Der Dishonest Right
Pathetic.
For instance, it would be useful to have a think tank to study social trends and craft nationalist policies. It would also be useful to have our own public interest law firm to protect our rights and attack our enemies through lawfare. But we don’t yet have the money and the personnel for such institutions.
Right…no money.
Someone earning ~$180,00 in one year as compensation for “running an online publication” – no money!
There is money. There always has been money. It is, in my opinion, being wasted.
Our movement is small, poor, and constantly harried by our enemies.
If true, whose fault is that? Why don’t the failed “leaders” accept responsibility for wasting decades of effort and wasting millions of dollars?
First, it helps if one supported Trump’s candidacy rather than sitting on the sidelines or voting to hand the country to Joe Biden, so he can treat Trump supporters as domestic terrorists and kick the Great Replacement into overdrive.
In other words, send your D’Nations to Johnson and not to Spencer or Griffin.
Pouring unjust scorn on Trump looks like an attempt to cozy up with the enemies of the people. How do you expect the people to take you seriously?
What is “unjust scorn?” Answer – anything that questions Johnson’s judgment about Trump.
But it does prove my contention that Trump could have won in 2016 on a conventional Republican platform, because that’s exactly how he won in 2020.
What a dishonest creature this Johnson is. First, if Trump had “won” in 2020 in a more convincing fashion – by running as a hardcore populist – then all of the Democrat cheating would have been for naught, and Trump’s “win” would have resulted in an actual legal victory (as in 2016). Second, and most importantly, how can you compare an incumbent President, who had no real primary challenge (2020), to a political novice reality TV star in a primary campaign (2016) against a large group of well-funded, well-known, experienced, GOP Establishment-supported, seasoned political figures? Third, just because Trump campaigned in 2020 more as a mainstream Republican, it doesn’t change the fact that the bulk of his supporters were people left over from 2016, when he did run as a populist – and who likely felt that the 2020 version of Trump was just pandering and didn’t really mean it.
Here's the problem for Johnson and others who promote the same "Trump is sincere" narrative. I for one labeled Trump as a fraud before the 2016 election. So what did I see that others missed? If Trump is and was sincere why did I (and others, no doubt) believe otherwise? It is convenient for the likes of Johnson to ignore this fact or to just label me as "insane." Why answer, engage with, or debate, someone who is "insane?" Johnson and the other liars can pretend that everyone thought Trump was sincere in 2016 and that some disgruntled ex-supporters only recently labeled him a fraud.
My "take" on Trump was and is that the man may have had some incoherent civic nationalist beliefs, he may have a "law and order" distaste for illegal immigration, his taste for women indicates certain racial aesthetic affinities, but he had and has no underlying fundamental ideological ideals, no foundation of firm beliefs and ideas. He certainly was never an authentic right-wing populist, never pro-White, always a socially liberal New York billionaire with Jewish family connections and Negro friends and associates. If the man had any real ideology, and real deep concerns, then why did he squander the first two years of his Presidency when he had a Republican Congress to work with? Why did he listen to Kim Kardashian and Kanye West while ignoring his own supporters? Indeed, why did he allow his DOJ to persecute his own supporters?
I was right. Trump, as a real right-wing populist, was and is an insincere fraud, someone who used right-wing populism to distinguish himself from his GOP primary opponents and to also distinguish himself from the globalist Clinton. In 2020, he listened to the Kushner faction, took his White support for granted, and pandered to minorities. That was at no real personal cost to him, since that was always closer to his real inclination anyway.
Goodbye, Mr. Trump. I hate to see it end this way. But you will be vindicated. You will be avenged.
Never forget this. What a hypocrite.
Greg Johnson seems to me to be an embodiment of dishonesty, an avatar of lies.
This is the time of the year when I remember how often Der Retards of Der Right like to talk about how much they love winter, and how much the "cold and snow" "resonates with the European soul" (or at least, the "Nordic soul" - which for them is the same thing).
Interestingly, these types invariably live in the warmer climes of the American South or West, where they are, mysteriously, bereft of the Wonder of Winter that they so breathlessly inform us is their genetic birthright. Further, and also interesting and mysterious, these warmer climes they live in tend to be racially diverse, heavily non-White, coastal cities, within which they are not only horribly deprived of cold and snow, but also deprived of the "flyover country" Whites that they assert they love so much.
What sacrifices they make!
Given that the U.S. White population (as of 2015) is genetically 98.6% European...
Not 98.5% or 98.7% but 98.6% and don't you forget it!
Such divisions of the race, whether territorial or ideological, serve no racial preservationist purpose, and indeed no pro-White purpose, as such divisions would be harmful to White interests by placing the White population in a much weaker position both continentally and globally vis a vis other races.
