On the @DavidAFrench & @NancyAFrench affair & race – #cuckservative #nrorevolt

David A. French of National Review recently published a piece criticizing the alt-right and Ann Coulter (he even quoted at length this piece from Occam’s Razor).  And as can be expected, there was an enormous uproar on social media, with many people criticizing David as a cuckservative since he decided to adopt an African child instead of birthing more of his own children.  David French responds here, employing the usual cliches of cuckservatism.

For instance: “We defend a culture, not a race.”

David should really read up on human biodiveristy.  Race and culture are inseparable, as I recently pointed out in this reply to Rod Dreher.  Race is the root, culture the flower.  As Cochran & Harpending argue in the 10,000 Year Explosion (free PDF), race and culture have co-evolved. It’s what others are now calling gene-culture co-evolution.  Culture is not some abstract cloud living apart from humans; it’s a part of humans and reflects genetic dispositions.  (Some interesting charts mapping the genetic distances between human races are here.)

On to transracial adoption.  Take this for what it’s worth, but I’ve heard rumors that Nancy French, the wife, was the one who really pushed for the African adoption.  Apparently, she was heavily influenced by cuckservative Russell Moore, a noted “conservative” Southern Baptist leader.  Russell Moore has for years been trying to cajole whites into not having white babies but to adopt children of color instead.  (Moore also is pro-Third World immigration and criticizes churches that are “too white”).  This general trend among mainstream Christianity (which is equally pronounced among Catholics, such as Cardinal Dolan and Pope Francis supporting the Third World invasion of the West) is a maladaptive, suicidal ideology.  You essentially have Christian leaders telling their white parishioners that they want them extinguished.

If I were David French and the rumors are true, I’d seriously consider divorce. Even if one is morally opposed to divorce, traditionalist societies have allowed for divorce in cases of infidelity and failure to issue offspring.  This would fall under the latter case, since David’s wife is essentially saying she would rather raise the spawn of some random African than David’s own seed.  While she may no longer be able to have children, I assume that David is.  He could find a fertile younger white wife and further his genetic line.  Let Nancy raise the dindu by herself.

But I assume this will never happen and David will remain cucked for the rest of his life.

Updates:

Jared Taylor:  “David French: A Cuck Begs for Mercy”

Hunter Wallace: “Cuckservatives: French Family Edition”

Another #Cuckservative Cause: School Choice

In my original essay, “What is a Cuckservative?,” I failed to mention school choice, which is unfortunate as it really is a key cuckservative policy.

What is school choice?  It’s an idea championed by cuckservatives, which essentially, in its most popular form, involves a school-voucher system where students are able to use public tax money to attend private elementary or secondary schools.  For instance, the government would give a student at $10,000 voucher (which normally would go to a public school) to attend a private school

As one can easily discern, there is nothing too “free market”  about this concept, since it essentially entails private schools being financed by tax dollars, and school choice would eventually bring private schools under government regulation since the private schools would receive government funds.  But this won’t stop the cucks from supporting it.

In every single conversation I’ve ever had about school choice with GOP types, whenever I bring up the above problem, the same talking point always comes up:  “It would be great for blacks and Hispanics.  It would allow more of them to attend private schools.”

So, at last, you can see that this proposal is nothing more than status signaling by cuckservatives to those on their left: “See, look at us, we have diversity-promoting proposals too!”

The problem with school vouches?  Let’s see….

Most public schools across America have been completely devastated by hordes of unruly, low-IQ blacks and mestizos. The only refuge for many whites is either homeschooling or private schools.  Many have not the luxury for the former, so private schools are the only option.

Unfortunately, private schools today are unable by law to discriminate against students based on race.  (Interestingly, you don’t see cuckservatives today arguing for freedom of association for private organizations.)  Private schools, however,  can economically wall off the ghetto:  tuition.  Most blacks and mestizos cannot afford or do not want to pay private tuition.

Now, if you wanted to destroy the last vestiges of civility among primary education, what would be more efficient than smashing this economic wall?

