More Defense of the EGI Concept

More on Salterism.

Some critics of so-called “Salterism” and critics of me for defending the EGI concept (Lawrence of Alternative Right as one example) get offended when I mock their (repeatedly refuted) “critiques” and state that the EGI concept is “self-evident.”  That last part really seems to annoy them. But to understand why I say that let’s simply look at the basic premises underlying EGI. These are premises that any honest person, with an objective understanding of genetics, race, and evolutionary biology, must agree with. While we can understand mendacious race-denying leftists screeching incoherently against “racist” facts, one would assume that the allegedly more “race realist” Right would have no problem with the following:

• 1. There are genetic differences between population groups.
• 2. Members of these groups (at least at the racial level and in many, likely most, cases at lower levels as well) are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to other groups (this obvious fact was formally demonstrated at least by the year 2007).
• 3. According to evolutionary biology and the generally accepted neo-Darwinian understanding, it is adaptive to promote the interests of those more genetically similar to you than those more distant. Even academics like Brigandt – trotted out by anti-EGI HBDers in an attempt to refute ethnic nepotism – agree with this general premise.  Apart from hardcore ideological crazies, this really isn’t up for debate any more.
• 4. The concept of genetic relatedness and the pursuit of adaptive fitness (inclusive fitness) is context dependent. Thus, if the entire world was composed of just one ethnic group, there would be no ethnic genetic interests per se (since there is a common ethnic genetic background), but there would be personal and familial genetic interests, as some people within this population are more closely related than others (e.g., family kin).  But in a world of different and competing ethnic and racial groups, in the context of making choices between co-ethnics and others, there are ethnic genetic interests based on the genetic differences between groups (multiplied by their large numbers). Of course, in the latter scenario, personal and familial interests still count, but given ethnic conflict, higher level ethnic interests often must be prioritized. Also, the ever-inventive critics of EGI always come up with fanciful, unrealistic scenarios in which they claim adherence to EGI would not be adaptive. That approach is ludicrous because one can invent any number of bizarre scenarios to invalidate just about any normative behavior. Rational people deal with rules that apply to real-life scenarios that constitute some of the most serious problems of our time, including ethnic conflict and race replacement. Grasping frauds waste time trying to distract us from reality.

I say that EGI is self-evident because it is self-evident.  One can expect the crazed Left – that tells us that there are no differences between Europeans, Africans, and Asians, but that Europeans are uniquely evil and must be replaced – would reject the premises listed above. But the Right?

EGI is truth. That doesn’t change just because you endlessly cite HBD talking points that have been repeatedly refuted for the past twenty years. It also doesn’t change because you repeatedly quote, completely out of context, a single sentence from Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Those behaviors just make you look like a moronic contrarian, a retarded buffoon.

Some links to my various defenses of the EGI concept (“Salterism”) can be found here. Rather than repeat any of that, I’ll link to this piece by Salter. With respect to the free rider objection:

…members of bands and tribes can behave altruistically without being selected out by free riders. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1982) argued from his field observations that mutual monitoring, ubiquitous in small-scale societies, is sufficient to suppress cheating. He pointed to the pronounced group identity and mutual support found in primitive societies, and argued that this originated in kinship bonds. The cohesion of band and tribal societies makes them units of selection, Eibl argued. This point was elaborated by Boyd and Richerson (1992), who argue that monitoring and punishment are so effective in small scale societies that they allow the evolution of cooperation, or any other characteristic that is promoted by a culturally-governed group strategy.

Whether or not one accept that group selection has figured in human evolution, the mechanisms advanced by group selectionists are sufficient to allow a more conservative process, extended kin selection, to occur. In fact this is what Eibl has always meant by his version of group selection.

A final mechanism deserving of mention is collective goods. A criticism of extended kin selection is that it is impossible for an individual effectively to invest in a kin group much larger than a family, because the benefit would be spread so thinly that the payoff would always be greater from investing in close kin, rather than distant ones. Goetze (1998) has dispelled this concern. He draws on economic theory to argue that by contributing to collective goods—such as hunting large game animals or defending the group—allows an individual to confer a large fitness benefit on a large number of individuals.

So there is no mechanical problem with the feasibility of individuals showing altruism to kin groups larger than the extended family. Indeed, all these mechanism—control of free-riders, bonding the group, and choosing or fashioning collective goods—are highly scalable. They can be increased in scale to accommodate a kin group of any size.

See here for a published analysis, using computer simulations, demonstrating the dominance of ethnocentric behavior over free riding and “humanitarianism.” Salter is of course correct, and his critics wrong. The evidence supporting EGI is so strong, and is repeated throughout so many different domains of analysis, that I believe I am justified is terming the concept self-evident.  I am also justified in ascribing either mendacity or stupidity to its critics.

With respect to inclusive fitness extending beyond the family into ethnic kin and moving beyond simple genealogical identity by descent to identity by state (that is a deeper level of identity by descent, after all, at least when talking about ethny) with respect to genetic similarity, see this from Salter:

The point that inclusive fitness processes can operate between individuals merely on the basis of genetic similarity, without any genealogical information, is critical, and I quote Hamilton’s commentary on this theoretical advance.

“Because of the way it was first explained [by Hamilton], the approach using inclusive fitness has often been identified with “kin selection” and presented strictly as an alternative to “group selection” as a way of establishing altruistic social behaviour by natural selection. But…kinship should be considered just one way of getting positive regression of genotype in the recipient, and that it is this positive regression that is vitally necessary for altruism. Thus the inclusive fitness concept is more general than “kin selection” ” (Hamilton 1975, pp. 140-41; [p. 337 in the 1996 reprint]).

This frees the analyst from the “identical by descent” clause in Hamilton’s original (1964) formulation, allowing the direct measurement of kinship processes using genetic assay data…

In response to HBD-inspired lies that kinship is not significant past immediate family, and is irrelevant to ethny, here is Harpending's paper describing the basic fundamentals Salter used (with Harpending's assistance) in On Genetic Interests.

The coefficient of kinship between two diploid organisms describes their overall genetic similarity to each other relative to some base population. For example, kinship between parent and offspring of 1/4 describes gene sharing in excess of random sharing in a random mating population. In a subdivided population the statistic Fst describes gene sharing within subdivisions in the same way. Since Fst among human populations on a world scale is reliably 10 to 15%, kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings. The widespread assertion that this is small and insignificant should be reexamined.

Now, with respect to Brigandt-like arguments about “the evolution of…XYZ” I have stated many times that EGI is a rational prescriptive argument has no need for the “evolution” of anything – general domain behavior can be applied to pursuing ethnic interests (genetic or otherwise).  Just as humans did not have to evolve a specific ability to use a computer but rather just evolved the cognitive and behavioral traits that make such use possible, nor is it necessary to evolve specific behaviors to pursue particular approaches to the pursuit of personal and group interests.  Having said that, any reasonable look at human history does support the idea of a descriptive validity of EGI to a considerable extent, particularly when we understand that various proxies for genetic relatedness (e.g., national identity and loyalty) have been used to mobilize human behavior. Salter writes:

Thus the second problem in understand the evolution of ethnocentrism the second is already solved, or well on its way to being solved. It’s the first problem that remains; indeed, it has hardly been addressed. To reiterate, was the kinship between random members of bands and tribes large enough for altruism directed between them to have been adaptive?

Since, as stated, I don’t believe that the “evolution of…” argument has merit, I won’t reproduce any more of Salter’s riposte here; you can read what he wrote in the original article as well as, of course, in On Genetic Interests.

