Lawrence Again, 11/21

A moral turd.

As a preface, I want to say that, to me, anyone who participates at the blog of anti-WN Jewish HBDer Unz is an enemy of the White race and is a moral turd. I have been alerted that Lawrence, over at that selfsame Unz blog, has attacked me; I’ll briefly respond.

Finally, at the risk of trying the reader’s patience, let’s take a look at @FvS (comment 9) who links to the blog of Ted Sallis – basically a glorified comment account in which a rather unhinged…

Just like Greg Johnson with his “mental illness” pathologization of critics. That seems to be a common trope of these types.

…White Nationalist veteran spews the bitterest vitriol against everyone he reads…

Everyone?  Salter?  Lowell?

…only from the safety of a no-comments-allowed blog where his victims cannot take him to task and puncture his delusion of being right about everything.

See my position about comments below.

Follow the first link, and you will Ted’s vehemently insulting reaction to my post on White Nationalism, in which he accused me of being an “ethnic fetishist” for Nordics with an “ethnic animus” to Southern Europeans (both tendencies I despise) on the basis of a single offhand comment about racial admixture that he twisted out of its proper context. 

That reminds me of when Arthur Kemp, in response to some criticism on my old Legion Europa blog, denied that he was a Nordicist. I suppose that Madison Grant wasn’t a Nordicist either. This Lawrence, following Sallis’ Law to the letter, talked about “racial admixture” in Southern Europe (ignoring evidence of such in Northern Europe) in the context of it being superfluous to his (typically long-winded and rambling) “argument,” and is then disturbed about being called out on it.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….I don’t know, if Lawrence “despises” those “tendencies” then he might stop invoking those tendencies in his “writing” – particularly at the blog of someone known to indulge in those “tendencies.” The best way not to enable “tendencies” that you allegedly “despise” is to – surprise! – not enable them.

This led me to conclude that he was intellectually dishonest, but I also speculated – either irreverently, or charitably, depending on your perspective – that he could also be “intoxicated”, “semiliterate”, or “retarded”. This resulted in the outraged huffing and puffing that you see in the second link…

So, Lawrence engages in ad hominem “vitriol” and then is disturbed when there is a response.  Who is a soft, thin-skinned bully?

… – for Ted has developed a soft, thin skin in the padded cell of his insulated blog, and like a stereotypical bully, is not used to being hit back with anything like his own habitual ferocity.

All that Johnson–like pathologization aside, long-time readers of this blog know why I don’t have a comments section on my blogs. I’ll repeat my reasoning for new readers. First, my previous experience at sites such as Majority Rights leads me to have a low opinion of the worth of many, perhaps most, comments, which often lower the tone of the blog and often descend into flamewars (see Lawrence’s own hysterics). Moderated comments I see as somewhat dishonest, as one can always censor effective responses against your position and/or “ban” critics as does Johnson. Second, and more important, there are issues of time and of opportunity costs. Unlike many “movement” freaks, I have a life outside activism. Unlike Quota Queen grifters, I support myself and do not depend on “D’Nations.” I’m not earning anything – much less $340,000 in one year as “executive compensation” – for running my blogs.  I have to budget my time and effort accordingly.  Producing my own material is more time effective than spending time reading and answering comments. Considering how much time is wasted responding to flotsam and jetsam such as Lawrence (who does not lack forums to answer me, as you see), I think my stance on comments is prudent. Call that “the padded cell” of my “insulated blog” if you wish but I’m not changing my policy.

I also have long noted in my 20+ years of commenting on the Internet that when Nordicists behave with "ferocity" and use "vitriol" that is all well and good and often praised, but in my case, I'm "unhinged" and suffering from "insanity" (defamation from Lawrence and Johnson, respectively). You can read into that what you will.

The third linked post on Salter is more reasoned, but still exhibits the same basic intellectual dishonesty (or, if you prefer, “self-deception”). Ted is basically moving the goalposts, setting up a rigid distinction between Salterian prescription and description – i.e. between the theory of EGI-adaptive behaviour, and the reality of actual human behaviour – that is all but impossible to distinguish in most parts of Salter’s On Genetic Interests. 

