* There’s a translation of what he actually said here. He talked about r/K selection theory, which Rushton used to describe racial differences:
In Africa the so-called small r strategy prevails, which aims for as high a growth rate as possible. There the so-called dissemination type dominates. And in Europe generally the large K strategy is followed that tries to make optimal use of the capacities of the living space. Here is where the placeholder type lives. Simply stated, evolution has given Africa and Europe two different reproduction strategies, very easily understandable for any biologist. The difference between the African and European birthrates will be strengthened further by the spirit of decadence that has Europe firmly in its grip. In short, in the 21st century, the life-affirming African dissemination type meets the self-abnegating European placeholder type. This insight calls for a fundamental re-orientation of the asylum and immigration policies of Germany and Europe.
My own opinion is that it’s unfortunate he would have brought this up. It might be true, but western societies are a *long* way away from being able to talk about it. Whereas, if he had just stuck to the facts on the ground about the different reproductive rates, maybe the reactions wouldn’t have been so vociferous.
That’s not to say he deserves anything like the smearing he’s getting from the NYT — of course he doesn’t.
* Careful there New York Times. Search through your photo archives and you might find a picture of former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer wearing a hoodie with his face contorted in anger and his fist inches from the face of a German police officer. Before John Kerry was an immaculately coiffed gigolo in a bespoke suit he was a scruffy street fighting man. Go back in time and many of today’s leftist establishment figures looked more like the crowd at a Grateful Dead concert than the Beltway or Brussels insider of today!
* Isn’t it about time for everyone to just say ‘we are all race-ists’?
The world would be far more honest.
Liberals, Libertarians, Socialists, and so-called Conzos are all hiding behind abstract principles of justice and blah blah. But only fools TRULY believe in abstract principles and such nonsense and pursue them to the end of the world. And such sucker folks never amount to anything cuz one cannot build or gain power based on such nonsense.
People with real minds and real sense pursue power for tribal and/or individual reasons. That’s it. It’s either about the ethno or it’s about the ego.
Of course, it’s generally bad form nowadays to wave the national flag or admit to one’s own ambition and ‘greed’, so the smart and savvy cover up their egoism and ethnocentrism behind lofty rhetoric of universalism. That Zucky who made billions from Facebook and is a very proud Jew pretends to care soooooo much about those poor poor Muslims!!
Furthermore, power will always be problematic since it can never be equally shared among every individual and among every ethnic group. Some individuals are smarter, luckier, and more ambitious. Others are dumb or lazy. So, some will rise much higher than others. A Libertarian will say that is justice since the winners deserved to win. But the envious mob will never accept this and always look for excuses to blame the rich for having benefited with unfair advantages. (In some ways, such whining has a way of advantaging the powerful. If the NYT went HBD and said, “well, the reason why so many blacks and browns lag is because they have lower IQ and there is NOTHING that can be done about it.” This will make blacks and browns angry and frustrated and filled with bitter resentment. They might get violent. But as long as NYT keeps offering hope after hope, the lagging mob is fooled and calmed with the promise that, gee, maybe the next program will finally bridge the gap and perform miracles. HBD has a finality about it. It says ‘you are dumb and doomed to fail’. Without hope, people can get very angry and bitter, and NY elites don’t want that.)
Also, even if the rich did rise meritocratically, their children are born to privilege. Also, the rich get to buy politicians and do all the nefarious things that come with money and privilege.
So, is leftism the answer? No. Leftism is like a prison system that forces all to be equal. Imagine a race where everyone is made to pass the finish line together as co-winners. That is equal but coercive and bogus. Worse, in time, the elites of a leftist order become like the commie elites that became the new pigs like in Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Also, only suckers pursue abstract principles of universality with dimwit sincerity. Power is about gaining advantage for the individual or the nation/tribe. You cannot gain power for everyone around the world. Power is never universal. All power comes at the expense of others. While some tides can lift many boats, some boats will always rise much much higher, and some will inevitably sink. There’s no way to have Israel without hurting Palestinians. There’s no way to appease blacks in the US without hurting whites. There’s no way to satisfy homos without offending others, and so on. So, there is no such thing as power for all. Power is always about a contest of ‘more for us, and less for you’.
Blacks talk about justice but they just want more power for blacks, and black individuals want more power for themselves. They don’t care about every brother and sister. Look at black athletes and rappers. Do they share their wealth? No.
Jews talk about equality all the time, but they get richer and richer while rest fall behind. Homos are all about homo power. Mexicans talk the talk of ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity is our strength’, but their main reason for pushing open borders is MORE MEXICANS FOR MORE MEXICAN POWER. It’s just how it is. All such groups hide behind the rhetoric of universalism to push their own tribal or individual agenda.