It is clear then that the EGI concept has survived repeated attempts at refutation. Again, the description of self-evident seems valid. Why then the opposition?  Well, it is quite clear why the Left would oppose the idea, people who deny the existence of race, who obfuscate genetic differences between groups, who object to Whites defending their group interests, and who promote an EGI-destroying multiracialism for White nations, will of course object to any paradigm that stands against their most fervent desires and most fundamental objectives. EGI is a threat to the entire globalist, multicultural experiment. But what about the Right?  Certainly, we can understand that the civic nationalists will also object to anything that disrupts the fictional “identity” of a multiracial nation and that stands against aracial constitutional patriotism. The religious Right tell us that all people are “children are God” and thus they would reject EGI for that reason. The Right is also anti-science, so that influences negative attitudes to EGI.  The Far Right has been infected by the HBD virus, so let’s look at why HBD opposes EGI and thus dissolves the natural affinity one would assume pro-White activists would have for EGI.

The idea that HBDers oppose Salterism because they sincerely believe it is wrong can be dismissed based on what is written above. HBDers may be mendacious, they may be evil, but they are not stupid. Obviously, they must know Salter is correct. When their own poster boy for opposition to ethnic nepotism – Brigandt – admitted in writing that favoring ethnic kin is adaptive (the essence of EGI), then, really, the mask is torn off. That leaves us to consider their motivation for lying to their followers by attacking an idea that they know is correct. 

The most charitable explanation is that they believe that their alternative view of society – aracial cognitive elitism – is the best option and they are willing to do anything, including engaging in the most outrageous fundamental dishonesty, in order to achieve their dream of “IQ nationalism” where “high IQ” Jews, Asians, and Whites (and whatever intelligent fractions of other groups) live in “Jeurasian” harmony.” A less charitable, but more realistic, interpretation is that HBD is a political movement of naked ethnic and personal self-interest by Jews, Asians, and Whites who have thrown in their lot with Jews and Asians for various reasons (intermarriage, “race realist” ideology, aesthetic preferences, or simply being traitors who help the enemy in exchange for something). Thus, the objective is a society dominated by “high IQ” Jews and Asians, with subaltern Whites as helots and a mixed-race Jeurasian managerial elite between the upper and lower strata of this “cognitive elitist” society. In essence, they want a society modeled after the family of a certain race-mixing White HBDer – ethnocentric Asians (and Jews) in charge, Whites engaging in “measured groveling” to their overlords, and Whites losing their racial integrity through “Jeuraisan” admixture, with of course Asians maintaining their racial integrity in their homogeneous homelands and a core of Jew maintaining themselves, in both Israel and in the Diaspora. Further, individuals (including Negroes – even though Negroes are typically denigrated by HBD) who have an agenda specifically against White nationalism, particularly the pan-European variety of White nationalism, will strategically support HBD in order to prevent the rise of “Whites only” kinship-based movements. 

Something else needs to be said. The same buffoons on the Right (Lawrence, for example) who attack EGI also attack MacDonald's term "group evolutionary strategies." That's interesting because the HBDers also attack that idea as well as EGI. Those with long memories recall Derbyshire's hit piece on MacDonald where Derbyshire mocked the idea of what a group evolutionary strategy is. After all, why would a White HBDer, married to a Chinese woman, and with half-Chinese children, have a problem with racial groups (like Whites and Asians, for example) being in competition, each with their own group evolutionary strategy?  A mystery it all is!  Just like it is a mystery why the South Asians of GNXP, and their White fellow travelers, would oppose the idea of Salter's EGI. All very mysterious indeed! Equally mysterious is why an ostensibly pro-White individual would follow the lead of transparently self-interested HBDers.

What about the potential accusation that I'm engaging in a logical fallacy by questioning the motivations of my opponents rather than engaging their ideas?  That is laughably false since I have been engaging with those ideas for the past twenty years, writing one long treatise after another defending EGI and group evolutionary strategies, and thoroughly refuting the criticisms of those paradigms. I think that after two decades of "engaging with their ideas" I'm now entitled to speculate on the motivations of those that continue to peddle the same nonsense (and for the most part refuse to engage with my ideas, by the way).

It should be obvious, however, that whatever the motivation of the HBDers, their anti-White ideology and agenda should be unalterably opposed by those who claim to be pro-White nationalists of one sort or another. That much of the “movement” supports HBD, and attacks EGI, clearly demonstrates how intellectually, politically, morally and spiritually bankrupt the “movement” really is.

Indeed, if one was to rationally criticize EGI, one could state that it does not go far enough – the original analysis depends on “beanbag genetics” – considering genes in an atomized fashion – and neglects genetic structure and genetic integration.  I’ve written about this previously and one can find that work on this blog so I need not get into that here, beyond repeating that the basic problem with EGI is not that it is wrong, but quite the opposite – it is so right that even its originator didn’t realize the full scope of its implications.

We should not let the critics of EGI off the hook by allowing them to simply regurgitate nonsense refuted years ago or quote individual Salter sentences out of context. If they believe EGI is wrong, they need to point out which of the four premises listed above are wrong. The Left no doubt would reject points one and two, demonstrating how they dabble in pseudoscientific "woke" nonsense. Those on the Right would (I hope) accept premises one and two. That leaves rightist EGI critics to target premises three and four. But if they say premises three and four are wrong, then they must believe that (a) making no distinction between genetically similar co-ethnics and genetically distant others is adaptive, or (b) it is more adaptive to favor genetically distant others than genetically similar co-ethnics.  Which is it? These idiots need to be held to account and they need to be put on the spot and tell us if they, like the Left, reject genetic science (premises one and two), or if they reject premises three and four and instead believe in (a) or (b). It has to be one of those choices. Being a contrarian buffoon or a gullible idiot who mindlessly swallows HBD swill is not sufficient. They have to make a stand about the four premises and point out what alternatives they support if they believe that those premises are wrong.

In any case, EGI-denial is, in my opinion, on par with Flat Earth, viruses don’t exist, and other example of rank stupidity. It is also equivalent to race denial, and is actually ideologically associated with that, since a denial of a biological basis for race would lead one to reject EGI as well. I have previously written that the “movement” attitude toward Salter’s work is perhaps my biggest disappointment in all my years of activism.  After all, I always knew that Nordicism was “baked into the cake” of the “movement,” but the idea that pro-White advocates would ignore and even attack an intellectual paradigm, produced by an academic, that is both manifestly true and also provides support for pro-White politics, is simply astonishing. If one thing demonstrates the utter depraved and retarded vacuity of the “movement,” well, that is it.

Defending the White Race Concept

Counter-Currents wrong again.

Read this.

Although that essay makes some good points, as a whole it is a moronic waste of time. Putting aside that Der Movement is not going to give up talking about "the White race" (and I don't think they should), the fact is that any alternative position you come up with is going to be attacked on its own basis. OK, you talk about genetic similarity as a euphemism for race, and then extend that to interests. Great. What then? First, the Left will come in and start spouting Lewontism, about genetic variation within and between, to convince Whites that they are genetically more similar to Blacks than with each other. Politically motivated population geneticists will either stay silent about these lies or support them in such a way so as to not be easily pinned down in the lie. Academics will (wrongly) say that "precision medicine" applies only to individuals and that it says nothing about genetic similarity between peoples. Meanwhile, on the Right, co-ethnic genetic similarity may be accepted, but the HBDers will start spouting about "free riding" and "genes for altruism" and "green beard effect" and other of their buzzwords to convince Whites that "ethnic nepotism is not adaptive" "and that kin selection only applies to personal family. Look how they attacked Salter about EGI. Other rightists will incoherently rage against "evolutionary biology." So, if making major concessions about race will only lead to more objections against your new position, what's the point? You may as well stand your ground and speak the truth, defending your front lines. Why retreat, only to find yourself desperately defending your new position?  What then?  Make even more concessions and retreat again?  Keep on retreating until your position overlaps the Left?  Mainstreaming!