Not true. Salter usually was careful about that. Did Lawrence read the book? If so, is he challenged with respect to reading comprehension?

Technically, of course, it’s possible to defend Salter in this way – like a Renaissance astronomer before the Inquisition – by saying that theory is theory, reality is reality, and the former just posits more or less accurate hypothetical models of the latter. But this is downright disingenuous if you are Ted Sallis, who has written elsewhere about the need to capitalise EGI into “biopolitics”...

Disingenuous? Not at all. This argument from Lawrence is particularly stupid. The whole purpose of argumentation is to change human behavior to agree with your position. People do one thing today. I want them to do something else tomorrow. The former is descriptive; the latter is prescriptive. What’s the problem?  Even worse for Lawrence's criticism – the behavior that I am trying to change is something that in the past was more in line with what I am prescribing. The behavior is therefore changeable, it is malleable, it can be altered. I want Whites to behave in a more ethnocentric manner (that they have done in the past). That they are currently displaying a different behavior does not invalidate my prescription (to argue otherwise is an error derived from the is-ought fallacy)

What it looks like to me is a classic setup for a motte-and-bailey fallacy. 

No, it is not. I am not conflating more and less controversial positions and defending the former by invoking the latter. I am making distinctions between things that are in fact distinct, and clarifying core concepts from peripheral, sometimes irrelevant comments (e.g., the Bantu issue).  If anything, Lawrence is doing a reverse “motte and bailey” – cherry picking isolated more controversial comments to invalidate the core thesis that is less controversial and that is based on genetic realities and sound evolutionary theory.

When we try to pin Salter down on his statements about Bantu immigrants and drowing children…

What is “drowing?” In any case, the fact that Lawrence keeps on harping on this Bantu thing reinforces my suspicion that he either hasn’t read Salter’s book or read it very superficially and is instead depending on second-hand HBD/leftist criticism, which often focuses on this single cherry picked sentence to invalidate Salter's entire carefully argued book.

I can’t speak for Salter, but it seems to me that he invoked the Bantu example as an extension of Haldane’s comment about saving siblings or cousins from drowning – basically extending Haldane’s family example to an ethnic one. It was a rhetorical device, a single sentence, and to obsessively focus on it suggests that the focuser is being dishonest. 

Ted whisks his guru off to the “motte”, by telling us that Salterian “adaptiveness” is purely theoretical…

Purely theoretical? I never said that. Lawrence is lying. I merely said that the SPECIFIC Bantu example that Lawrence obsesses about is theoretical and not meant by Salter to be something he’s telling people to do. See my comment:

The actual context of the statement is that it follows an intricate discussion of population genetics and genetic kinship and Salter is clearly theoretically (“it would appear to be”) speculating on adaptive behavior in an objective sense. He does not expect, or advise, e.g., that a person will strap a torpedo on their back and swim out to blow up a migrant boat while at the same time ignoring their own child drowning.

This comment about "theoretically" is specifically and only about the Bantu statement (as is clear from the context of that quote). It is not an assertion that "Salterian adaptiveness" as a whole is merely theoretical. As Salter writes, his prescription for "adaptiveness" could be actualized via (bold font in original):

…political activity and inexpensive but repetitive acts of favouritism shown to ingroup members. Favouring many individuals at low per-unit cost also helps overcome the free rider problem.

Back to Lawrence:

…and is mediated through various “proximate proxies” for EGI in practical life. 

I never said that in the sense that it MUST be mediated that way – if often is, but can also be directly (which is optimal) mediated through smaller-scale actions (e.g., anti-immigration activism instead of stopping those Bantus in the water).