Enter vouchers.  Vouchers in short:  We’ll give taxpayer money to violent, low-IQ blacks and mestizos so that they can go to private schools and destroy them too!

Only the most myopic fool would support such an idea – the cuckservative.

Updates:

“Important: Roundup of #Cuckservative articles“

Camp of the Saints: Why @RodDreher is wrong about race and culture

Rod Dreher recently decided to review the 1973 novel Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail.  In my estimation, this is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, a novel that everyone should read (here’s a free PDF of the English translation), so I was pleased that Dreher was bringing attention to the novel.  Nonetheless, I am disappointed at the politically correct tone and factually incorrect nature of the review.

For instance, Dreher writes:

Raspail does not separate skin color from culture and civilization…  …Everything else in the novel ties civilization precisely to skin color.

Dreher throughout the review seems disturbed that Raspail considers race as an important factor.  Dreher seems to think that culture somehow hovers in some hyperdimensional sphere completely removed from the biological reality of race.  I know that Dreher occasionally reads HBD blogs, so I’m a little surprised that he would advocate a position so contrary to recent findings in science.

Here are some problems with Dreher’s account….

Dreher is too hung up on skin color.  Yes, skin color, or let’s just say general “looks,” are important in evolution.  For instance, in the famous Russian fox experiment, we know that when the foxes were selected for behavior it also affected their looks.  As the foxes became more behaviorally domesticated, their looks become more domesticated as well.  In short, as far as we can tell at this point, “looks” are probably in many cases tied to behavioral traits.

Nonetheless, race is more than just skin color.  It encompasses tens of thousands of years of evolution. As this chart shows, humans genetically cluster into races:

And you can measure the genetic distances between ethnic groups and races:

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.

On average, Europeans are around 100x more closely related to each other than to sub-Saharan blacks. Something more than mere “skin color” obviously is going on here.

What Dreher fails to understand is the gene-culture evolution thesis.  Ancestry / race and culture are interlinked – and probably deeply so.

For instance, Peter Frost offers a succinct summary here of recent findings.

For a more detailed and theoretical account, Cochran and Haprending’s 10,000 Year Explosion is necessary reading (free PDF).  This book traces the gene-culture evolutionary history of humans over the past 10,000 years.  It is definitely one of the most influential books I’ve ever read.  If Dreher has not read it (I suspect he hasn’t), I hope he does so.  Perhaps he could even write about it at TAC.

Raspail in the 1970s was not aware of recent findings in human genetics and evolution, but as a novelist he was way ahead of his time.

Updates:

Here’s a translation of an essay Jean Raspail wrote more recently:  “Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic“

Important: Roundup of #Cuckservative articles

Note:  Please add links to new cuckservative articles in the comments below.  I’ll add them.

I’ll add them. Wow, oh wow. The cuckservative meme, which started among the Dissident Right / alt-right, has gone completely viral. It is really quite amusing to watch. The real power of the cuckservative meme is it deprives the cucks of their masculinity, making them figures of ridicule. The very word cuckservative, cuck (a white man who watches his wife have sex with a non-white, usually a black man) + conservative, aptly summarizes cuckservatives who act as cuckolds by facilitating mass non-white immigration and other policies detrimental to whites.  The cuckservative does not know how to react.  He either thinks these people are “secret Democrat agents” or he just points, sputters and yells, “racist!”

Roundup:

The early incubation of the cuckservative meme seems to have started at MPC and TRS. The virus then quickly spread on Twitter by accounts like these:  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and many more.

I’m proud to say that I was one of the first to write on cuckservatives: “What is a Cuckservative?” This was later cross-posted at Radix Journal:  “Cuckservative, A Definition”

Popehat & Erick Erickson help ‘cuckservative’ go viral.

Matt K. Lewis writes at Daily Caller on ‘cuckservative’; TRS responds (great read); Tommy Christopher points and sputters.

Heartiste provides a must-read tour de force on cuckservatives.

Many others weighing in: Renegade Tribune, The Right Drama, Atlantic Centurion, VDare (twitter), RooshV (twitter), Outside In.