Err...dividing people based on one person's racial aesthetic preferences would have the same net effect, no?
McCulloch's latest plan is certainly an improvement over earlier versions, putting aside my disagreements over the "racial science" (sic) components of his arguments, and his obvious distaste for "common Southern European phenotypes."
So, fine. For now, let's not argue about that. But there's a deeper concern here. Given the realities of today's America, indeed, the reality of the condition of the White race worldwide, I believe there are some more immediate concerns to focus on. Certainly, I agree, it is good to have a long-term goal (although we may differ on the details). But if we all get censored off the Internet, and if America goes the way of Europe, re: free speech, then that is all sound and fury signifying nothing. I would suggest these types read the daily litany of woe that makes up American Renaissance news stories (Taylor is sufficiently "Nordish" so I assume reading that website is allowed), and then reflect on if pontificating about the fine details of "racial phenotypes" is in any way relevant to the political reality "on the ground" in today's America.
All of these guys have been at it for decades. They talk about "winnings hearts and minds" among Whites, but they have failed to do so at every turn. Don't any of them have the self-awareness to consider the possibility that they are doing something fundamentally wrong, and that their intended audience is not buying what they are selling? Maybe folks are not buying what I'm selling either, but I note that my access to "movement" platforms has been, ultimately, somewhat, shall we say, limited for certain reasons? Or reason, as in the singular?
Does anyone really believe that charts of overlapping phenotypic binning, or absurd "to-the-decimal point" "estimates" of racial ancestry, produced by tests that are laughably and obviously flawed, are going to convince those who need to be convinced? The masses of the people will simply think it weird and off-putting, and the educated minority will quickly identify and pick apart the flaws in the arguments. And, like the "Pace Amendment," it is overly complex, and for similar reasons. Obsessing over phenotype, and trying to justify why 25% non-Whites should be accepted while indigenous Europeans (potentially?) rejected, is going to lead to arbitrary, hand-waving arguments. Then, trying to use 23andMe data, in a manner rife with misinterpretation, to further justify all of this leads to an even deeper hole dug for pro-White arguments. Ignoring cultural and civilizational arguments and identities is also a problem, as is ignoring sociopolitical beliefs. Should a White ethnostate contain Muslims and Marxists, regardless of "what they look like?" Do you want racially White anti-White political leaders, responsible for promoting The Great Replacement, in a White ethnostate?
It seems to me the ingroup should be people of Old World European ethnic background, with room for some limited number of essentially White people that may have low-level New World admixture (would anyone object to Ted Williams in a White ethnostate?). Further, these people need to be of a civilizational background that is Western or Orthodox (if you want to consider Orthodox Eastern Europe as separate from Catholic-Protestant Western Europe), and, at least, not overt political enemies of the White ethnostate. The vast majority of White Americans would fit in (most "liberal Democrat" Whites, while superficially hostile, are not deep-seated enemies), excluding some Whites who we should not want in the first place. A small minority of Hispanics - those fully or predominantly European - could fit in as long as they have a White and European identity. No need for bizarre charts or getting into decimal point ancestry estimates.
If folks are confused about what I mean by “supervised admixture analysis” here is a very simple layman’s explanation, suitable for the Nutzi crowd IQ level:
…in which some individuals are "fixed" as belonging to a particular population (100%), and the ancestral proportions of the remaining ones are estimated…This type of analysis does seem to work best when good-sized samples of the ancestral populations are available, and these populations are well-differentiated genetically.
In my opinion, the caveats for “work best” do not apply for some (all?) of the commercially available tests, and “analyses” based upon their methodology.
The “some individuals” are the parental reference samples. It is obvious – at least to anyone with a triple digit IQ – that the choice of who is “"fixed as belonging to a particular population (100%)” for comparing to others is going to absolutely determine the results of those others. Just like we had Durocher breathlessly telling us about MENA “admixture” in Southern Europeans from a paper that used Germans being fixed as "European" (and even so, some Northern European populations were still getting low levels of MENA even when compared against Germans).
How you decide to label those ancestries will of course also result in different interpretations. If someone labels Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry as “European” and someone else labels it as “Middle Eastern” and a third person labels it simply as “Jewish” or “Ashkenazi Jewish” then the same results will be interpreted by the naïve layman in three completely different ways.
In response to McCulloch’s charts and pictures, here are some samples of an alternative analysis:
So, this is a G/H semi-mongolid phenotype.
Bromstad! Hey! A gay interior decorator who lives in the Miami area! Fancy that! Curly says it all.
See this. But when a Holy Oriental does it against Trump voters, no problem, and no doubt the HBD filth would agree.
Comments
Post a Comment