
Taking this stance has put me in the firing line from
many directions. Why? Because identity politics incites the most primitive
urges in humanity in times of moral crisis, and attracts a great deal of
damaged individuals desperate to belong, or dominate others. But it’s not just
the usual suspects who take issue with my opposition to identity politics;
feminists and MGTOW, or cultural Marxists of one stripe or other. It seems that
over time I’ve attracted the viewership and subscriptions of fascists, and by
fascist I mean consequentialists who believe that race is the basis for
enacting identity politics through state coercion. I’ve never expressed any
values that would align with such beliefs, but what I have done is criticise
cultural Marxism rather a lot, and fascists hate cultural Marxists for diluting
race and nationalism. Obviously this has led to a lot of assumptions about my
reasons for disliking cultural Marxism, which have nothing to do with the
elevation of racial identity politics.
When I recently made a video describing how
libertarianism is a philosophy based on negative liberty, and thus is totally
incompatible with any form of positive liberty, whether it’s race based or some
form of totalitarian model of state control over natural rights, this led to
uproar from fascists who originally attracted to my channel for my criticism of
cultural Marxism. Fascists, like cultural Marxists, spend a lot of time
revising terminology and definitions so that they can then present themselves
as arbiters of freedom. Both fascists and cultural Marxists try to co-opt the
libertarian label in equal measure, and even as far back as World War Two
Friedrich Hayek covered this in the Road to Serfdom, addressing how this was a
common tactic even then. So this is nothing new; if a label has positive
ramifications in the mind of the public, totalitarians will try to co-opt that label
for their own nefarious purposes, whatever ideological brand they might be.
One example of someone hiding behind such euphemisms and
doublespeak is Martin Willett. I was once a subscriber to his channel, and
carefully listened to his ideas on eugenics with an open mind. But I have
concluded that he is a pseudo-intellectual of the worst kind, and has nothing to
offer but the same old tired arguments that fascists used to justify scientific
racism in the past. It’s worth noting that, just like other leftists (and
fascists are leftists) they detest any distinctions that can be used to tie them
down. Thus associating someone like Martin with fascism will always be met with
similar deflections that Marxists use – conspiracy theory ad hominems or the
dismissal of the very validity of the word Marxist, fascist, or communist, for
example.
Willett takes old fascist ideas and tries to present them
as new, which is sometimes called neo-fascism. Sometimes there is a new spin,
but none-the-less these ideas are thematically the same at their core. It’s the
same sort of strategy as cultural Marxists, who are in fact neo-Marxists – who
present old Marxist ideas with a new twist.
My disagreement with Willett came about when he became
outraged by my video “Libertarianism & Immigration”. To summarise, this
video explains that while there is nothing wrong with race based freedom of
association on private property it is illegitimate to use the power of the
state to subvert other people’s property for any reason, let alone race. Only
individuals can decide what to do with their property. It is only when the
individual is harming others that rights can be bypassed, and it is certainly not
grounds to do so if people of different races are freely associating with one
another.
You will notice that this video has a lot of down votes
compared to others. As well as enduring a video response from Martin Willett to
incite his own followers to attack the video in question, I also had to deal
with sock accounts (people using several accounts to vote and comment multiple
times). Martin Willett initially suggested that I was being presumptive to
suggest these were in use, though each time he was blocked he came back onto my
channel with a new account, and this occurred several times. This is reflective
of the disingenuous nature of Willett throughout our interaction during this
exchange.
Martin’s main issue with the video he took such offence
with was the idea that haemophilia is sometimes linked to small reproductive
circles, otherwise known as inbreeding. What this resulted in, after he
finally realised that he was not going to be able to troll my channel with reams
of eugenics propaganda and misrepresentations of my arguments, was a video in which
he repeated the same old denial that his fragile ego cannot accept; that haemophilia
is exacerbated by inbreeding, but is not created purely by inbreeding itself. While
certain strains of haemophilia are less likely to occur under the conditions of
inbreeding, male carriers of certain rare strains of the disease can have it
pass onto female children when haemophiliac men marry their cousins.
Whatever the case, Martin’s entire premise is a red
herring given that his predominant argument denies that there are any significant
genetic disorders linked with inbreeding. This is categorically false. Small
genetic circles most certainly do aggravate genetic disorders, increasing the odds
of them being active in offspring. Denying this is the mark of someone totally
disconnected from scientific reality, or at the very least completely invested
in ideological cognitive dissonance.
Martin’s views become all the more bizarre when he
ranting about pedigree dog breeding, using this to indirectly defend, of all
things, human inbreeding. Whatever ones ethical perspective regarding the ethics
of pedigree dog breeding it can lead to
a great deal of health issues for the dogs born of this process, such as
King Charles Spaniels suffering from syringomyelia, or boxer breeds with with
high rates of heart disease and cancer. The 2008 BBC programme “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” not only highlighted the great many dangers surrounding pedigree
dog breeding, but also the link to the eugenics movement of the 20th
century. Like this movement, pedigree dog breeding is a high risk reproductive strategy
with cruel ramifications, and to translate dog breeding to human breeding at
any level is abhorrent, not to mention very troubling given that this is such a
dehumanising juxtaposition.
The real bee in the bonnet of eugenicists like Willett is
the fact that genetic diversity is the key to a healthy process of reproduction,
and there is little to be gained from obsessing over minor racial features to
the detriment of a wider genetic gene pool, while there is a lot at risk if this
is disregarded. The advantages of genetic diversity are set out in the theory
of heterosis, also known as hybrid vigour - naturally this theory is
despised by racial purists. Though great care must be made to remain within the
parameters of the gene pool of a particular species, as opposed to cross
species interbreeding, this does not mean that restricting reproductive interaction
to a subspecies, to small populations, or worse - relatives, just to realise a
certain eugenics vision or bloodline, is a wise reproductive strategy. Conversely
cross species interbreeding comes with its own risks, such as the pairing of a
horse and donkey producing a mule that, while being hardy animals, cannot reproduce.
Rather than human beings playing god, far better to allow
evolution to deal with the probability of positive mutation, than the flawed
hand of man taking charge, having shown time and again that this much power is
far too much for any human to handle.
Nature is its own free market - let it do its work.
No comments:
Post a Comment