And if you don't want to use "race" then use "continental population group" that, given PCA data, does cluster rather well, albeit with some overlap with admixed groups - e.g., some Jews overlap with the European boundary because of the three-way Middle Eastern-Southern European-Eastern European ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. This overlap can be thus explained, leaving behind, for the most part, reasonably discrete genetic clusters. When those genetic clusters are then combined with cultural and historical markers, a coherent White Identity emerges.

Do not misunderstand me: Of course we should talk about genetic similarity and the shared interests that derive from that similarity - that's what EGI is all about, after all. And, certainly, if you wish, you could use a variation of the argument made in the Counter-Currents piece, to assert that the genetic similarity argument is not dependent upon the existence of discrete (racial) groups, even if variation was purely clinal the same principle holds.  But since genetic variation is clustered as well as clinal, and since reasonably discrete clusters do emerge from genetic analysis, then why on Earth would you concede a point that is in fact (for the most part) true?  Yes, there is some overlap and some fuzzy boundaries due to groups like Jews, but so what? Those are the exceptions that prove the rule.  

And even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, conceding such an important point - much less conceding a point that has a firm basis in reality! - in the end demonstrates weakness.  If you state in effect - "Hey, we have been wrong about the White race concept, the core of our ideology, all this time, but we are right about everything else, you can trust us!" - why should anyone believe you? Why surrender on a core foundation of your beliefs when you have the facts (more or less) on your side?  Why needlessly discredit yourself in this manner?  We can always depend on Counter-Currents to provide the most stupid advice imaginable.

EGI: Setting the Record Straight (Again)

Some issues.

Every once in a while, Salter’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI) concept gets attacked by individuals who, in their delusional wishful “thinking,” believe they have discredited the concept, while they of course have not, often relying on misrepresentation of Salter’s work, bizarre illogic, lies, etc. Some misguided souls on the Right unfortunately join in with this foolishness, and often focus on what they believe – or make believe that they believe – is Salter’s descriptive and prescriptive opinions on the subject of altruistic self-sacrifice for the ethny (and related issues of free riding, etc.). These critics state that Salter and others who promote EGI preach an unrealistic, indeed unhinged, view of self-sacrifice, a view that is independent of reality and, according to these critics on the Right, would alienate people from nationalist activism. They often quote statements like the following from On Genetic Interests:

…it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning…

They therefore portray “Salterism” as meaning that ordinary people should be sacrificing their lives and the lives of their families to prevent the influx of two Bantu immigrants (or something similar) and that is presented as being self-evidently “crazy.”  

Let’s take a closer look at this issue, concentrating on what Salter actually wrote in On Genetic Interests, taking everything into context, and elucidating from all of that what Salter is actually describing and prescribing. Please note that when I quote from Salter I do so exactly, and the spelling of certain words reflect British-Australian, rather than American, conventions.

The above quote about “resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants” is clearly being taken out of context by the critics, who aver that Salter is either suggesting that people will behave in this manner (descriptive) or that he is advising that they should behave in this manner (prescriptive), or both. 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. That Salter (obviously) realizes that people do not normally behave in this manner (although one needs to remember self-sacrifice of self or family in warfare) can be observed in various parts of the book, including in the chapter on ethics, where Salter writes:

An interest that is only partially discerned or invisible to many eyes, is unlikely to be the subject of adaptive moral feelings. Thus morality is likely to be more adaptive on the small scale, in matters of individual and familial relations, than in large scale ethnic affairs. While practical ethics should never drift too far from the anchor of sentiments, to think responsibly about ethnic affairs requires more deliberation and systematic fact-finding than is necessary in the personal realm.

See also my discussion of "Salterian" ethics, including the issue of “bounded rationality.”

Thus, the idea that people have a inherent moral sense in which they would typically engage in radical self-sacrifice for “large scale ethnic affairs” (apart from open war) is NOT something that Salter espouses, and to argue otherwise is an outright lie.

What about prescription?  What does Salter advise? Let us look at Section 6e: Maximizing the ratio of fitness benefits to costs. Salter writes:

Minimizing the cost of ethnic altruism is more often a salient issue than minimizing family altruism. Because the former is much more vulnerable to the risks of free riders, to incomplete information about kinship coefficients, and to other uncertainties. 

Here Salter very clearly states that minimizing the costs of ethnic altruism is “more often a salient issue” than doing so with respect to familial altruism, since the ethnic situation is affected by free riding (lack of reciprocity), uncertainty about kinship (e.g., in cases of shallow genetic gradients, such as French vs. German, can we be sure that the altruism is being properly directed to those more genetically related?), and by “other uncertainties.”  He then states:

When all the other variables bearing on the adaptiveness of ethnic altruism are favourable, it is adaptive to make large sacrifices for one’s ethny. But when that is not the case, as it so often is not, it is inherently more difficult to invest adaptively in one’s ethny than in one’s children and other close relatives.

Once again note the phrase by Salter here: “it is inherently more difficult to invest adaptively in one’s ethny than in one’s children and other close relatives” and compare that to the unfair and cartoonish depiction of Salter advocating wildly destructive self-sacrifice on behalf of the ethny.  The enormous gulf between what Salter actually advocates and how his critics portray his work underscores the breathtaking dishonesty and mendacity of those critics.

More optimal strategies for ethnic altruism could include (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.

Thus, low cost and relatively low risk activities focusing on mild ethnic favoritism, social and political activism, donations of money and effort to pro-ethnic groups, etc.- which all groups except for Whites do on a routine basis - is certainly reasonable and not outrageous, and is a far cry from sacrificing one’s life or that of one’s family.  Again, to ignore what Salter actually writes is the height of dishonesty and mendacity.

Salter also writes (bold font in original):

When a person’s family is already provided for such that further investment yields greatly diminished returns, there is a rising payoff to investing surplus resources in the ethny. Resources at the discretion of an individual but derived from the public realm are well invested ethnically.

Thus, take care of family first and then, once that is dealt with, surplus investment can be for the ethny; again, this is a far cry from the dishonest caricatures of Salter’s position. Further, individuals in positions of authority can use public resources (not sacrificing their own personal resources) to help the ethny; this can be particularly appropriate since use of those public resources for personal and/or familial use may be overtly illegal (e.g., anti-corruption and anti-nepotism laws) or at least will leave the person open to public accusations of corruption or familial nepotism, impugning their character. This viewpoint is reasonable and prudent; nothing is there about dramatic and radical self-sacrificial altruism.

Salter also favors defensive over offensive activism (e.g., preventing the influx of alien peoples into your territory rather than expansion of your ethny into other people’s territories) as the defensive minimizes costs while preserving the core of EGI. With respect to warfare (where, descriptively, people have historically engaged in self-sacrificial altruism for the ethny), Salter also clearly states that the self-sacrifice of an ethnic population in warfare can sometimes by exploited by free riding elites. Thus, far from being a wild-eyed proponent of radical self-sacrifice, Salter at times questions whether the willingness of a population to engage in self-sacrifice may be exploited by self-serving elites.

With respect to the side argument that when people do engage in self-sacrifice for ethny, such as in war, they do so for proximate interests (patriotism, nationhood, culture, perception of a foreign danger – sometimes exaggerated by elites), rather than a cold calculation of EGI, well, Salter discusses that as well. Note the comment quoted above – “An interest that is only partially discerned or invisible to many eyes, is unlikely to be the subject of adaptive moral feelings” and the call for analysis, and note, even more so, that many of the proximate justifications for self-sacrifice are merely a surface veneer covering the ultimate concerns over group genetic continuity (even if not openly stated, or even recognized, as such).  

Thus, people may be more easily motivated to defend EGI when it is presented through some more proximate proxies; however, the end result is often the same.  Also note that proxies for EGI, such as wave-the-flag patriotism and other indirect, proximate concerns, may be more easily manipulated by free riding elites to get the population to engage in activities that have the net effect of decreasing ethnic (including ethnic genetic) interests. A reading of Salter’s book makes clear he deals with concerns over motivating factors, including arguments I won’t get into here, but we are moving away from the main argument – that claims that Salter expects radical self-sacrifice for EGI, and indeed advocates such, are wrong and fundamentally dishonest, in light of what Salter has actually written on the subject.