Gregory Hood offers a must-read analysis of cuckservatism. Mike Cernovich & Vox Day weigh in.  More TRS.

Hot Air:  “Don’t believe the cuckservative lie.” TRS responds (must read).

Radix Podcast: The Cuckservative Mind

Ethnocentric Indian Jeet Heer doesn’t like whites being ethnocentric. Gregory Hood responds:  “The Cuckening” (must read).

Buzzfeed: “Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter.”  Forney: “Ten Signs You Might Be A Cuckervative.” Xenophobe: “Cuckservative Inc Stock is Tanking ($CUCK).”

Heartiste:  “Shit Cuckservatives Say” (must read)

Matt Lewis: “I do worry that this white nationalism business is starting to take off”

TRS: “It Would Be Very Cuckservative” (podcast)

More:  Milo Yiannopoulos (misses the point on origin and meaning).  Theden: “The Cuckservative Civil War.”  TRC:  “The Alt-Right as Disruption.” Age of Treason: “Calling out the Cuckery.”    Tommy Christopher: “Trump Fans Target ‘Mike Cuckabee’ for Being a ‘Cuckservative’.”

MPC: “Cuckservative mega thread.” Counter Currents: “The Conscience of a Cuckservative.” TRC:  “Cuckservatism: The Alt-Right.” Michael Savage discusses cuckservatives (6 min in). The Mitrailleuse weighs in.

David Weigel: “‘Cuckservative’ — the conservative insult of the month, explained” (best mainstream article on cuckservative, quotes Richard Spencer). Richard Spencer responds.

Cuckservative Erick Erickson is having a meltdown (doesn’t link to alt-right, hoping readers won’t discover it).  David Freddoso also in meltdown mode over cuckservatism.

Kevin MacDonald:  “The Cuckservative Phenomenon” (good read)

Alexander Hart: “First They Ignore You, Then You Laugh At Them, Then You Win: How The “Cuckservative” Meme Is Undermining Conservatism Inc” (good read)

Jared Taylor: “An Open Letter to Cuckservatives” (good read)

More: Ted Sallis: “On Cuckservatives.” William Solniger: “The Cuckservative” (poem).  Andrew Anglin writes about cuckservative here.

Charles Johnson: “Refugee From Cuckservatism” (misses point on origin and meaning.  As pointed out in an email to me: “Goldberg and Podhoretz are neoconservatives, not cuckservatives, and the neocons aren’t cucked. They work for their own ethnic interests.  They actually have their own ethno-state.”)  Richard Spencer responds here (a must-read, important for getting the cuckservative meme right).

More: Iron Legion: “I Was A Conservative Once.”  Daily Kos.  David Futrelle.  Salon.  TRS.  Libertarian Republic. Daily Kos (again). PJ Media.

Alexander Hart: “Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo In The Conservative Movement’s Nest”

Colin Liddell: “Restoring the European Subject: The Historical and Economic Roots of ‘Cuckservative’.” Duns Scotus: “The Klueless Kucks Klan”

Heartiste on cucks. Gavin McInnes offers this very disappointing take on cuckservatives; The Right Stuff responds (excellent read).

The Cuck Song. Amanda Marcotte (lols). Matthew Rozsa (cuck).

The New York Times covers cuckservative. Richard Spencer responds.

The Guardian (UK) covers cuckservative.

David French is in meltdown mode over ‘cuckservative’.  Apparently he still thinks “Democrats are the real racists” because he is a cuck.  Massive twitter criticism of David and then he publishes this response. Jared Taylor responds.  Hunter Wallace responds.

Alfred W. Clark: “On David & Nancy French, cuckservatives, and race”

Must see series of musicals inspired by the cuckservative meme.

Alfred W. Clark:  “Another #Cuckservative Cause: School Choice”

Popular Memes

Here are some memes that I found on Twitter, /pol/, Renegade Tribune, and elsewhere:

What is a #Cuckservative?

