Odds and Ends, 5/21/22

In der news.

This is a defining moment for the broader Right, extending even people like Tucker Carlson. The Right cannot allow itself to be silenced about the TRUTH about The Great Replacement. Race and demographics are THE MOST IMPORTANT issues of our time. Indeed, the Right needs to "double down" on the facts about (intentional) demographic change. To achieve this, we need spokesmen who are sane, articulate, and intelligent - who make a good impression and are persuasive. There is no one in Der Movement or the Alt Rite who fit the bill.

See this. The Left is claiming that their Disinformation Board was targeted by disinformation from Republicans and the Right in general, who spread the "disinformation" that the board would itself target American political speech, instead of focusing on "foreign actors." But wait - if the Left claims that American political opposition to the Board is "disinformation" then doesn't that prove the point of that opposition that the Board would indeed label American right-wing opinion as "disinformation?" Are they so contemptuous of us that they thought we wouldn't notice that blatant mendacity and hypocrisy?

And the winner of the Counter-Currents Great Replacement essay contest is this that features:

The Rise and Fall of WASP Preservationism

The nineteenth-century wilderness preservation movement was, from its inception, a WASPish and elite affair....Almost all were critics of the vulgarity and filth of city living as well as the arrival of the world’s “wretched refuse,” who had no appreciation for the sturdy pioneer virtues of America’s founders nor for its wilderness. Many were supporters of eugenics and immigration restriction, and indeed saw these issues and wilderness preservation as two sides of the same coin. As Madison Grant explained to his friend Henry Fairfield Osborn, both were “attempts to save as much as possible of the old America.”... environmental organizations attracted many ethnic minorities (who did not share the hated WASP’s preoccupations with solitude and sublimity) to their cause...

All you "wretched refuse," all you Southern and Eastern Europeans, have no conception of "solitude and sublimity" - you penned up runty chicken Morlocks you!

Laugh at this.

Jim GoadMay 19, 2022 at 1:03 pm

According to the actual definition of “species”—a group of organisms capable of producing offspring together...

Ignorant and misleading. Different species can produce offspring in some cases. While members of the same species always have to be able to (potentially) produce offspring, it is not true that members of different species are always excluded from producing offspring.

It gets funnier: 

If they were simply all Canis but not familiaris, they wouldn’t be able to interbreed.

Shhh...the reality that dogs can interbreed with wolves, coyotes, and jackals is not recognized by the hobbit hole crew. I thought it was common knowledge that most canids (excepting, e.g., foxes) can interbreed. I should have known better.

I remember a time not too long ago when denying simple biological facts was the exclusive domain of leftists.

And the domain of ignorant retards like Jim Goad. Hey, Jimmy, members of different canid species CAN interbreed.  Lions and tigers CAN interbreed.  YOU are the one “denying simple biological facts,” you moronic self-righteous asshole.

Reproductive isolation cannot be used as a criterion for defining species based on how species are currently classified. Now, true enough, species classification - based on, say, morphological, behavioral, and/or genetic differences - is somewhat arbitrary. While differences between organism types are real, where we draw the line is in large part a human invention.

Thus, in theory, you could, if you desired, define species by reproductive isolation. If you do so, then dogs, wolves, coyotes are all the same species, and lions and tigers are the same species.  Indeed, all "different species" capable of producing "hybrid offspring" - or at least fertile offspring - would be the "same species."

The problem with that definition is that it lumps together animals that are truly distinct. No one would ever mistake a lion for a tiger, or vice versa. If defining species based on reproductive compatibility produces classifications that ignore fundamental and important morphological, behavioral, and/or genetic differences, then that is a lousy definition (regardless of how popular it may be among laymen).