is as follows. Yes, abortion is murder. But so what?  People accept murder all of the time. When soldiers kill each other that is murder, even though we call it “war.”  When cities are bombed in “war,” civilians are murdered, and that includes children, babies, and pregnant women. When the USA imposed sanctions on Iraq, didn’t that result in civilian death, hence, a form of murder? A good case can be made that abortion in the USA has had a positive effect, re: race and eugenics, so the spectacle of Der Right – at least the mainstream Right – thinking that abortion must be opposed is pathetic, and the pro-abortion stance of the Left is hilarious. I for one am not going to oppose abortion in the multiracial USA, in which a disproportionate number of abortions are from Coloreds as well as the dumbest fraction of the human (i.e., White) population. A few other points: (1) if men are obligated to pay child support if they are the father (and in some cases, even when cuckolded!) then they should have a right to influence the decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy, (2) it is interesting that the Left has no problem distinguishing men from women when leftists become hysterical over issues like this, and (3) re: the “protests,” we once again observe the System selectively enforcing the law to advantage the Left and disadvantage the Right.  Der Right ALWAYS loses, because it – ranging from mainstream conservatism to Der Movement – is essentially a grift, and those who are sincere are comically inept.

The thing that gets me about the Quota Queens is this. Even if they dislike me and my ideology and tactics, even if I am “insane,” that doesn’t change the objective reality of decades of utter failure for Der Movement, capped off by the disastrous collapse of the Alt Right, a permutation of the “movement” most of them supported. They won’t even admit failure in general terms, never mind admit any personal culpability for the failure. They have zero accountability; they take responsibility for nothing. They lurch from one catastrophe to another and after it is over pretend that it never happened or was just a minor setback on the glorious road to eventual victory. Even worse – they are hypocrites, for even though they label general criticism of their “movement” as “insane” and even though they’ll absolutely reject any personal responsibility, they will cite failures when it is convenient to do so as part of their feuds, in order to attack “movement” rivals. Thus, it is “acceptable” to cite the Alt Right disaster as part of an attack against Spencer, but we are not allowed to note that Taylor, Johnson, MacDonald, Brimelow, et al. were all on the Alt Right train at least until Heilgate, and in some cases, up until Unite the Right. It is “acceptable” to attack Fuentes, but we are not allowed to note all of the “movement” “leaders” who have supported Fuentes, praised him, were honored guests at America First meetings, etc. The fundamental dishonesty here, indicative of severe character flaws, is vomit-inducing.

I have what I call the "Full Sibling Test" to evaluate biologically-related schemes for separating people ingroup/outgroup, with a prime example being dividing people into ethnostates. If it is theoretical possible for full siblings to end up in different ethnostates based on the biological approach used, then that approach is flawed. That is one reason to reject dividing people based on phenotypic rankings or genetic ancestry testing percentage cut-offs. On the other hand, genealogical ancestry is sound, since full siblings will share the same genealogical background and hence the absurdity of full siblings being biologically separated into different ethnostates is avoided. Of course, dividing people on non-biological factors is another story. And all of this also applies to dividing people in ways other than for ethnostates.