Among the alt-right crowds, one of the most fascinating labels has emerged:  The Cuckservative (aka Conservacuck).  I’m not exactly sure where it started or who coined it (if you know, please say in the comments below), but it is truly brilliant as it crystallizes a particular personality that we all know too well.   If Anthony Trollope were alive today, he’d write an entire series on the cuckservative — or at least make him a re-occurring character in novels.

What is the cuckservative?  Well, I’ll paint in broad strokes here to provide a preliminary portrait.  Mind you, only preliminary.  Perhaps commenters can fill in the gaps below.

Very basically, the cuckservative is a white gentile conservative (or libertarian) who thinks he’s promoting his own interests but really isn’t.  In fact, the cuckservative is an extreme universalist and seems often to suffer from ethnomasochism & pathological altruism. In short, a cuckservative is a white (non-Jewish) conservative who isn’t racially aware.

In some ways, the cuckservative is the counterpart of the SJW (social justice warrior), and they are more alike than dissimilar. You often will hear the cuckservative screaming at an SJW about how “the Democrats are the real racists.”

The cuckservative feels very passionate about issues like abortion, which rarely directly affects his own life.  In fact, you might often hear a cuckservative talking about how abortion is “racist” since blacks and mestizos overwhelmingly get more abortions that whites.

On the other hand, the cuckservative feels uncomfortable about issues like immigration.  If the cuckservative is not an outright open-borders shill, he will only give lip service about “securing the border” or “opposing illegal but favoring legal immigration” but he will never talk about immigration very much.  After all, immigration has very serious implications for Western Civilization, so it doesn’t concern the cuckservative.

The cuckservative is often fanatically in favor of transracial adoption.  He sees it as some divine calling.  In a sense, this is cuckoldry at its essence, since these whites are usually forgoing their own inclusive fitness to adopt someone from another race.  As Heartiste notes, they’re race-cucking their own families.

Although the cuckservative is eager to show his PC bona fides by openness to other races, he really doesn’t want to know about other races.  Human biodiversity terrifies the cuckservative, as deep down he has bought into blank-slatism and egalitarianism.  The cuckservative would rather just have a Herman Cain  or Clarence Thomas poster on his wall than actually have to honestly think about race.

The cuckservative, although never Jewish, often seems vicariously to live through Israel.  Since the cuckservative feels that he cannot defend his own ethnic interests, he’ll defend Israel’s.  The cuckservative cares more about Israel’s borders than his own.  Israel adamantly defends its own ethnic interests and perhaps deep down the cuckservative respects this on some unconscious level.

On the other hand, the idea of whites acting as a group to secure their own interests terrifies the cuckservative. If you ever want to troll a cuckservative, just repeatedly use the word “white,”  such as “this isn’t beneficial for the white community.”  The cuckservative will be triggered immediately.

The cuckservative is a fascinating personality.  They’re all around us.  Can they be helped?  Is their condition terminal?  Who knows, but maybe by pointing out their condition they can seek self-improvement.

Updates:

This was only a general sketch — as there are many more nuances of the cuckservative, but I hope this is a good start.  Perhaps others can help fill in the blanks below.

This has been cross-posted at Radix Journal.

Update:  Who coined ‘cuckservative’?  Still not 100% sure, but from what people are saying it was probably MPC, or possibly TRS, with various Twitter accounts like this one popularizing it.

Important:  Roundup of #Cuckservative articles and memes

It’s Official: Conservatism is Dead

If there is one pic that could be put on the obituary of conservatism, it’s this pic of British philosopher Roger Scruton visiting Michaela to talk about philosophy and fox hunting, where he allegedly was met with blank stares and mild ridicule.

Don’t get me wrong.  I respect Scruton and have read the majority of his books.  His writings on conservatism, aesthetics, classical music and modern philosophy are superb.  But this pic symbolizes the changing times.  The 20th century was the century of competing ideas like liberalism and conservatism – which largely took place within white homogenous states.  The 21st century will be the century of ethno-politics.

Starbucks’ #RaceTogether Campaign is Backfiring – Images from Twitter

It seems that Starbucks’ #RaceTogether campaign, where its employees are supposed to talk about racism and make white customers feel bad, is backfiring.  People on Twitter are using this as an opportunity for some #realtalk and race.

