The most predictable consequence of proposing the survival of the white race in public places like the DT threads is that those who consider such argument to be “racism”, “prejudice”, et al will pour their bile upon one’s head from the greatest possible height.  For many of them, that’s the gutter.  But occasionally one who affects to know better will come along, and offer the fruits of a superior education.

Over the last two or three days I’ve been assaulted, for want of a better word, by quite an educated fruit, an Irish homosexual with a bookshelf full of worthy analytical empiricism.  His mission was not simply to put the argument for our race’s survival beyond use, but to fatally wound the arguer.  The news that race-loyal white men are actually thinking about our existential crisis, and not just reacting conveniently as carriers of the mental disease of “racism ‘n hate”, required an immediate relegation of said thinkers back to the lumpen category.

So our anti-racist hero - his handle is 90Lew90 - set about deriding my arguments as “derivative”, “strawman”, “bullshit”, etc, while informing me that, contrary to my understanding of race and genetics, there is no race but the human race, and anyway “when you breed for pedigree, you have to get sperm from all over the world”.

He put his philosophical pedigree on the line twice, rather tragically.  He confused method with methodology, and then wrongly appealed to the Naturalistic Fallacy.  A few times he picked at terms I employed in the hope of demonstrating his superior understanding.  But mostly, of course, he just stamped his feet and shouted abuse, like the worst anti-racist.

The conversation sprawled over a large part of a very long thread and involved interventions from various friends and foes.  I am not entirely sure what lessons to draw from it.  Obviously, there is a lot of fear out there among anti-racists.  I recall reading an exchange between a couple of Guardianistas two or three years ago in which our oft-made and somewhat triumphal but true claim that they cannot win debates with us was airily dismissed.  I thought at the time that their confidence sounded very hollow, and they probably knew that there is something horribly strong and insurmountable in pro-white discourse.  Lew offers an extended insight into that hollowness.  At no time did he offer a positive argument for the dissolution of the white world, and each time his attacks on specifics were rebuffed he retreated.  In the end all that was left was the ad hominem.  In the end, all that will be left of anti-racism is a wholly visible white-hatred.

Lew had anticipated an entirely different outcome when he sallied forth, as his opening remarks in one of our exchanges (which I reproduce below) show.  I imagine that today he is, somewhere in his head, trying to rationalise his failure to himself, putting a spin on it, sharpening his axe for the next time.  But we are developing our ideas all the time.  The result for Lew will only ever be worse.  Morally and intellectually, it is already too late for anti-racism.

90Lew90

Right Joe, I’m going to start one up here because I can’t keep track down through that maw, and Elijah, I’d be grateful if you would leave this thread to myself and Joe.

1) First of all Joe, I’ve declared my interest here, which is that I don’t care what kind of racist loon you are, but you appear to have been cadging terms from scientific language which have very specific meanings, such as “entropy”.

2) I would like you to define entropy for me, and then I would like you to tell me what in the funk it has to do with your racism.

3) Also, you said: “Discrimination is the basis of natural selection.”

I ask you: How?

Surely that can’t be too much of a challenge. I mean that is a very definite statement—you used the verb “to be”—Discrimination “is” ...

Elaborate please.

The reason I would like to further this discussion with you is because I suspect your ideas suffer from a dire paucity of thought, and it is a dead give away when you help yourself to scientific jargon to make your poor ideas sound good.

So Joe, let’s have you. There are three requests which it really should be quite easy for you to meet, given that casual, slick way you provided me with the material to question you from.

Look forward.

joepiggott

First of all, you have not declared your interest.  I suspect your true interest is that you are a homosexual, and you cannot abide the genetic abnormality that entails.  Solely because of that, you do what you can to genocide your own people by fighting the “racists” who want us to survive.

So there, I think, is your moral worth.

Entropy, for my purposes, is the energy of the disorganisation of systems, for example living organisms.  Reproduction and fitness to environment are functionalities of Nature’s subsistence in the face of such disorganisation.

Fitness requires trait-discrimination, Lew, otherwise the evolutionary process stops.

But there is a secondary, interest-based argument here which we have not touched upon, which is that territorial organisms must discriminate against competitors.  A people that chooses not to reject colonisation will lose the guarantor of its existence - its territory.  That’s not an adaptive life choice.

Racism is natural, normal, healthy, adaptive, moral and universal.  It is not the racism of anti-racism, which is anti-white hatred and nothing more.

90Lew90

I have already said, graciously Joe, that you can throw whatever you like at me about being gay. It really is water off a duck’s back. I wonder what insight you have, though, into the genes involved in homosexuality, which enable you to describe that condition as involving a “genetic abnormality”.

You just pulled that straight out of your head. Citation needed.

There is no morality in nature.