And white urban gentry are subconsciously quasi-tribalist and/or egoist. They are so into themselves. Outwardly, they are far more ‘sensitive’ and ‘caring’ than their parents and grandparents who were more like Archie Bunkers. But in their personal lives, they are far more choosy, finicky, perfectionist, and exclusive. Archie Bunker may not be very ‘nice’, but he was happy to marry a nice ordinary woman. And Ralph and Alice Kramden may not be the most sensitive saints, but they are happy with one another. But look at urban gentry types. They talk the talk of ‘sensitivity’ but in their personal lives, almost no one is good enough for them. And even in the stuff they buy, they can’t just go to some regular store. They gotta go to some specialty store. I’ve went shopping with some of these friends, and I wanna strangle them. They are so PC but they refuse to shop where the schmoes shop.
And what is all that Section 8 stuff about? These Libs don’t fool me. It really comes to ‘more blacks for you, less for us.’ But of course, they hide this agenda behind lofty rhetoric of ‘inclusion’ and ‘integration’(for others).
This is why race-ism and fascism are the most honest ideology. We can at least let’s be honest about what we want.
After all, even liberals and leftists who claim to be totally colorblind have their preferences and biases. Notice how some on the Left(of the BDS community) get all riled up about evil Zionists but are utterly silent about a lot of other tyranny around the world.
And in the 80s, remember how most Libs prioritized blacks in South Africa while remaining mum about Palestinians.
Notice how white libs generally favor blacks and homos over all other groups. When blacks riot and burn down cities(and messed up the store of the victim of Michael Brown), do you hear white libs ever complain about the violence? No. So, they have their Bias of Compassion too. Certain groups get more of their compassion than others do. Many Arab Christians have been getting slaughtered since Iraq War, but there’s been near total silence in the progressive community.
Bias of Compassion is a kind of tribalism or projected tribalism.
If American Conservatives outsource their tribalism to Israel, American White Liberals outsource their repressed tribalism to certain groups that are favored over other groups. After all, we almost never see White Liberals express equal compassion for everyone around the world. Instead, certain groups get MORE compassion and support, especially based on the ‘cool’ factor. Why do Jews, Negroes, and Homos get more support and compassion? A lot of Libs admire Jewish comedians and writers. A lot of Libs find black musicians and athletes badass. A lot of Libs find homo to be so ‘creative’. So, even though Libs claim to be about ‘equality’, they favor certain groups for extra compassion based on their signs of superiority.
But what about suffering Iranians due to US-enforced sanctions? The hell with them since they are ‘uncool’.
All forms of compassion are unfair since they favor some over others.
During the 80s, many of us felt compassion for brave Mujahadeen warriors who were fighting the Soviet Empire. But what we were not told was that these warriors targeted many innocent victims such as school girls whose education was seen as blasphemy according to arch-Islamic law.
Also, many Leftists in the 60s felt compassion for the Vietnamese communists as brave warriors but overlooked all the victims of communist atrocities. That’s how compassion works. One may take leave of one’s own tribalism in feeling compassion for others people, but in a divided world, one cannot equally feel compassion for all because to side with people is to side against another people who are at odds with the ones you’ve sided with. This is why Lawrence of Arabia goes batty. It’s like the scene where he has to kill the dumb ragger. Lawrence got to like him and earlier, even saved him from the hot desert at great risk to himself. But he has to side with the idea of Arab unity, and so he has to kill the poor slob. Also, his siding with Arabs makes him hostile to Turks, and he must feel no sympathy for them even as they mowed down mercilessly.
Same with animal world.If you sympathize with lions, you have to overlook the fact that lions ruthlessly destroy OTHER creatures.
Also, there is the power of narrative. Though Liberal Narrative claims to favor the victimized and oppressed, all historical narratives are extremely selective and distorted. Also, which Narrative gets special attention depends on who has control over the media and academia. White Americans killed many more American Indians and Vietnamese than blacks, but blacks get more compassion because the controlled Narrative favors them. And many more Conservatives were blacklisted and destroyed by PC than commies were destroyed by McCarthy, but the ‘victims’ of McCarthy have gotten far more compassion since the controlled Narrative lionizes them.
And of course, if we look behind all these narratives, they are really controlled to serve certain ETHNIC interests. They are not for serving all people. After all, some of those victims of McCarthy supported Stalin who killed millions of Ukrainians. But that is conveniently swept under the rug since it serves a certain ethnic group better to make McCarthy out to have been worse than Stalin.
* Its the Calvinism stupid. Calvinism is the Crack Cocaine for White people. The way the Crack Epidemic started off a wave of ultra violence in the Black community? Because Black people really, really liked getting high off cocaine? And would pay for it? Well Calvinism, the idea that some White people are innately, selected by God or Destiny, better than other White people and predestined for Heaven or History? Well that is the Crack Cocaine for White people. No one seems to able to stop it.