Now, having done the serious analysis, I can now engage in some ad hominem. As clearly shown in this post, the attacks against "Salterian" EGI are at best completely wrong and misguided and at worst openly dishonest.  What motivates such ineptness and dishonesty? Let’s tackle the dishonesty first.  Criticisms of the EGI concept typically originate either on the “anti-racist” Left (including ideologically motivated academics) as well with HBDers. The latter group is motivated by personal ethnic interest (e.g., Asian, Jews, etc. who specifically want to discourage White ethnic activism while practicing their own), familial ethnic interest (Whites intermarried with Asians, Jews, etc.), and/or people ideologically committed to aracial cognitive elitism. The inept fraction of anti-"Salterians" are typically those who can’t think for themselves (or be bothered to actually fully read Salter’s work) and who blindly follow the comments of leftist academics and HBDers as “the final word” on this subject.  However, just because others practice mendacity or stupidity does not obligate you, the reader, to follow their lead.

Your Prosperity is Good

Strategies redux.

I have, many times, discussed ideas about what should be done to pursue pro-White objectives. My recent Toward a New Movement series is an example of this. I have long promoted building a New Movement, with a tripartite strategy of metapolitics, electoral politics, and infrastructure building/community building/elite vanguard building. 

I also advised activists to prioritize their own well-being and their own interests before investing in the “movement.” Considering this past advice, my previous comments on this are relevant:

Right. Suggesting that scientists start quitting their careers and working in bakeries is really going to attract STEM folks and fill the ranks of the Far Right with the influential highly educated professionals we need!  Certainly!

This guy is an idiot. We instead need to promote the idea of having our people be successful, well-connected, and financially secure. You are not, at the current time, going to convince enough Whites, in general, to disengage from the System to make a difference, but if Nutzis listen to this guy, we will instead create a generation of activists with no money, no career, no future, who sit in their parent's basement…

This is sort of a “tragedy of the commons” situation, a form of free-riding. If large numbers of Whites more or less simultaneously “drop out” then that could do real damage to the System. But if only some – certain committed activists – do so, and the rest “defect,” then those who do so will pay the price and the others will not, and there will be insufficient numbers to make a real difference. The same principle applies to calls to “make yourself public, be an overt activist under your real identity” or any other such things. Those who follow the call bear the brunt of the costs, others who do nothing may benefit but incur no costs, and the lesson learned by everyone is not to heed the call.  And, again, the numbers who would follow the (bad) advice would be insufficient to make any real difference.

There is the “misery loves company” ploy to consider as well - the coping mechanism whereby someone who may believe they have made a bad choice will feel better about own their error if they get others to join them in making the same mistake. Hence, people who have thrown away careers for nothing, and who may – perhaps subconsciously – regret it, call for others to do the same. However, you are not obligated to engage in self-destruction so as to make others feel better about their bad choices.

And even if there was some validity in the call for self-immolation, one has to ask - for what and for whom this sacrifice is being made and is it worth it?  I was always amused in the past when such types would compare the situation to the Spartans sacrificing themselves at Thermopylae.  Is that a reasonable comparison?  With respect to the Spartans, the men went to their deaths with the full support and admiration of their countrymen, they knew their sacrifice would be honored and their surviving families cared for, and, while they could not know the ultimate outcome of the Greek-Persian conflict, they knew that their countrymen would fight on. In contrast, pro-White activists today are scorned by large numbers of the people they are fighting for, who are to a large degree degenerate, who will oppose, not fight for, those objectives that the activists sacrifice for, the families of the sacrificing activists will suffer, and the “leaders” of these activists are a far cry from being a Leonidas. Should you sacrifice yourself for a “movement” led by those who gave you The Pilleater Chronicles, Unite the Right, voting for Biden, HBD, self-described Yellow Supremacy, philo-Semitism, Nutzi fetishism, “traditionalist” freakishness, constant failure and bad judgment, and endless grifting?

In contrast, I urge activists, particularly younger activists who have most of their lives ahead of them, to take care of themselves first, get educated, become professionals or learn a trade, become financially secure including making prudent long-term investments for retirement, etc. It is similar to what you are told to do in an emergency on an airplane – first secure your own oxygen mask and then help others. And, in the long run, you will be better situated to fight for your race if you are a person of substance as opposed to a destitute blogger in your parents’ basement. Of course, you shouldn’t let “the good life” get in the way of doing what is right – and that is an argument the other side will make, that “comfortable people won’t fight” – but in reality most of your "leaders" were or are people who had first established careers and had a solid education before becoming activists, and some of them are still living rather well (with your money). So, if they can do it, why not you? Why must you give up right from the start, sacrificing everything, while they get to enjoy their five to six figure incomes?

If you sacrifice yourself for Der Movement, will you get any loyalty in return?  Or will they assert you are the wrong ethnicity, question your “Whiteness,” or, perhaps, if you are under 6’2” in height, label you as a “useless manlet?” Or, perhaps, you question your fearless leaders and get “banned” and labelled “insane.” Guess what? If you have sacrificed your success and prosperity for the “movement,” you will not magically get back what you recklessly threw away if and when the “movement” turns on you.  You’ll be a double failure – no career prospects AND no place in their freakshow “movement.” Der Movement does not exactly inspire the confidence for people to make life-changing decisions in its support. Think hard before making life decisions that may be practically irreversible. 

Further, either main strategic outlook – Suvorov’s Law or Worse is Better – is compatible with my advice to promote personal success. If the former (Suvorov's Law), then pushing the System to try piecemeal reform will start the process of its toppling, relaxing repression and setting the stage for more radicalism and revolution, and that process is best initiated by people connected to the System, with leverage over it. Therefore, it is optimal to have activists in the professions, in positions of authority, to promote these processes. If the latter (Worse is Better) is true, if things need to first get much worse, then no one is going to be storming the ramparts until the situation significantly degenerates, and then the level of discomfort will be high enough to prompt more and more Whites - including successful Whites - to be active.  If this is so, there is no reason to jump the gun now (a small number of Whites “dropping out” today will not make things so much worse to provoke change). In other words, if change can only occur when things are very bad, and we are not yet at that point, why impoverish yourself at a time in which revolutionary change is not possible? Why impoverish yourself when it will not change anything except making your own life miserable? With respect to the idea that people who are too comfortable will not act,  if things get so bad that change is provoked, then it is unlikely that many Whites will remain so comfortable that they would refuse to get involved. Societal collapse will affect everyone. On the other hand, individuals with more success and security would be better situated to leverage the situation for our benefit. Things would get bad for them as well and provoke reaction, but they would still be better off and in a position of influence and in a position to both survive and to help others.

In virtually any scenario, it makes sense to have people on our side in positions of power and influence, a degree of relative financial security, education and skills, professions and trades, people who can direct events in fruitful directions. It doesn’t seem to make too much sense to preach downward mobility for our people.

heroism consists in refusing to work for the evil empire, even at the cost of one’s own prosperity and status.

Nick JeelvyJune 3, 2021 at 2:30 pm

Maybe not go Galt as much as accept underemployment. Do not provide rare or irreplaceable labor for the system. Instead of being an engineer, start a bakery. Instead of being an attorney, brew beer and mead. Instead of being a soldier, open a gym.

That is madness. Meanwhile, Jews and Asians are constantly upwardly mobile and crowd Whites out from the professions – should we enable that?  Jews and Asians will be doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc. - Whitey, go in your basement and brew some beer. Better yet, mead. Lunatics.