Entropy, “for your puposes…” Entropy “for your purposes” isn’t worth squat Joe. It might as well be “bisuits” for your purposes meaning all the rest of that utter trash you trotted out. Entropy has a very specific scientific meaning. My point is that you are wheeling out language you don’t understand to give weight to your stunted little head product. You are bearing me out quite nicely, thank you.

“Fitness requires trait-discrimination…”

That’s not what I asked you. You can’t wriggle out of a definite statement like the one you made:

“Discrimination IS the BASIS of NATURAL SELECTION.”

I want you to elaborate on each part of your statement, which should not be hard for you to do. Well, it wouldn’t be hard if it had any basis in truth, because you just pulled it out of nowhere, didn’t you Joe. That is more head product from you.

Here’s why: The prevailing idea about creation until Darwin was that of William Paley, who supposed what LOOKS LIKE order in nature implies a designer. He used the metaphor of a watchmaker. This was all about questions of how God works in nature. The reason why Darwin had such impact was because his theory of natural selection decisively did away with the design argument because NATURAL SELECTION IS BLIND AND OPPORTUNISTIC.

Sadly for you Joe, this means you can NOT invoke natural selection to back up your frankly stupid little ideas about “races”. There are no races Joe, you and I (unfortunately) and every person on this earth belong to one SPECIES. And if one were to invoke natural selection (metaphorically), you could say natural selection is the basis of migration.

Now, I don’t accept that your notion of races has any basis whatsoever in fact, and since you are the person who claims there are races, the burden of proof lies with you. And you won’t be able to demonstrate that your notion of races has any basis in fact, because it is plainly, obviously bunkum. And you are one disturbed, deluded human being. Homo “sapiens” allegedly. As distasteful as you may find that your fellow human beings are all your brothers, another fact borne out by working, demonstrable science is that of the cousinship of ALL life on this planet. Now that is something I find quite beautiful. But I can see how a small mind like yours might see itself as inordinately superior to a mere fungus.

You say: “Racism is natural, normal, healthy, adaptive, moral and universal. It is not the racism of anti-racism, which is anti-white hatred and nothing more.”

You’re into evolutionary psychology here and you’ve made right bum of that too. What you call “racism” evolutionary psychologists call “kin selection” and again, it runs far more deeply than is convenient for you, because while infants will respond better to their “kin” while they need protection, when they come to adulthood to look for a mate, they will respond better (ie find beauty) in people who have roughly the same bone structure even. “Race”, such as you understand it, does not enter this equation.

Now as any dog or horse breeder will tell you, when you breed for pedigree, you have to get sperm from all over the world, because by narrowing the gene pool you are making the pedigree susceptible to congenital defects and weakness to illnesses. We’ve been over this before Joe. Working on your idea of races would leave people susceptible, as the Native Americans were when the Europeans went there, to things like the common cold, or whatever other opportunistic bug happened to develop in an isolated race, which that race developed immunity to alone. On exposure, the other people with no immunity would most likely die. This is where you would have us. And Joe, when did the Spanish go to South America? You’re a bit behind the times, mate.

Now Joe, tell me a bit more about Heidegger again. I pulled you on him—what was it, a week ago?—and you waded straight into that too.

What a balloon.

joepiggott

I am telling you what I consider your existential angst to be about.  I don’t have to cite anything.  The problem is wholly inside your head, and the evidence of it is your race-treachery.

There probably is morality in Nature, not systemically, of course, but as an evolved trait.  Moral behaviour has been observed in higher mammals, and Man is only an animal anyway.  Morality is explained perfectly adequately by evolutionary psychologists, so we can view it as part of our natural endowment.

Entropy has two precise definitions, not one.  But the point about this discussion of entropy is that you do not disagree with me on the facts.  You only throw insults at me.

Look at the hostility with which you try to argue against my championing of discrimination.  You aren’t offering any information.  You are trying to deconstruct one word - basis - in a single statement, and on that you are trying to bring down an entire argument that European Man has the right in Nature to (struggle for) life.

Well, here we are again - and I won’t use the word “basis”, since it upsets you so much: without the instinctual ability to discriminate for fitness, humans could not have evolved to live outside Africa.  Instinctual discrimination is, therefore, fundamental to human evolution, and the very meaning of natural selection in humans.

Let’s take that on a little, using gene interests.  A human population’s distinctive genes (its genetic interests) face extinction unless the population reproduces at or above the replacement rate relative to the fertility of other human populations in the same living space.  Discrimination for distinctive genes at that rate is the pre-requisite for survival of the population as a distinctive human entity.

So you see how the argument for life develops, and why anti-discrimination is actually a killing mechanism.

It’s late and your wallpaper about “there are no races but the yuman race” is too vapid, too lengthy and too anti-science for me tonight.  There are dozens of studies which confirm gene clustering at the continental level, and at the European national level.  The plaint against our existence is, frankly, left-racism.

