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).