Okay…so let’s say we assume that humans have evolved a crude predilection for people with similar external characteristics to themselves, which originates as a proxy for EGI as theorised by Salter…

I NEVER stated that. In fact, I have for years argued that there is NO need to argue for the evolution of anything. I have argued endlessly that the evolution of altruism or ethnic nepotism is NOT required.  All you need is conscious rational decision making to pursue genetic interests.  For example - It is an objective fact that Englishmen are genetically more similar to French than to Nigerians.  Now, an Englishman can look at that fact and decide that his interests are served by helping the French to resist African immigration. Another Englishman can state that he doesn’t care, or, in typical High Truster style, he helps the Africans. The former action is adaptive, the latter is not.  No evolution of anything is required. See the addendum below. Salter writes about his prescription for pursuing EGI:

...to think responsibly about ethnic affairs requires more deliberation and systematic fact-finding than is necessary in the personal realm.

That's conscious and rational "deliberation and systematic fact-finding" not some sort of "evolved...crude predilection for people with similar external characteristics to themselves."

The idea that all human behavior is strictly evolved and genetically determined is something out of HBD (that Lawrence apparently believes has validity), not from Salter or myself.

...but in practice can be ‘hacked’ by anything from linguistic similarity to political similarity to cultural similarity. 

No, it are proximate interests that can be “hacked.”  EGI cannot be “hacked” because genetic similarity is what it is – which is why focusing on ultimate interests rather than proximate ones is superior.  See this. 

Back to Lawrence:

And then let’s say we make this the basis for a milquetoast conservative proposal to force non-white immigrants to adopt local language, culture and customs, since as far actual human beings are concerned one type of similarity is more or less as good as another. Presumably, at this point Ted will come storming out into the “bailey”, to tell us why we should be modelling our real-life behaviour on the underlying EGI instead of the non-genetic proxy.

Indeed I will so storm out, because the cultural approach has (directly) nothing to do with EGI. This fellow has a complete misunderstanding of both Salter’s work and of my perspective on it.  Everything that he’s saying is essentially completely wrong.  Strawman arguments everywhere.

Now that we understand these sleazy hand-waving tricks..

Childish ad hominem.

…let’s look at the fourth linked post on MacDonald. Once again, Ted whisks his guru..

I’m actually very critical of MacDonald on my blog, but I believe his work on the Jews is sound.

…off to the safety of the “motte”, this time by expanding the concept of “group evolutionary strategy” to be as nebulous and unfalsifiable as possible. Now, according to his rules, we must include practically any type of group behaviour under the definition of a group evolutionary strategy – whether it is collectivist or individualist, endogamous or exogamous, evolutionarily beneficial or evolutionarily disastrous.

Lawrence apparently does not understand the distinction between a definition and a hypothesis; while the latter needs to be falsifiable, the former does not.  I provided what I see as a perfectly reasonable definition of a GES:

...the manner in which a group of people (however defined) interacts with each other, with other groups, and with the environment, to affect, positively or negatively, the continuity of the group. 

You may like that, dislike it, consider it “nebulous,” but it is a definition, not anything that requires falsification.  An example of a falsifiable hypothesis would be, e.g., “Judaism is a GES based on X,Y,Z that enhances the fitness of Jews while depressing the fitness of the host peoples among which Jews live.” That is a hypothesis concerning a defined entity (GES). That hypothesis is falsifiable and not, in my opinion, “nebulous,” but one in any case must distinguish between it and a simple definition. An analogy would be with “military strategy," which is defined as:

...a set of ideas implemented by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals.

That is a definition, perhaps “nebulous,” but it is not a hypothesis requiring falsification.  On the other hand, stating “A military strategy similar to that of the German strategic approach to WWII will inevitably lead to defeat because of X,Y,Z" is a hypothesis. See the difference?  Lawrence would no doubt tell us that military strategy is “a set of ideas implemented by military organizations that must result in victory” – and since one can easily cite examples of failed military strategies then we must conclude that the concept of a military strategy has been “falsified” and that it doesn’t exist. If you a priori define something as leading to success in all cases, then falsification is essentially guaranteed. His "reasoning" is thus exposed as ludicrous.

Now, to be fair, something like this definition of a group evolutionary strategy is actually provided by MacDonald in PTSDA. I didn’t use it in the post, because it is contradicted elsewhere…

Very convenient. Look, I don’t care what definitions MacDonald uses, and whether or not he contradicted himself. I care about my definition, which I see as more logical and comprehensive.  More importantly, note that Lawrence himself now classified GES as a “definition.”  Attention you idiot – a definition does not have to be falsified.  It merely needs to effectively describe that which is being defined.