Jeelvy’s advice is exactly the opposite of what I preach. Who should you trust?  Someone like me who tells you to take care of yourself and do the right thing for your family, or the Counter-Currents scum who, on the one hand, panhandle for D’Nations, but on the other hand, preach downward mobility, unemployment – Whitey, live in your parent’s basement, eating bread and mustard sandwiches, but send what little money you have to Grand Poobah Johnson.  After all, when you are brewing mead as your life’s work, “Trevor Lynch” needs to go to the movies, and movies cost money, don’t you know. And, hey, don’t forget about your estate planning!  First, you wreck your life following Counter-Currents advice promoting downward mobility. Then, you give them money – what little you have – when you are alive. Finally, when you die, instead of leaving whatever pittance you have left to your own family, leave it to Counter-Currents instead. After all, think of all the movie tickets and Scandza forum visits that require funding. Remember – those who give live in the Golden Age today, and don’t you forget it!

What disgusting, destructive, low life filth the Counter-Currents crew are. They preach self-destruction and then ask for your money; I on the other hand, tell you to take care of yourself first and I ask for no money.  Then they turn around and call me “insane” and a “paranoid piece of crap.”

Let’s be honest though. The fact that I once had involvement with Counter-Currents as a writer demonstrates fairly poor judgment on my part. In a mood of introspective self-criticism, I must say that virtually all of my past work for Der Movement does not reflect well on my judgment, at least in the past. Hopefully, I’m doing better now.

If anything could be learned from the 2020 election and its aftermath, and especially the crackdown on nationalists and dissidents in the wake of the January 6 events, it’s that there’s no chance of infiltrating the system and subverting it from within.

Nonsense. As there has never been any attempt, in any comprehensive way, to infiltrate the System, how do you know “there’s no chance?”  Der Movement has been peddling its Der Tag mentality for decades. I clearly remember one prominent activist – who shall go nameless here – arguing in the early 2000s how “crazy and stupid” it was for any Whites to go to college, enter a profession, invest, save for retirement, do any normal activity, because “the System is definitely going to collapse in the next five to ten years.”  Imagine if some naïve fools believed that. They would have wasted the last 15-20 years of their lives. Meanwhile, we have the Grand Poobah Johnson talking about how he thinks winning will take 50 years – what?  Are we going to preach downward mobility to Whites for the next half century?  Madness.

And what happened to the previous Counter-Currents paradigm of being an “undercover agent?” And if you buy into Turner Diaries scenarios, remember that most of the effective activists in that tale were professionals of some type, and that the presence of White racialists in the US military was crucial to victory. We need to oppose the purge of White rightists from the military, not tell people to "open gyms."

How about flipping the narrative and saying that there is “no chance” to avoid interacting with the System?  Own a bakery and then refuse to bake a cake for certain folks and end up before the Supreme Court. Go out to the woods – worked well for Randy Weaver and family, right?  Where’s the “heroism” there?

With respect to supporting the System - is your bakery and gym going to avoid paying taxes? Will it have a "Whites only" policy?  Or is a question of a relative decrease in support - you still support the System but a bit less than you would have done as a professional? Is this incremental decrease in support for the System, e.g., running a bakery instead of being a lawyer, compensating for the damage done to yourself with your self-inflicted downward mobility? Is it worth it?  Is it worth not being in a position of influence because of some fantasy that your personal self-immolation attacks the basis of the System?  Question - what does the "movement" need more of right now, supportive lawyers or supportive bakers? Asking simple questions like that illustrates how stupid and destructive Jeelvy's advice is.

And what’s the real lesson of the current persecution?  That we have been following Der Tag fantasies for decades, and listening to idiots like Jeelvy, means that when “the shit hits the fan” we find out that the System apparatus is fully staffed by SJWs and treasonous sociopaths. There aren’t any (or any significant number of) White nationalists in the System infrastructure and there never have been, because all of you have been listening to the Type I Nutzis for decades and eschewing real political work and avoiding professional infiltration.

A fundamental problem is that Der Movement gets the broad perspective all wrong. They historically have supported worse is better accelerationism for activism and mainstreaming for electoral politics. I instead propose the opposite - rational activism and more radical politics. First, activism needs to be rational and prudent, eschewing Der Tag fantasies and seriously considering the possibility that Suvorov’s Law is more reflective of reality than is Worse is Better. Second, farstreaming has proved more effective in electoral politics than is mainstreaming. Orban moved to the right of Jobbik and is more popular than ever. Trump won in 2016 as a right-wing populist, but lost (in the final outcome) in 2020 when he moderated his positions. As Tucker Carlson has moved as far right as is possible while maintaining viability as a mainstream commentator, he has become more popular and more politically influential. Meanwhile, mainstreaming fails time and again. Der Movement’s advice, as usual, has been completely the opposite of what it should have been.  We should be saner in our activism while pushing the envelope in electoral politics, while Der Movement preaches the opposite. Activists need to bolster their own well-being, success, and financial security, while “movement” “heroes” tell you to abandon the professions and bake cakes or brew beer. You can only help others after you help yourself, but Der Movement tells you to impoverish yourself while still funneling money in their direction.  Don't listen to them. Listen to me instead. Your prosperity is good.

Ethnonationalist Filth Exposed Once Again

Ethnoimperialist hypocrisy on display and other news. In all cases, emphasis added.

And here we go:

…we British…my own adopted country of Costa Rica...

God forbid that the Costa Ricans be allowed to have their own nation without pushy and intrusive Britons invading.  After all, having Britons living in Costa Rica is…ethnonationalism.

So, could we see white flight from European nations to the V4?

Last I looked, the V4 were European nations. But I suppose by “movement” standards, they are not. After all, to Der Movement, the eastern boundary of Europe is Berlin and the southern boundary is Vienna.

The other beneficiaries may be the V4 countries themselves, who stand to gain economically from such a migration.

So, that’s the ethnonationalism of Counter-Currents: Herrenvolk colonizing the nations of Eastern Europe; John Morgan being the archetype. Gee…what happened to homogeneity? Or does that only apply to Northwest Europe? Note that ethnically alien immigration is being justified by an alleged economic benefit…the same excuse the System uses for the invasion of the West. Tells you a lot about the intellectual and moral fraud of Counter-Currents, doesn’t it?

Here's an excerpt from a comment left for this article:

I have always found expatriots, particularly those who choose to relocate for political reasons, to be the most contemptible of parasites. What is to be held up as virtuous in men too weak or cowardly to fight for the territory and ideals of their forebears, who instead run to foreign shores and depend on the tolerance of an alien host culture?

I agree. Is John Morgan paying attention?

Back to the main post:

An influx of economically viable, can-do, high-IQ Dutch, Germans, Belgians, Scandinavians, and so on might put the V4 countries’ economies on steroids.

Thus, a Counter-Currents writer openly advocates for the ethnic replacement of native Eastern Europeans by Germanics; after all, it’ll be good for the economy. Ethnonationalism! And, hey, if you want economically viable, can-do, high-IQ folk, what about the Chinese?

Racial mixing at the right end of the bell curve worked for the founding of America, no?

Counter-Currents writer thus:

1. Considers Germanic Europeans and Eastern Europeans to be different races.

2. Advocates that Germanic Europeans invade Eastern Europe and racially admix the native populations, thus destroying the ethno-genetic integrity of the natives.

Good to see that the ethnonationalists are being so open in their imperialism and in their  contemptuous utter disregard for the interests and rights of the Untermenschen.

In a sane world, Germany would not now exist and we would all have German servants. Imagine how shiny your shoes would be. You never saw the Gestapo in scuffed old trainers. Hans, you can clean that car again and do it properly this time. Lotte, where is my dinner? Instead, Merkel is continuing the war on the West she began when a fresh-faced commissar.