Some of my favorite images from Twitter: 

Problems with the “Puritan Thesis” in #NRx

Around the neoreaction spheres, there is a commonly held belief that much of leftist can be attributed to “Puritanism”.  This idea was first popularized by Moldbug and has since been championed by various bloggers, which recently has erupted into a debate (see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.)

While I’m a Moldbug fan and like some of his concepts, I think that Moldbugian critique of progressivism is wrong for a number of reasons.

First, the radicals who have drastically changed Western society over the past 150 years or so have not been Puritans but in fact Ashkenazis:

Marx – undermine traditional European regimes

Freud – legitimizes sexual degeneracy

Franz Boas – popularizes the “race doesn’t exist” meme

Ashley Montagu – also popularizes “race doesn’t exist” meme and makes racism the greatest sin of the West

Adorno and Horkheimer – Cultural Marxism, delegitimize white people

If the Puritan Thesis were correct, then if one subtracts the contributions of Jewish leftists, the trajectory of the West should be comparable to what it is today, but this seems highly unlikely, which means that the Puritan Thesis is too simplistic.

Second, it is true that Puritans have been a little more leftist than other Anglo groups. David Hacket Fischer’s Albion’s Seed well documents the contributions of the four major Anglo folkways in the United States (Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers & Scots-Irish).  While the Puritans are more leftist than the Cavaliers and Scots-Irish, the Quakers might actually be more leftist than Puritans, since the Puritans have vacillated in their causes.  While the Puritans might well have caused the American Civil War (their greatest failing in my opinion), Puritans were also some of the most adamant to demand repatriation of blacks after the Civil War. Furthermore, the greatest president of 20th century, Calvin Coolidge, was of Puritan stock. It was Coolidge who in fact passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited immigration both in numbers and to Europeans.  This type of patriotism would hardly be found among America’s New Elite (the Ashkenazis who have replaced the WASPs in  America’s elite institutions – Yale now is less than 20% WASP). In fact, the New Elite seem overwhelmingly to support open borders (for the West, not Israel), as evidenced by George Soros, Sheldon Adelson and Mark Zuckerberg, to name but a few. Furthermore, it was the early 20th century people of Puritan stock (e.g. Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard) who took Darwinism to its logical conclusion and championed the idea of racial differences, and who were opposed by people like Franz Boas.

Third, many neoreactionaries mean “Puritan” as a shorthand for Protestant (and seem somewhat hostile toward Protestantism, wanting to blame all the West’s problems on Protestantism) but there is no evidence that Protestants today are more leftist than Catholics.  If Protestantism were the cause of modern-day leftism, it seems that modern-day Protestants should be more leftist than Catholics – but they are not.  First, in the United States, the voting patterns of Catholics are considerably more leftist than Protestants.  Second, Catholic countries have a much higher rate of Marxism than Protestant countries (think of mestizos in South and Central America, or even Southern Europe).  Third, and most importantly, outside of Jewish groups, the Catholic Church today supports the Third World immigration invasion of the West more than any other religious organization.  In short, the Catholic Church today is actually calling for the genetic destruction of Western Civilization.   In fact, the Catholic Church is so vehemently in favor of mass non-white immigration that some European traditionalists have recently begun to wonder whether Catholicism is just as big of a threat to Europe as Islam.

Fourth, I wonder whether any of the neoreactionaries championing the Puritan Thesis have ever read Nietzsche, Spengler, Benoist, et al.  If one wants to talk about long-term cladistics, then what you have is not a Puritan problem, but rather a Christian problem.  As Spengler noted, “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”  The Christian idea of the “universal brotherhood of man,” some have maintained, is the fons et origo of all modern-day leftism.  In short, the problem is not with Puritanism per se but with a deeply held Christian mindset, which is much older than Puritanism.   Nonetheless, even if this Christian thesis is correct, it seems highly unlikely that our current trajectory would be the same but for the Jewish leftist movements of the past 150 years.