One must applaud Mr. Lawrence for his accomplishment - his writing makes, by comparison, Heidegger seem succinct, Greg Johnson honest, and Jim Goad introspectively self-aware.  My sincere congratulations.

Addendum

The whole argument that "ethnic nepotism cannot exist because it could not have evolved" was the same nonsense as what Ingo Brigandt was saying years ago.  It can be answered by pointing out that ethnic nepotism exists and has long existed, and groups that practice it prosper.  Second, see modeling such as this.  

Third, it doesn't have to be a specific behavior that evolved, but a general domain cognitive mechanism (e.g., we didn't evolve to use computers, but our general intelligence allows us to do so, etc.).  Whatever theoretical people make (likely the same as Brigandt and GNXP in more layman's terms), the fact is that ethnic nepotism exists. Even Brigandt admitted it is evolutionarily beneficial to help ethnic kin, he just doesn't think it is possible because it "didn't evolve" - a ludicrous and illogical argument. See my quote below. 

Of interest to the GNXPers is Brigandt’s confused article: “Brigandt, I. (2001) “The homeopathy of kin selection: an evaluation of van den Berghe's sociobiological approach to ethnicity.” Politics and the Life Sciences 20: 203–215.”  There he attempts to explain why ethnic nepotism is not adaptive.  The problem is that it boils down to Brigandt’s definition of a behavior being adaptive if it evolved.  He asserts that ethnic nepotism could not have evolved because various population groups were isolated from each other during their evolution; hence, there was no selective pressure for ethnic nepotism.  Therefore, given that circumstance, ethnic nepotism could not have evolved; thus, it cannot be adaptive.

Putting aside the argument of whether ethnic nepotism could have evolved, the problem here is a semantic one; that is, defining “adaptive.”  If we wish to define “adaptive” in the sense that Brigandt does, then he may be correct, given that caveat of the footnote below.  However, let’s look at this quote by Brigandt from the same paper (Dawkins, Malloy, and all the “cake eaters,”take note):

True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.

Well, yes. That, in one sentence, is a reasonable summary of Salter’s *prescriptive* argument.  Indeed, herein lies the problem, in that Salter (and I) would define adaptive as “an evolutionarily better strategy” -  a strategy independent of whether or not it has evolved or not.

To add to the confusion, Brigandt follows that sentence with:

But this fact does not indicate that this kind of behavior will evolve (rather than egoism or other behavioral patterns) independent of cost/benefit considerations.

First of all, this is somewhat contradictory, in that cost/benefit considerations come to play in the “evolutionarily better strategy,” so there really is no reason to a priori assume that the behavior is taking place independent of such considerations.  That’s absurd. Brigandt harps on that even the “better strategy” may be “maladaptive” – confusing meanings of adaptive – because of “cost/benefit” considerations.  Again – these considerations are part and parcel of the “better strategy.”  He keeps on talking about the “evolution of altruistic behavior” which is NOT relevant to EGI (see above). 

Saturday Stupidity

In all cases, emphasis added.

Have no fear!

Recent technological developments in China have made keen observers marvel at their ingenuity and, also, feel somewhat surprised at their achievements and their plans for the future. In particular, the news that China intended to launch artificial moons to replace expensive and unsustainable street lighting was something that really forced people to take notice. These new moons work simply by reflecting the sun’s light, much like the actual moon does, but in a directed fashion that enables humans to control where and when the light appears. We’re always led to believe that China is the world’s leading culprit when it comes to polluting the atmosphere and contributing to climate change, which they are at present, but with measures such as these, they’re laying the foundations for a more sustainable future. In 30 years’ time, when the West is still bickering within about the Paris Climate Accord, China will have surpassed everybody as the world’s most green nation state. Additionally, China has recently hit the headlines for developing a new sun. Sounds ridiculous? It’s a reality. China has developed a device that can reach temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius – the actual sun’s core burns at a slightly less impressive 15 million degrees. This project is part of a process undertaken by the Chinese government to better understand nuclear fusion, with a view to using it to replace less sustainable energy sources in the future.