First, I thought that Germans were part of the economically viable, can-do, high-IQ folk we want?  Well, I suppose they’ll be servants; Hans and Lotte fetching things for Swedes  living in Eastern Europe...or perhaps for Britons living in Costa Rica. Second, if I wrote that paragraph, I’d be accused of being “insane” or “an anti-German swarthoid” or both. These days it seems like Britons outrank Germans in Der Movement’s hierarchy. They both have to take a back seat to Swedes, though.

When you read nonsense like that at Counter-Currents, you can easily discern why Johnson refuses to debate his more cogent critics and instead defames them as "insane."

Laugh at this. That is more of the sort of superficial, near-mindless, pitiful “thinking” that goes on at Counter-Currents nowadays. Libertarians are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I maintain that one reason the Alt Right, and WN 2.0 more generally, was such an unserious disaster was that if was full of ex-libertarians. I would counsel the Far Right to ignore and eschew libertarians and libertarianism as much as possible, and if interaction is necessary, libertarians should be mocked and their juvenile ideology deconstructed.

Imagine paying to get through the “paywall” to get early access to this hypocritical, poorly thought out, and superficial trash that passes for Counter-Currents articles these days..

More pathetic trash. The question about the covid vaccination was amusing. Two of the three morons don’t plan to be vaccinated, with Johnson saying “eventually.” It’s because of selfish retarded morons who won’t get vaccinated that this pandemic will go on and on. Viral transmission will continue, increasing the chances of further mutations. Woes and Frodi are the lowest form of irresponsible filthy scum imaginable. Putting aside the fact they are not as invulnerable as they believe, another reason to get vaccinated is to protect others, even if the vaccines do not provide "sterilizing immunity" (more data are needed), it is likely they will significantly reduce the risk of transmission. But I suppose that the amoral psychopaths of Der Movement only care about their own health. Screw everyone else and screw society!  Poor babies Woes and Frodi don't want to get jabbed. And Johnson wants to wait and see what other folks have as side effects – free riding on display. Pathetic.

Have you ever noticed that in real life, as opposed to "movement" dogma, the vaunted "disinterested collective goods social activity" of the Herrenvolk never actually materializes, and instead we observe selfishness and free riding.

The thoughtful Counter-Currents crew speaks:

Scott WeisswaldApril 14, 2021 at 5:44 am

Dismissing an examination of party politics because it’s not RaHoWa isn’t an argument, but it is sufficient grounds for me to call you an obtuse faggot.

This sort of lowbrow activity from Counter-Currents is to be expected in its decline phase, with shock jock essays by Goad, stupidity from Borat Jeelvy, and navel-gazing from Full Moon Ancestry lowering the tone. And, gee, if you are going to call someone a "faggot" - indeed, an "obtuse faggot" - I believe that there is someone else for whom that label is more accurate than some random commentator.  But, alas, the irony of the Counter-Currents crew throwing around words like "faggot" is lost to them, it seems.

But, remember, when reading Weisswald's comment, that it is Sallis who is the “unpleasant piece of crap.”

Another European who thinks he knows America but really does not.

Bracken could be of more use than writing books. So many Whites out there with so many useful skills and education and we end up with the flotsam and jetsam of Der Movement.

Systemic collusion.

A woman making history in the manner milady does best. Everyone contributes to human progress in the manner that they are capable; men do their thing and women do theirs.

Err…excuse me, but the risk is not necessary when there is the alternative of the “mRNA operating systems.”

While I agree with the underlying message of this picture, that is not a picture that I would have used to make the point. But I suppose that Steve Reeves was a “beautiful male,” so some cannot resist. Was Steve Rand a “beautiful male” as well?

Gee…how’s Derbyshire’s “Arctic Alliance” coming along? ANYONE (White) who supports Derbyshire, directly or indirectly funds Derbyshire, and/or gives any sort of platform of forum to Derbyshire, IS A TRAITOR TO THE WHITE RACE.

Read this. Regardless of the details of the essay, the main point is accurate: The System has been deincentivizing Whiteness for decades, as part of the genocide against White people, worldwide. The Left always wins; the Right always loses.  The Left understands that this is a political war, fought to win, while the Right plays games. The mainstream Right gives us “capital gains tax cuts” and “wars for Israel” and “school prayer” while the Far Right gives us “The Turner Diaries” and “Yogi Bear and The Men Who Can’t Tell Time in the Age of Aluminum” and “Ethnonationalism means John Morgan invading Hungary” and “Arthur Kemp was right” (when totally discredited by the scientific literature). The Left understands that you can follow multiple strategies and tactical approaches simultaneously, while our beloved Quota Queen Herrenvolk “leaders,” with their limited rigid “thinking,” believe that we can only do vanguardism or mainstreaming, revolutionary tactics or mainstream politics, metapolitics or electoral politics. They seemingly lack the ability to comprehend that you have to be a flexible strategizer, willing to use different methods, emphasizing one method or the other as context dictates, worrying more about ends than about means. But this may be a misleading criticism since it assumes that the Quota Queens actually care about achieving racialist goals, rather than just grifting on the “D’Nations” of their deluded followers.

Answering an Ignorant Stupid Bastard

And other news.

Ignorant stupid bastard:

You forgot the real argument: “If the vaccines work, why do you care if I take it? You’ll have taken yours and be immune.”

I’ve discussed this before and I will do so now again. Others should care if you get vaccinated because:

1. Even the best vaccines are not 100% effective. If the vaccinated person is one of the unlucky ones who do not develop immunity, they will still be vulnerable to your disease. This applies to vaccines that inhibit transmission; we do not yet know if this is the case for the covid-19 vaccines. However, the “argument” above refers to vaccines in general, so the point holds. When enough people are vaccinated, herd immunity will protect those individuals who are not immune.

2. There are people who for legitimate reasons cannot get vaccinated. Thus, similar to point #1, with its caveats, generating herd immunity through vaccination protects those who, for no fault of their own, are not protected via vaccination.

3. Again assuming inhibition of transmission, and particularly when dealing with a RNA virus, the longer the pandemic continues, the greater the chance of mutations, including those that can evade the vaccinations. Perhaps we should not be surprised that a particularly nasty strain erupted in Brazil, a nation with a Der Retard of Der Right style blowhard leader.

4. Even if the vaccine in question only prevents (serious) disease rather than inhibiting transmission, there are social costs for having large numbers of people getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying because of the disease. Those who get vaccinated unfortunately have to live in the same society as anti-vaxx ignorant stupid bastards, and the moronic decisions of the anti-vaxxers affect the quality of life and standard of living for everyone, not just themselves. They are asocial sociopaths who free-ride on the vaccinations of others. They are the lowest form of filthy scum imaginable.

And as regards the right-wing retards gibbering about why there are so few flu cases this year:

Influenza doesn't spread as well as the coronavirus. The average number of people one person with the flu infects - a measure known as the reproductive number - is 1.28. Typically, someone sick with the coronavirus passes it onto between 2 and 2.5 people. In part, this difference is because the coronavirus can be airborne, remaining suspended in the air for hours. That's not true of the flu, though viruses can jump from person to person via respiratory droplets and contaminated surfaces.

The coronavirus' higher reproductive number "means it is more challenging to prevent transmission through non-pharmaceutical interventions than it is for influenza," Olsen said. 

What's more, existing immunity in the population - whether from previous infections or vaccinations - can also boost the effects of public-health measures like masking, resulting in a more dramatic reduction in transmission, Olsen said.

The flu vaccine has been around for more than 75 years. Vaccine manufacturers projected that they will supply the US with as many as 194 to 198 million doses of influenza vaccine for the 2020-2021 season, according to Olsen. 

"Contrast this against a novel coronavirus, to which nearly the entire population is susceptible," she said.

When it comes to anything that has the slightest connection to science, Der Right continues to be a tragicomic embarrassment. Case in point.