In conclusion, the origins of modern-day progressivism are complex.  While Christianity (not Puritanism) might be a part of the cause, leftist Jewish intellectual movements certainly are too.  There are probably other causes as well, such as pathological altruism and ethnomasochism.  Instead of committing to a dogmatic ideology (“Puritans and Protestants caused everything bad”), which is something leftists do, it’s better to keep an open mind and realize that the problem is much more complex.

Updates:

R/H/E Notes: Of the top 25 most liberal journalists in the USA, by far more are of Jewish or Catholic ancestry than Puritan 

Robert Wald Sussman’s religious catechism: “race does not exist”

The Cathedral is panicking.  Modern science overwhelmingly shows that not only is race biologically real but it is also correlates with a number of important traits.    Such findings have made the guardians of Politically Correct Thought even more brash and, unfortunately, monotonous in their assertion of  “race is not biologically real.”

Case in point.  Professor of anthropology Robert Wald Sussman (who recently defamed Jared Taylor) published a hit piece in this week in Newsweek, “There Is No Such Thing as Race” (also reprinted at Raw Story), which is an excerpt from Sussman’s new book on why race is not real.  The target of the piece is race, which is not hard to miss, since it’s quite repetitive.  In fact, it’s not really an argument at all but just a broken record.   Sussman early on says his book has not “dwelt upon all of the scientific information that has been gathered” by scientists et al. about race, and then goes on to discuss Hitler, Medieval injustices against Jews, more Hitler, etc.   It’s funny that he cites Franz Boas as a savior of sorts, even though Boas has been thoroughly repudiated as a fraud.   He also engages in numerous logical fallacies, such as the one that since race is clinal it cannot exist (race is not always clinal (e.g. think oceans or mountain ranges) and many things are clinal and still exist).

Back to the repetitiveness.  In my quick reading of the short essay I counted at least 20 variations of the phrase “race does not exist,” often times back to back with another variation of the claim.  Here are samples:

– “race” is not a biological reality

– racial structure is not based on reality

– no biological reality to human race

– myth of race

– racist fallacies

– biological race in humans is nonexistent

– hypothetical “races”

– there are no races

– biological races do not exist

– races do not exist as a biological reality

– race is not a part of our biology

etc

I think you get the point. When I began to focus on how repetitive the excerpt is, it dawned upon me that this is no “essay” but it is a religious catechism for New Creationism, the target audience being the believers (Cultural Marxists), with the hope of picking up a few new converts.   The obvious desperation of the piece leaves two possibilities.  Either the race-denying New Creationists are on their last legs, or soon we’ll have  full-blown Idiocracy.

Updates:

Theden covers this as well.

Robert Wald Sussman

New Creationism

Images of white ethnomasochism & pathological altruism

Here are some images representative of pathological altruism and ethnomasochism among whites.  If you have any more, please reference them in the comments below and I’ll add them.

Whites asking forgiveness for slavery

White woman begging for forgiveness for slavery

 

Christians praying for the Third World immigration invasion of the USA

 

Are Jews natural race realists?

The question whether Jews are natural race realists might seem odd to some considering that Jews, since the 1950s, have been at the forefront of promoting the “race is a social construct” myth.  In fact, Jews today, following the lead of people like Franz Boas and Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu), have almost single-handedly transformed the social sciences away from Darwinian models toward black-slatist / race-does-not-exist models.

But things were not always this way.  Prior to WWII, Jews (and by ‘Jews’ I mean mostly Ashkenazis) were some of the most adamant race realists.   Mitchell B. Hart’s 2011 book by Brandeis University Press, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880 – 1940 (reviewed here), shows that Jews, prior to WWII, overwhelmingly believed in the reality and importance of racial differences.  Even Franz Boas, who later would promote the “race is a social construct” myth, early on believed in the hardwired reality of racial differences.

So what happened?  In short, WWII happened, whereafter Jews decided race realism was bad for Jews and began to promote race denialism.  Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu) and others even muscled the United Nations into declaring that race isn’t biologically real.