While the Chinese are doing all of that, we’ll be following the advice of Tolkien and Johnson, rejecting technology, and enjoying all the “de facto anarchy in the provinces” while we are “snug in our hobbit hole.”  

Seriously, though, a fundamental plank in the New Movement Platform proposed at Western Destiny is “Futurism, not Traditionalism.”  One reason why the Right always loses is that it is constantly trying to recapture a lost past, rather than trying to conquer the coming future.  

Speaking of the Chinese, we have their vocal pet, man-on-a leash “measured groveling” Derbyshire. He’s an “Anglo-Saxon supremacist” don’t you know.  He could have produced more Anglo-Saxons by choosing a co-ethnic wife, but I suppose the “awkward squad” personality (so designated by his own mother) reduced the choice to “Rosie.”

The document I'm mainly drawing on here was posted at quora.com in August 2018 by Philip Yip, who describes himself as Administrator for the CANZUK Facebook Group. [Why don't the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK form an Anglosphere union?, Quora.com, August 25, 2018] Yip, I note in passing, is a Cantonese surname, so presumably Philip Yip is of Hong Kong Chinese descent—mildly interesting by itself in this context.

There’s a place for "Rosie" and the kids after all!  That’s what “HBD race realism” is all about, isn’t it?

Does New Zealand, for example, really want an inflow of British Muslim rape gangs or black British drug dealers?

Does America, for example, really want an inflow of British English illegal immigrants and their Chinese wives?

Spencer is right here.

As is this answer to the Type I reply to Spencer:

That isn't really what's happening. It's like an enemy nation producing a new fighter jet that makes ours look stupid and pointless. We stand in awe and recognize we need this in our brand.

Of course, EGI Notes was, as usual, months ahead of the “movement” curve” on this:

…by having clean-cut White men – including young counterparts of Ocasio-Cortez – running for political office on a platform, which while not full-throated White nationalism, is on the borderline of explicitly pro-White and further to the right, and more authentic, than Trump’s phony flim-flam.

We need energetic, charismatic, combative people, of all ages, but particularly the young, to get involved in politics and promote pro-White Far Right populism.  We do NOT need fussy “conservatives,” we do NOT need “HBD race realists,” and we do NOT need pro-Jewish cuckservative Luddite freaks like Tolkien and his hobbit-larping followers – we need “red meat” aggressive Far Right figures getting involved in the rough-and-tumble of politics.  Channeling “Mulatta Milkers” AOC, we can have young White men finding appropriate congressional districts and fighting an insurgent political campaign against dusty decrepit cuckservatives.

An alternate question: Does admitting the pseudoscientific falsehood of HBD endanger the “movement?”  Another question: Or does it just endanger "Rosie" and the GNXPers living in America?

An idiot who makes Evola look like James Watson by comparison.

In one of the footnotes, Schuon defends the phenomenon of black Africans mixing with Mediterranean whites in North Africa…

Why only in North Africa?  How about Southern Europe as well?  Or, by that time, will General Greg Cochran have led the Israeli army to victory there, solving the Swarthoid Problem through Jewish colonization?  Or is Southern Europe already genetically equivalent to Nigeria so that any further Negro influx would be superfluous?  And what if the “white” Berbers of North Africa reject the ever-so-helpful Germanic advice to engage in Negroid miscegenation?  Will they have a choice?  And what is a "Mediterranean white?"  Are there "Subarctic whites" - including both Yukio Mishima and David Bromstad, with the former "looking more white" than the latter?

An essay so bad that I’m even forced to agree with Morgan (in the comments section).

This shows that:

1. Many Europeans know absolute zero about America and Americans

2. Counter-Currents is becoming so putrid that even Morgan looks smart in comparison to the rest of the rotting corpse

3. Europeans who complain about “ignorant know-nothing Yanks” are hypocrites

Greg Johnson has his 2020 Presidential voting plan all set.