Der Liars of Der Right also claim that flu is lower this year despite less flu shots being given, which is a complete lie; see this about flu shots:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's tracking of flu vaccine distribution over the years shows that so far in the 2020-2021 flu season, 189.4 million flu vaccines have been distributed in the U.S., compared to 174 million in the 2019-2020 season.

Also see this.  

Der Right, Der Right, Der Right ALWAYS lies.

Some good critical thinking from a TOO commentator:

Franklin Ryckaertsays:

February 4, 2021 at 5:59 am

There is a logical contradiction in Belloc’s racial explanation for the Crusader’s ultimate defeat in the Middle East. If they lost due to racial admixture with the local population, then how could that very same local population win, while they had no (supposedly superior) Frankish blood at all?

It is difficult for us moderns to feel admiration for the Crusaders who needed the sudden “discovery of the Holy Lance” (an obvious fraud) to recuperate their valor in battle.

The Crusaders were not only utterly superstitious but also cruel, far more cruel than the Muslims of Saladin, whose chivalry was proverbial.

All in all, the Crusades were a foolish undertaking (think the Children’s Crusade) and a waste of energy. That energy would have been better used in liberating Spain from the Muslims, thus hastening the Reconquista by at least 3 centuries.

Belloc would I suppose answer that the natives were better adapted to the environment and that purebloods, even of “inferior stock,” are more stable than purebloods. Other commentators talk about “divided loyalties” and/or the larger numbers of inferior Near Easterners. But, still, the criticism is valid. Belloc’s argument, although possibly true, doesn’t have any strong evidence to support it as a definitive causative mechanism, and then adding more and more hand-waving “spin” to answer Ryckaert’s criticism doesn’t help.

Griffin is, to me, more honest than is Johnson about Trump.

In my view, Donald Trump was simply the material that was available that a rising tide of populism latched onto in the 2016 election. It wasn’t the man himself who brought all of those people into the GOP. It was the message that he ran on which struck a chord with disaffected voters in the middle. The Pew typology surveys clearly show that those people had been around for over thirty years.

No answers?  Well, ”Christian Zionism” is unlikely to flourish in soil from which Christianity has been eliminated. Crush the Infamy!

See this. If those data, and Griffin’s interpretations of the data, approximate reality, then what does this tell us? It tells us what a miserable failure Der Movement, and its pitiful “leadership,” is, not making progress with the potentialities at hand. It has been the Sallis Groupuscule that has been telling you that the freakishness of Der Movement, its bizarre and repulsive dogmas, and its rent-seeking and inept “leaders,” who been alienating the White American masses and have stymied progress. Only a New Movement with a merit-based leadership, instead of prancing affirmative action Quota Queens, can get the job done. If I am wrong, and if we assume the data reflect reality, then why does Der Movement ALWAYS fail?  Answer – I’m not wrong, and the Quota Queens, frightened of losing the personal egotistical stranglehold on pro-White activism, call me an “insane paranoid piece of crap” to deflect attention from their manifest failures.

See this comment. That's all true, but that gets back to the point of how the Far Left has achieved their position of power and security; further, when considering the corporate-Left alliance, described in The NY TImes, to "fortify" the election, one has to admire the long-term strategic acumen of the Left. You see, while Der Movement has spent time giggling over The Turner Diaries, masturbating over March of the Titans, and gibbering about Kali Yuga, the Left actually did the serious political work of infiltrating society and building a real power base.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement fails again.

Odds and Ends, 12/29/20

In der news. In all cases, emphasis added.

Vaccination free-riding.

Individual decision-making regarding vaccination may be affected by the vaccination choices of others. As vaccination produces externalities reducing transmission of a disease, it can provide an incentive for individuals to be free-riders who benefit from the vaccination of others while avoiding the cost of vaccination. This study examined an individual's decision about vaccination in a group setting for a hypothetical disease that is called “influenza” using a computerized experimental game. In the game, interactions with others are allowed. We found that higher observed vaccination rate within the group during the previous round of the game decreased the likelihood of an individual's vaccination acceptance, indicating the existence of free-riding behavior. The free-riding behavior was observed regardless of parameter conditions on the characteristics of the influenza and vaccine. We also found that other predictors of vaccination uptake included an individual's own influenza exposure in previous rounds increasing the likelihood of vaccination acceptance, consistent with existing empirical studies. Influenza prevalence among other group members during the previous round did not have a statistically significant effect on vaccination acceptance in the current round once vaccination rate in the previous round was controlled for.

The ultimate free-riding in this regard are the anti-vaxxers who benefit from the herd immunity generated by the mass of the population that is vaccinated. 

A liar.

You will still have to wear a mask forever and live in isolation, but you will be happy.

Rewritten for more accuracy:

You will still have to be among Negroes forever and live with Section Eight housing but you will be happy.

Fighting for “freedom” over vaccinations and masks – check

Smiling benignly over stolen elections and forced integration – checkmate

Der Movement – gotta love it! 

See this.  Excerpt below; how many times I have noted the same thing here?

Many black people, especially black women, are enormously fat. Some are so fat I had to arrange special seating to accommodate their bulk. I am not saying there are no fat white students — there are — but it is a matter of numbers and attitudes. Many black girls simply do not care that they are fat. There are plenty of white anorexics, but I have never met or heard of a black anorexic.

“Black women be big Mr. Jackson,” my students would explain.

“Is it okay in the black community to be a little overweight?” I ask.

Two obese black girls in front of my desk begin to dance, “You know dem boys lak juicy fruit, Mr. Jackson.” “Juicy” is a colorful black expression for the buttocks.

Type I driving?

Another blow to the “Arctic Alliance” – more Asian whining about race, more attacking Whites, more behaving EXACTLY like Negroes. Colored is as Colored does. 

Always remember – the existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.

The great Derbyshirian lie is that the dividing line is “Black vs. non-Black” while it is instead, quite clearly, “White vs. non-White.”  

Here is more.

Kwan said it is important for Asian Americans to protest the way they are being treated; to push back against the latest onslaught of bias and racism by continuing to unabashedly celebrate their food and culture.

“We don’t have to change,” he said. “We can live, breathe and eat exactly the way we do without having to adapt to white supremacy, to the white gaze, to whiteness. We can be proud of our culinary heritage.

Here’s an idea – go back to Asia, where you belong, and then you don’t have to deal with “white supremacy, to the white gaze, to whiteness.”  

An absolutely beautiful comment:

Frank Jones 

Asians are not preferrable people to live with. Cheap Chinese/Asian labor, in history and in the present day, is used to undermine White people and White communities. We used to order Chinese food on the holidays, but I have ended that habit. They are enemy combatants regardless of where they live.

And they are also “enemy combatants” regardless of who they are married to.  Or, regardless of what fake, phony, westernized first name (cultural appropriation!) they call themselves by.

More truth:

Fed Up 

"We can live, breathe and eat exactly the way we do without having to adapt to white supremacy."

You can rephrase that to: "We can live, breathe and eat exactly how we wish -- without having to kowtow to Chinese restaurants." A little bit something we call FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

That old rhetoric about eating dogs -- is it unfair to point out that dogs are still a delicacy in the Chinese cuisine. That on the Weekly Rat and Roach Report, a famous Houston news commentator almost weekly found filthy sanitary practices in the Chinese restaurants.

I would no more eat Chinese food at a Chinese restaurant than I would eat out of a dumpster. For basically the same reasons.

IstvanIN 

They do eat dog and skin the poor creatures alive because their suffering makes the meat more tender. They are a filthy people and that is why viruses arise in China over and over again. How many new viruses arise in the US, Europe, Japan or Australia?

Man or woman?  Who can tell?

Danish-American ethnoimperialist:

Within the last few years, I have spent New Year’s Eve in Ukraine, Latvia, and Hungary. Although I was fortunate enough to spend some of these moments with girlfriends…

The Herrenvolk do whatever they damn please, and don’t you forget it!

