i like this:
“I realize that one can identify the four primary political-‘phenotypes’ that are aware of, alarmed by, and trying to stop the impending demographic disaster(s) in European-derived societies. One sees the problem, one can react to it or ignore it. If one reacts, one can express his/her reaction in one of four ways:
“(1) Religion: Islamocentrists, ala Gates-of-Vienna. This group sees the problems facing European-Mankind as emanating from Islam, and tends to support Israel’s right to its ethnostate with a fervor they would never dream of applying to their own nations.
“(2) Race: White-Racialists, ala Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent. The ‘voelkisch’ position, that was mainstream just a few decades ago. Today, of course, this group is forever demonized, and attracts much clownery both for and clownery against (see background in photo), but ultimately it identifies the problem correctly.
“(3) Culture: ‘If only they would assimilate!’ is the common battle-cry here. The aracial wing of the Paleoconservatives (racialized Paleoconservatives would be #2 by default) and the less-rabidly-Zionist wing of the Neoconservatives (I assume such a thing exists, or could exist). This is the group that is deeply concerned about illegal immigration, but as often as not tends to favor(!) legal immigration. Ultimately foolish and cowardly. Derided as ‘fail-eocons’ with justification. Paul Craig Roberts, in his more-recent writings, is the epitome of this, to my eyes.
“(4) Tribe: In honor of HBDC’s work in this field, one could attribute this label to a single-word description of the HBD movement. It is notable, in part, for including many more Jews than #1, #2, or #3 (another good reason for using the word ‘tribe’). HBDers are ostensibly apolitical. It’s unclear what, if any, political program HBDists have in common: While many gentile-HBDers are clearly sympathizers with group #2, Others, like Charles Murrary and John Derbyshire, have mixed-race children. Another subgrouping of #4 tends towards misanthropy, and there is overlap there with the sexual-oriented degenerates (‘game’) that are usually completely nihilistic on civilizational questions.
“#3 is the default respectable position, including right-wing US-Republicans. Some of the more marginal Republicans draw from the #1 ‘well’ a bit, e.g. Bachmann. Pretty much no one in the mainstream touches #4, and anyone who does not violently-attack #2 as Evil (capital-e) tends to be attacked themselves.”
i don’t agree fully with hail’s categories here, but it’s definitely a very good summation on the whole. one point where i disagree is that i think that there might be a bit of overlap between groups 2 and 4 — at least there is in the case of moi.
my p.o.v. on this is that, yes, which race(s) is/are present in a society is obviously an important question to be answered when trying to figure out why said society works or doesn’t; but more important is simply to realize that different individuals/populations (based on gene frequencies, etc., etc.) will naturally have slightly to very differing self-interests (not to mention capabilities) and, therefore, will often be in conflict with one another. this can range from individual nuclear family members to entire races. it’s just biology, that’s all. in many respects, group 2 should just be a part of group 4.
i know that there are many group 2 reactionaries that focus solely on race, and that’s ok. personally, i think they’re a bit misguided, but they’re much more grounded in reality than reactionary groups 1 or 3! those people are simply lost-in-space ’cause they either haven’t thought about, or are in complete denial about, the biological underpinnings of human behavior. without trying to work out those, you’ll just be completely lost.
i’m not sure that hail’s assessment that there are more jews involved in the hbd-o-sphere than the other groups is correct, either. my impression is that there are a lot of jews involved in the anti-jihad movement (group #1), for instance — but i’ve never done a count of the number of jews in any of these groups, so — i dunno.
i think hbders tend to be broadly conservative, donchathink? it’s awfully hard to believe in some sort of whacky socialism or libertarianism if you “get” human biodiversity. i mean, how could you? i, myself, am (if you haven’t already guessed) very conservative when it comes to things like immigration and economics and sh*t. but i’m pretty liberal when it comes to some social things — like i don’t care if people are gay and i, personally, wouldn’t care if gays married, although i think it’s not a good idea for society. otoh, i’m tired of all-gay-all-the-time wherever i turn. can’t you just be gay and shut up about it? i also don’t care if people marry other people from other races. however, i think everyone ought to be properly informed about human biodiversity before they do decide to marry someone not from their own group (race, ethnicity, you name it).
i’m not a nihilist — mostly. on some days i do admit that i want to throw up my hands in despair and give up. only on some days. on most days i am quite misanthropic, tho — my charming, light-hearted online personality is just a front. (~_^)
previously: the four horsemen
(note: comments do not require an email. in the navy!)