Spencer 2020!  A Pepe in every pot!

Fisking Derbyshire, 2/19/18

A brief fisking.

Read this.

So why was opium smoking so devastating among China’s poor? Adulteration, says Midler. In the extreme, a cheap variety named Hankow Cake contained no opium at all, only sesame seeds.  Midler:

Historians are so hell-bent on blaming the West for everything that went wrong with China in the nineteenth century that they have no room for an investigation into the serious possibility that the nation may have actually poisoned itself.

I would like to see some rigorous historical research on that, but it’s not implausible, and fits very well with the tiresome Chinese bellyaching about the wrongs done to them by foreigners.

How does it differ from Chinese fraud and mendacity today?

Chinese people acknowledge that an individual fellow-countryman may be wicked, but China as a nation can do no wrong.

National self-esteem is of course not an exclusively Chinese phenomenon. We Americans—well, some of us—treasure our “exceptionalism.” Chinese propagandists take it to the extreme, though.

Midler calls it “collective narcissism”  and quotes Lucian Pye, writing fifty years ago:

Nothing can be wrong with the Chinese spirit and their inward identity. All problems must lie outside and therefore be the work of “foreigners.”

But, of course.

Leszek Kolakowski in Main Currents of Marxism described Mao Tse-tung Thought as “a naïve repetition of a few commonplaces of Leninist-Stalinist Marxism.” He allows, however, that Mao was “one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, manipulator of large masses of human beings in the twentieth century.”

So Maoism was a cheap Chinese knock-off of Marxism-Leninism.

Copy, copy, copy, steal, steal, steal…what else is new for the race of human photocopiers?

Why are so many of us so forgivingly fond of this exasperating, paradoxical, unstable place?  

Pathetic White nerds have Yellow Fever, that’s why.  The “awkward squad” wants to get laid.

Paul Midler quotes from the answer given by Progressive sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross in 1911.

Chinese are extremely likable and those who have known them longest like them best. Almost invariably those who harshly disparage them are people who are coarse or narrow or bigoted. They are not a sour or sullen folk. Smile at them and back comes a look that puts you on a footing of mutual understanding. Their lively sense of humor is a bond that unites them to the foreigner.

Substitute “Chinese” with “Negroes” and Derbyshire would rightly mock this quote, rife as it is with smug moral posturing: all you Chinese haters simply don’t know them.  Excuse my language, but…bullshit.

Ross (1866-1951) is an odd person for Midler to quote in this context.  He would himself be denounced as the worst kind of bigot today. He was a race realist, nativist, and eugenicist who strongly objected to race mixing—so strongly, he was fired from his professorship at Stanford in 1900 for his views.

In 1900!  Well, anyway, what’s the surprise?  A Nordicist HBD type who liked East Asians. Who would have ever guessed?

Much as he liked the Chinese, Ross did not want them settling in the U.S.A. This is a perfectly tenable position, although intolerably shocking to present-day orthodoxies.

Yes, it’s tenable.  Can the Derbyshire family please leave then?

Ross got the likability right, though, and “those who have known them longest like them best.” (Rodney Gilbert may have been an exception.)

Right…the usual SJW song and dance about how “only Whites who don’t know Coloreds are the ones who are bigoted against them.” Derbyshire himself would scoff at that regarding Blacks, why can’t we similarly scoff about Yellows?  I know Chinese very well.  I don’t like them.

And to the further collective credit of the Chinese must be added this: Unlike the nations of the West today, they have no intention of opening up the borders of their nation to tens of millions of foreigners.  Stupidity on that scale is peculiarly Western.

Yes, but having Jews around poisoning the well of sociopolitical discourse does not help.

What’s wrong with us?

We let former illegal alien Dreamer Derbyshire stay in America, bringing in his alien wife and producing mixed-race children.

Here’s the solution to the whole problem.  People who don’t like China and the Chinese should not live in China (likewise, Munro should get the hell out of Romania).  But, please, can we remove all people who posses Chinese descent – part or full – and those married to them from America?

Thank you.