Odds and Ends, 6/25/22

In der news.

It is not clear to me why the HBD Nordicists tend to lump the same populations as being both egalitarian and individualistic, implying that the two traits are linked. It would seem the opposite would the case. Ever since the French Revolution, the Far Left has linked an egalitarian ideology with collectivism. Even on the Far Right, the collectivist folk communities of fascist movements were egalitarian at least in the sense of mitigating class differences to enhance the organic solidarity of the ethny. Never mind that some of Der Movement's favorite ethnies are no more individualistic then the allegedly ethnocentric collectivist (sic) Italians.  Also see this. I also do not see a clear connection between late marriage and individualism. It would seem that the harsher ecologies that would lead to later marriage would also promote societies that are collectivist as well as egalitarian. I believe that this HBD Nordicist nonsense derives from the Eloi paradigm - the worshipped ethnies are just too good, too noble, too honorable, too altruistic, too egalitarian, and too individualistic for their own good - as opposed to the runty penned up chicken Morlocks.

Ultimately, the problem with Trump as President is that he governed as if his electoral base of support came from Blacks and Jews. He catered to those who hate him and betrayed his base of supporters (sounds like Amren). Trump had one of the most bizarre and politically inept Presidencies in American history, and he retained (most of his) White support in 2020 essentially only because they had nowhere else to go and they were fearful of a Biden Presidency.

See this.  You'll notice that my writing over the years has essentially ignored Yarvin and his "Cathedral" nonsense. Granted that the critiques of Joyce and Jeelvy have merit - and I believe that they do - they are in my opinion almost superfluous. Consider the corpus of Yarvin's work. \There's no "there" there. I see nothing particularly novel or interesting in anything Yarvin gibbers about; he has authority on Der Right only insofar as Alt Right knuckleheads, juvenile manosphere jackasses, and "neoreactionary" "traditionalists" pay attention to the imbecility of his work.

The only good thing about this - besides exposing leftist hysteria - is that it will accelerate right/left geographical sorting and balkanization, as people move to states that have abortion laws that they find congenial. Of course, that will enrich "right-wing states" with Christian religious yahoos who worship Negro fetuses, but we can't have everything.

The Sallis compromise on abortion is as follows. Women are allowed one abortion (preferably with the consent of the sperm donor if possible) and the procedure will be accompanied by permanent sterilization. The exceptions to this would be abortions due to rape, incest, danger to the woman's health/life, and/or it is determined that the fetus has some sort of significant (genetic) defect - like being a retard. The vast majority of current abortions do not fit with any of those exceptions and are instead done for the sake of convenience.

Rationale: If a woman is too stupid and/or irresponsible to (correctly) use birth control (herself directly or via her partner) and/or is so psychopathic that she would kill her own child, apart from the exceptions listed above, then she should be removed from the genepool, and is unfit to be a mother in any case.

Note that my compromise maintains the racial and eugenic benefits of the current abortion policy, as births from these women will be prevented. Indeed, my compromise is more beneficial than current policy, because under current conditions, the women in question may spew out offspring at a later date. Moral and religious considerations are irrelevant to me.