The status one-upmanship among White people makes us uniquely vulnerable to Calvinism, allowing us a sense of belonging to a predestined group of “saved” shown by their material success to have God’s or History’s favor, and igniting instead of simple status rivalry a desire to destroy. Utterly. Because God and History are on their side. Instead of just being this year’s champions.
As noted above in the thread, Muslims and Africans in public housing and the like are “vibrant” and the “soul of the community” but Whites in public housing are loser scum to be eliminated. How very … Calvinist.
Of course, racism is just the result of White people living with non-Whites with radically and incompatibly different ideas of how to live. Whites and Chinese and Koreans, don’t have much conflict in places like Portland or Seattle or Vancouver because their values while different are not incompatible — Christmas is celebrated in Japan and China and Korea, not as extensively as here but they like a party. Needless to say the Muslim No Fun League does not celebrate Christmas nor really do Africans who can’t get the idea of the Winter Solstice.
There are not many Calvinists in places like Alabama, while ultra White Vermont is Bernie (Calvinist) Sanders country. Put enough non Whites in Germany, and you’ll get a nation of Paul Kerseys or Outlaw Josey Wales. Not neo Nazis but even worse for Calvinists — Old West Style Outlaws who just don’t give a damn.
There is a reason millions of people around the world mourned the death of Lemmy of Motorhead. For those without the Pajamboy Gene or Blue Haired Fattie Feminist leanings, being an Outlaw is the easier and often default choice. Harley Davidson does not exactly push a conformist image.
* Spying might also explain some unusual Supreme Court votes. In the “bad old days,” J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI had “the goods” on some many Members of Congress and political appointees that he could do basically everything he wanted to. Now that power may lie within NSA.
* They haven’t jettisoned him yet, and it’s doubtful they can. The thing with the AfD is, there are several factions and Höcke is one of the leaders of the more explicitly nationalist faction. There has been feuding in the AfD for quite some time and one of the party’s founders Bernd Lucke and his followers actually left the party last summer because they thought Höcke’s wing was getting too powerful (they more or less claimed the party had been infiltrated by crypto-Nazis, though what they cited as evidence was mostly pretty ridiculous). Now there’s feuding between the new party leader Frauke Petry (who defenestrated Lucke with Höcke’s aid) and Höcke. To some degree criticism of Höcke may even be justified, he isn’t a Nazi, but he’s a German nationalist who strongly dislikes many aspects of Germany’s “Westernization” (though those “values” like multiculturalism etc. are probably also strongly disliked by many people in “Western” core nations like Britain, France and the US…), that’s of course a big no-go in Germany. He also has a tendency for silly theatrics and wants the AfD to be a “Fundamentalopposition”, that is in total opposition to the existing political system (which doesn’t look like a strategy for success…). And his stuff about r- and k-strategies is almost universally seen as crude biological racism (anti-racism in public discourse may be even stronger in Germany than in the US though in personal interactions Germans are probably more “racist” and xenophobic than white Americans). I’m somewhat ambivalent about the issue…I don’t like how some people from the AfD enthusiastiacally distance themselves from Höcke, that reeks of cowardice and political correctness; on the other hand, Höcke might eventually really go too far and turn out to be a hindrance to further success.
* How do we make the argument in our social circles that a white racial/ethnic pride movement doesn’t have to result in National Socialism, Apartheid, or Jim Crow? This case is a perfect example – a fairly moderate white school teacher tries to initiate a discussion, but then is immediately branded a NeoNazi by the NYT.
The problem is that most widely known historical examples of a white ethnic/racial movements are associated with some kind of genocide/segregation/apartheid. In the minds of most people, white/ethnic pride movements are synonymous with those things. I suppose that the Renaissance/Humanism could be considered a white racial/ethnic pride movement, but that is mostly associated with rebellion from the Church.
Trump is slowly starting to make it possible to have those discussions here, but its still limited to the fringes. I suppose I see Trump as a kind of political John-the-Baptist. His purpose is not to bring redemption to the white/middle class America, but rather to prepare the way for the One Who Will.
* The western world is being cleansed from the bottom up with the bottom 1/3 targeted first.
Hence why anti-immigration sentiment was dominated by that demographic.
Now we’re moving into the phase where the middle 1/3 are cleansed so the mid-point of the anti-immigration demographic will shift upwards.
* Slaves didn’t want to play ball. Many of the freed slaves that went to Liberia met an unpleasant fate at the hands of their distant relatives. Plus, constructing an European society in Africa using freed slaves was a harder proposition than perhaps it first appeared. Word got out among the black population, our homies don’t want us. Apparently, there are some things worse than the southern slave system though never speak such things to a tenured academic.
* I remember a certain Senator McCarthy going after communists in the CIA in ’54, how’d things work out for him?
And Frank Church got re-elected, right?