But things aren’t so simple.   Although Jews today prescribe race denialism for the West, in Israel they are the ultimate race realists and ethno-nationalists.  For instance, not only do Israelis deport and sterilize African immigrants, but they also practice eugenics (in the form of genetic testing of potential mates to avoid hereditary disease).  And such a double-standard is the norm among American academics, where anthropologists like Jonathan Marks & Alan Goodman stir up lynch mobs against goys (such as Nicholas Wade) who argue for the general truth of human biodiversity, but they themselves are rather silent on Israel.

Although the acknowledgement of this double-standard  a decade ago was limited to the fringes, awareness is becoming more mainstream.   For instance, Ann Coulter recently wrote a syndicated op-ed criticizing the casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson for supporting tough immigration laws for Israel but open-borders and amnesty for the USA.  And there are hundreds of similar blog posts floating around the web.  Twitter is awash with tweets about Israeli ethno-nationalism.  Even this week there was a protest in Israel against African immigration, where the Israelis were chanting, “Niggers, go home!,” which gained a lot of attention on Twitter.

My guess is that Jews naturally believe in HBD and naturally are very ethnocentric, but are terrified at the idea of white gentiles believing in HBD and being ethnocentric.  But what is important here is the “natural inclination”.  If race realism is the natural inclination of Ashkenazis and post-WWII race denialism an aberration, will Jews come back around?  Will the adamant ethno-nationalism of Israel force them to once again publicly acknowledge race realism?

Perhaps for some.  Others might just go ahead and deny race realism for and denounce Israel.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens.

Predictions?

Are Republicans retarded? #CPAC

When listening to some of the rhetoric coming out of CPAC this year (see twitter feeds of VDare and Richard Spencer for highlights), I can’t help but wonder whether many Republicans are simple.  I mean, do Republicans *really* want to invest money in trying to win Detroit?   Did a Republican speaker actually say that immigration restriction is bad because it raises wages?  These people should be forced to live in Haiti for a year.

This much I know.  When it comes to the policies governing big, multiracial cities, the policies of the Democrats, as flawed as they may be, are generally better than the proposals put forward by Republicans.

For instance, in the big multiracial cities I’ve lived (all run by Democrat machines), Democrat leaders typically ward off all the blacks and mestizos into subsidized projects, give them some free handouts to calm them, and try their best to get them into family planning.   Democrat machines also oppose school vouchers / school choice, which keeps all the blacks and mestizos in the public schools.

Now, here’s what the Republicans want to do:  get rid of the walled-off subsidized housing, which means more violent blacks and mestizos will move to white areas.  Republicans are generally opposed to subsidized family planning (which means blacks and mestizos will reproduce more).  And Republicans support “school vouchers” so that low-IQ blacks and mestizos can attend largely white private schools (almost guaranteeing the destruction of private schools).

Let’s all pray for the destruction of the Republican Party.

How will the Cathedral deal with Nicholas Wade’s new book?

As many of you already know, the NY Times science editor Nicholas Wade is coming out with a new book this May: A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. From Amazon’s book description:

Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory.

Inconveniently, as Nicholas Wade argues in A Troublesome Inheritance, the consensus view cannot be right. And in fact, we know that populations have changed in the past few thousand years—to be lactose tolerant, for example, and to survive at high altitudes. Race is not a bright-line distinction; by definition it means that the more human populations are kept apart, the more they evolve their own distinct traits under the selective pressure known as Darwinian evolution. For many thousands of years, most human populations stayed where they were and grew distinct, not just in outward appearance but in deeper senses as well.

Advanced copies of the book have already been sent out, and quite a bit of commotion is beginning to build.

Given Wade’s popularity in scientific journalism and that fact that his previous books (e.g. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors) have been best-sellers, how will the Cathedral deal with this book? What strategies will the Cathedral utilize to address it?

I’ve been thinking about this question and I see five options:

A.  Try to criticize the actual arguments of the book and discredit them.  A few might try unsuccessfully to do this, but given the fact that the evidence for human biodiversity is becoming overwhelming, I doubt many will even try.