Another victory!  Part of the plan!  MAGA! Pepe!  Kek!

Chinese Free Riding on the West

And other news.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Let’s take a look at this again.

After saying some positive things about the Chinese, which I obviously do not agree with, Salter gets to the meat of his argument, and it is very interesting.

This relates to a matter of equity that is rarely discussed. 

Certainly not discussed by Asian-worshipping HBDers like Canlorbe.

We are seeing a large-scale transfer of intellectual property from the West to Asian nations, such as Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan. Japan and lately Korea and Taiwan have been contributing to that knowledge for several decades. 

Those Japanese and Korean contributions are not only very recent (as indicated) but minimal and, in virtually all cases, merely building upon ideas copied from the West. There have been no truly innovative concepts coming from that direction. Nor should we expect any.

That vast body of knowledge took centuries for the liberal world to develop, often at large material and human cost. (By “liberal” I mean rule-of-law and civil rights, which led to representative democracy.) That vast store of knowledge is now treated as something that should be free for all. That seems unfair. 

It is unfair. Asians, particularly the Chinese, are free riding on the West’s cultural and scientific accomplishments.

China is a regimented, undemocratic, low-wage society that has taken jobs and wealth from the West. 

True.

It has not adopted the democratic and liberal institutions compatible with creativity; instead, it has been parasitic on Western liberalism. 

The Chinese are parasites. That is an excellent insight. Here, Salter and I are in perfect accord.  

Liberalism has a price. It yields creativity and innovation, but also causes conflict and disorganization.

True.

Is it right that China have free access to Western intellectual property? 

No.

If it were feasible, it would be good to see the creative cultures of the world join together to bargain collectively with the less creative cultures. Our centuries-long investment in civil rights and democracy should be made to pay dividends.

The Chinese and other Asians should reimburse the West for the use of our knowledge. Instead, they flood us with immigrant invaders (who, when in the West, side with the anti-White Left), infect us with pandemics, and leverage the copied knowledge for economic, military, and geopolitical advantage.

And good luck getting the arrogant, ethnocentric, and White-hating Asians to admit that they owe the West anything.

Laughingly, Canlorbe’s hero, the execrable scum Richard Lynn, actually wrote an article in The Mankind Quarterly, attempting to explain, in HBD terms, the lack of creativity among East Asians. Perhaps Canlorbe can get around to reading that, once he pulls that Chinatrix strap-on out of his ass.

Other news:

Read this.  I am very happy indeed that this Jew had to suffer in school the same as I did and as did many millions of other real White people. It was his people who were responsible for the civil rights movement and racial integration, resulting in incredible suffering for millions and millions of Whites, including White children, and resulting in the destruction of a once great predominantly White American nation. What? Some isolated Jews here and there got caught up in the nightmare unleashed by their own people? Great! I find that blow-back beautiful, and I read that Amren article with great pleasure. However, I was very saddened to read:

Eventually, my family left California, and I was out of danger. Those four years of forced busing had left me traumatized…

This scion of the race of destroyers got to escape…others were not so lucky.  And then this Levantine alien, this bizarre Middle Easterner, this infestation from a Magian culture, has the audacity – the chutzpah we can say – to whine about being "traumatized" by “four years of forced busing.” Four years!  Poor baby!  Oy vey!  Oh the persecution!

Please note that while Sallis has written many essays describing the things we need to do under different election result contingencies, particularly the event of a Biden victory, while all Greg Johnson can say is that in the event of a Biden victory, Counter-Currents will merely do “more of the same.”

Hey, ”Lovecraft’s Cat,” any more agonized questions about affirmative action of your hero, The Phantom of the European Mem’s Room Urinal?  Or are you understanding it?  Getting through to you yet?

Sallis right again.

The main sponsor of the resolution, Crystal Zhao…

Zhao...The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.  Derbyshire and Canlorbe weep.

More of the same.  You see, this is how EGI Notes differs from HBD. Sallis views this Asiatrix as a bizarre alien, akin to a sentient octopoid from the Andromeda Galaxy, and seething with genocidal hatred toward what it, rightly, sees as a competitor species - i.e., Homo sapiens. The HBD reaction is "measured groveling" perhaps followed by "pleased to meet you, Ben" and a "dropped bar of soap in the prison shower" scenario. Quite obviously, there is a wide gulf, that cannot be bridged, between the Sallis Groupuscule on the one hand and HBD on the other hand.

The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites. 

Healthy comments about this alien filth:

Martina Vaslovik 

I'm betting she's a CCP plant, maybe in the Confucius Institutes.

Meaty 

You can take Bandy Lee out of communist China, but you can't take the communist Chinese ideology out of Bandy Lee.

Logic and facts are not her forte.

Labeling anyone a Nazi is not a coherent argument - it's a hysterical tactic used by leftist against pro-limited government people.

If Trump really was a Nazi, Bandy X Lee would be permanently unemployed, silenced, and imprisoned or deported.

Psycho Feminist Asian Bandy Lee needs a check up from the neck up.

Next time I read anything about Asians or Feminist being discriminated against, I will point to Bandy Lee as an example of a stupid Asian Feminist that benefited greatly from Affirmative Action.

Mike

@Mike01412500

Replying to 

@TOOEdit

She needs to go back.

That's right. She needs to go back. And "Rosie" as well.

Is that “cute,” Greg?  T level alert!  

Savitri Devi weeps.  Arya…arya…not.

First consider this.  Then consider this.  Send in dem dere “D’Nations!”  What exactly is that space being used for?

Then we have this.  Some vague admission by Johnson that he was previously skeptical of Trump’s re-election, but he, of course, he dishonestly omitted the whole absolutely dogmatic “no matter what” nonsense. No plan, of course. Someone asked – what to do if Biden wins? Johnson says “just shoulder on” – what an unimaginative dullard – “catch as catch can.”  In contrast, at EGI Notes you can actually read a plan. 

“In the long, we’ll win” - wishful thinking. Again, no plan. “Driving centrists toward Trump” – that’s why Whites are voting for Biden.

Was MacDonald joking about Bezos?  “Bezos is of Nordic ancestry”- so he may turn to the Right. Was that meant to be serious? Roissy said that Bezos would make a “hard right turn” politically because he was “jacked” – MacDonald says Bezos will “turn right” because he is a High Trust Herrenvolk.  Meanwhile, in the real world, Bezos will continue pushing a Far Left agenda. But, hey, he’s of “Nordic ancestry” so it’s all OK! 

This really has nothing to do with Nord vs. Med debates or any of that - it is just the ludicrousness of it all.  What does MacDonald expect?  That one day Bezos is going to look in the mirror and have an epiphany -  "Hey!  I just realized...I'm of Nordic ancestry!  So, I am going to start funding the Far Right and I am going to make Greg Johnson the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Post.  Dat Right!"  That's as silly as Roissy thinking that Bezos was going to become a Trump supporter because Bezos started lifting weights.  Are there any adults in the room in Der Movement?  Apparently not.

Hood says we should build the institutions. Great – why haven’t you done anything for all the time you’ve been a major player in Der Movement?  Why was the last four years of the Trump Presidency wasted?

“Not really a White vote” – very good, Hood. Go on now and tell McCulloch that.Trump’s “political malpractice” – gee, who was telling you the man’s a retard and a buffoon?

Gee, Greg, Trump is a “huckster?”  I thought he was a “sincere man of genuine greatness?”  A problem with character? Again, I thought he was a “sincere man of genuine greatness?”  Johnson and Hood think that Trump is not a idiot?  Really?

Hood is correct about the Left’s hypocrisy about The China Plague.

I didn't finish the whole thing - Johnson's dishonesty is just too much to take in one sitting, and I still can't believe what MacDonald said about Bezos.