You then appear to reify the lie of hybrid vigour.  Let’s look not at horses but cornseed.

The disadvantage of plant hybridisation is that the hybrid seed must be re-created every generation.  Here is why.  Let there be a single gene that exists in two versions, A and a; each individual has two copies of this gene.  Therefore, an individual could be AA, aa or Aa. Let the beneficial genotype be Aa.  If one crosses AA with aa, all first generation hybrids will be Aa.  If the first generation hybrids breed among themselves at random, the ratio is AA:Aa:aa = 1:2:1 (i.e, the desired genotype is present among only half the second-generation hybrids).

It is for this reason that farmers do not allow their plant hybrids to reproduce among themselves. Obviously, among humans this godlike control is impossible.  Quite apart from the random nature of multiple-gene selection, which, on balance, greatly reduces the likelyhood of any additional vigour, breeding from the second generation on will certainly drastically reduce whatever gains might have accidentally arisen.

And, in truth, we see that IQ tests of white/African Americans do not show a first generation increase in IQ above the white average, while the average for a general sample comes in at 92 - half-way between the racial averages of the parent stocks.

You never answered me on existentialism in nationalism, btw.  I won’t return to that now.  But eventually, no doubt, I will try to help you understand how Heidegger influences nationalist thought, including how he wanted to influence thought among the NSDAP heavyweights when he joined the party.

90Lew90

The difference between corn seed and horses (and humans) is that corn seed are not mammals. And I see you’ve now taken to plagiarism; the book review of whatsit on a website called “majorityrights”.

Are we struggling, Joe?

You are cuckoo, my friend. Absolutely away with the fairies.

Now, well you might want to try to argue that there are sub species within homo sapiens, I’m afraid that speaks for itself, and as you say, it’s late. I think my work here is done, and unfortunately I haven’t learned anything. Usually I like to be shown to be wrong so at least I get SOMETHING out of one of these exchanges. But you? You’re rollo.

Finally, I asked you a simple question about Heidegger’s conception of “essence” and how essence precedes being, and you came back with “Essence of what?”

With that you sank yourself.

You’re a laugh. In fact, no you’re not. You’re a crying shame. I’m just glad you’re an inconsequential internet nonentity. But you keep wanking off there Joe. Just you keep wanking.

joepiggott

I own MR, Lew.  That is my blog.

There is no hybrid vigour in human populations. Full stop. “Vigour” is fitness in the evolutionary context.

Incidentally, fitness is not an outlier thing, genetically. Gene flow towards fitness develops at the median, and its discrimination likewise. Thus, for example, the ideal of facial beauty is a composite of intra-population averages.

You asked me an obvious leading question about Heidegger’s use of the word essence, and I asked you a question in the exact same spirit.  It did not occur to you that you said “paper” and I said “paper”, not “stone”. But you assumed “stone” anyhow.

You then promptly displayed your intellectual vapidity by telling me the stunningly ordinary news that human absence and human presence are not the same experience.  To this I responded thus:

“Classically, existence is delineated by the sacred formulation, “I am”. We are the existent (and, indeed, in episodic higher consciousness it is the “we”, the subject, difference itself, which is annihilated, and existence which is all).”

I then explained that constructionism and constructivism cannot explain (never mind deconstruct) this classical approach to being because the thought-modelling on which they depend, and the ordinary waking consciousness to which they are restricted, are too limited and are silent on the matter.  Anyway, I said, thought is not the only means by which the human brain experiences, and I then gave you one or two more direct forms of perception.

I might add that instinctuality as it operates in selection is one such.

Now, the purpose of this was to demonstrate that thought flowing from Heidegger’s offerings is not restricted to the postmodernists, as you appeared to claim.  There are, obviously, paths leading into other, non-methodological existentialist analysis.  In other words, not everything is a social construct, you klutz.

90Lew90

Another load of garbage. “Non-methodological analysis”. I don’t often allow myself this, but, LOL!

You tick a number of boxes for psychopathy. Delusions of grandeur not the least of them. What are you doing out in the community?

joepiggott

Postmodernism is about methodologies.  Clear?

But that aside, as ever you make no constructive response. Insult, bitch, insult is all there is with you. You are empty. Has it never occurred to you that killing a people is wrong, and any attempt, such as yours, to justify that killing is inexcusable? (And you have the gall to call me a psychopath!)

Do you perhaps think that Martin Heidegger would have cheered on the gene-killing of his Volk because Derrida and the wife murderer Althusser said there are only representations to kill?

Give up. You cannot handle this conversation. You have nowhere to run. You are checkmated, because your only remaining play is to explain that since the genocide of European humanity is “good”, the genocide of all humanity is “good” too - and you can’t because it isn’t.