B.  Try to ignore the book.  The Cathedral is able to do this for lesser-known authors, but Wade is fairly mainstream and widely read.  This strategy will probably prove futile.

C.  Point and sputter “racist,” etc.  I’m sure many journalists will utilize this tactic.  Who knows, maybe some journalist will discover that Wade once stayed at the same hotel as some politically incorrect figure, and by association of whom journalists will attempt to smear Wade.   They’ll grasp for whatever straws they can find.

D.  As Gregory Clark recently advised, the Cathedral could admit there is genetic inequality and instead of focusing on inequality focus on poverty. The initial shock of publicly admitting HBD is real would be great, as it would invalidate all the lies told over the past 75 years, but people would get over it and the Cathedral could shift gears and find other justifications for its pet projects.  Nonetheless, I don’t see the Cathedral taking this route, as any acknowledgement of HBD would undermine its legitimacy.

E.  Be honest, admit HBD is true, and let the chips fall where they may. Yea right!

My prediction?

Except for E, probably a little of all the above, but mostly C, I predict.

Your thoughts?

Related:

Roundup of Book Reviews of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance

“Darwinism is Racist”: Creationists Attack John Derbyshire

As recently reported by Raw Story, the creationist Discovery Institute has released a new documentary attacking Darwinism because, among other reasons, “it’s racist”.  (It seems that “racism” has become the summum malum of deadly sins that trumps all others).  As an exhibit of the “evils of Darwinism,” the documentary displays none other than John Derbyshire.  Story and video here.  If you want more amusement, here’s an earlier video denouncing the “racism of evolution”.

Apparently reality is just too much to bear for some people.   I suspect that as Christianity becomes more and more of a Third World religion demographically, we’ll see more of this.  For a taste, see here.

Other recent  and ridiculous developments in Christianity:

The “conservative” ERLC (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) is now releasing Cultural Marxist agitprop like this. And don’t forget to watch this video.  And why produce white babies, when you can adopt non-whites?

Pope Francis has essentially sided with the hordes of African and Mestizo invaders  against Europeans and Diaspora Europeans.  My prediction:  Pope Benedict will be the last European Pope and Pope Francis the last Diaspora European Pope as Catholicism transforms into a Global South, non-Western religion.

The Cathedral meets the Cathedral.

Related:

“Why the religious should reject Intelligent Design”

Good News for Western Religion: “Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“

Hetero HIV surge in UK due to white women having sex with black men

Apparently, there’s a heterosexual HIV surge in the UK due to white women having sex with black men.  Healthy Living reports:

So why a sudden increase in HIV prevalence amongst white British heterosexuals? The vast majority of heterosexual women diagnosed with HIV in the UK are infected abroad and David Sykes of HIVNow UK believes it is largely due to female sex tourism “The numbers of western women travelling to lesser developed countries to have sex with the local men has risen dramatically in the past few years.”

“Unfortunately the most popular sex tourist destinations appear to be areas with severe HIV AIDS issues” he continues “These women have unprotected sex with men in Africa then come home and give it to their husbands.”

“I came across a case recently where a married man and woman were both infected by HIV along with their two young children. Upon investigation it was revealed the woman had taken part in a humanitarian trip eight years earlier in sub Saharan Africa, having unprotected vaginal and anal sex with local men – infecting her husband a year later then subsequently infecting her two children through breast feeding.”

Popular female sex tourism destinations include the Caribbean, particularly Barbados and Jamaica and African countries such as Gambia, Senegal and Kenya.

In other news, the Catholic Church is beating the drums for the Third World invasion of the West.   As we’ve noted here already (“As Christianity Becomes a Ghetto religion,” “Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?” and “Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“), contemporary Christianity is at war with the West.

Related:

“Benefits of Hybrid Vigor Overstated“

Unamusement Park: “Perils of Miscegenation“

Chateau Heartiste: “The Truth about Mixed-Race Couples“

A.J. Fisher: “Biological Problems with Mixed-Race Relationships“