Ian Jobling has become lost to our movement. Even while in it, he was irksome to many.
=Excerpt Occidental Dissent
H/T White Reference
If you remember this guy, he used to run “Inverted World” and “White America.” I sparred with him quite often. He used to defend the Iraq War and post absurd articles that invoked John Rawls to justify racialism.
Update: Auster on Jobling.
- Blogs are low status.
- If you blog too much it hurts your sales of whatever you sell.
- Too big a blog and people read your blog instead of purchasing what you sell.
- People will read your blog, like what they read and have contempt for you for providing it for free. They will then pay money for a book they don’t like, don’t agree with and from someone they consider an enemy. This is how they are programmed. They can’t behave differently.
- This is how people react, it does not matter how they should react.
- Jobling’s writing was too good for a blog. He was too good a writer and took too much care with his writing and self editing for it to be acceptable for him to provide that for free.
- Thus the very quality of his writing and self editing made people despise him even as they read everything he wrote, thought it was well written, and agreed with him. They are status driven and can’t react differently.
- Our movement can’t support people financially.
- People get desperate and offer for free what they should charge for, their time and the product of their time.
- The inconsistencies and unfairness of this built up for Jobling until he could not handle it any more and quit. He then turned on us for doing this to him, even though as status monkeys we are incapable of doing otherwise.
- We lack a monetized network where we can sell to each other for good value and support each other.
- Blog less.
- Write e-books.
- Write physical books as well. These have more status than e-books.
- Don’t expect people to behave different than their programming.
- People are status monkeys incapable of behaving otherwise. If you expect them to, you are the one making the mistake.
- Work at whatever makes money for you.
- Sell your books, services, etc. by giving talks and the traditional methods.
- Charge what you are worth. This applies to books, lectures, services, etc. If you don’t charge enough, you won’t work hard enough selling it.
- Price what you create high enough to pay for everyone who would normally contribute to it, even if that person is you.
- Boost others to sell their product, services, books, consulting, etc.
- Acquire skills and credentials that let you sell.
- Charge the market rate.
- Do an extra good job.
- Network among our people.
- Do an extra good job for them.
- Don’t give up when others let you down.
- We are in a downward spiral because of the external forces on us. The math of immigration is replacement math. We are feeling this. Rise to the challenge.
- Exercise, cut back on alcohol. Cut back on caffeine after noon. Sleep well.
- Invest back into the network of our people. Use their services and products and if good recommend them in person and on Amazon, or Yelp or whatever is appropriate.
- Save money. Spend your money on the products and services of those in the movement.
- Do a little to fight your tendency to disdain or fight others in our movement because of your status programming.
- We need real networking, commerce, monetized interactions and the patience of Job.
The reality of low wages, low employment to population ratios for men, intermittent employment, financial instability, damaged marriages that result, and the ramifications are piling up.
The provident Whites have fewer children. The improvident non-Whites will stop having children when the government collapses financially. This has to happen because the Wright Island Model implies mathematically complete replacement of every gene of every person of every race and every mixed person. Every gene line goes extinct. As this happens, bad behavior will increase. But it can’t be stopped until immigration is stopped, whatever the racial composition of the immigration. This is math.
Note also that Hunter Wallace and Occidental Dissent are not anti-Semitic and that it is inappropriate to label them that way. It is legitimate to discuss each group and their interactions with others in a multigroup situation. This means the grievances of one group can’t be dismissed with a special name as not valid and indicating of mental illness or of deviance that takes them beyond the pale.
The same applies to Kevin MacDonald’s work, which is legitimate scientific work. One can disagree or not with it, but to label it with a special name as deviant is not appropriate. It has to be met with on the basis of facts and arguments not designating it as beyond the pale and leaving off. This is what SPLC specializes in as a method and in fact all Liberal thought control elements do that. They don’t admit evidence or rational debate.
Labeling systematic analysis of one group in a multigroup game as deviant by a player is not scientific, but it is a move within game theory to gain advantage. Thus such a play itself is evidence of a type of move in a multi-group game. That type of move can be studied and doing so is legitimate. When that study is then labeled as deviant by a player in the game, that is simply part of the game and thus part of the study.
In multiple move games, behavior over time is the basis of moves and strategies by players. So if one player or group consistently favors its own or harms another particular group, then game theory implies that the target will analyze this, publish it to its own group, and impose costs and sanctions on the group or individual doing this to them. It then goes back and forth. This is game theory and to label it as deviant is just a move, not science or reason.
Moreover, game theory implies that the target group would react more to such a move of labeling them as deviant to notice and respond to bad behavior directed at them systematically from one group. Thus Kevin MacDonald’s work is the rational response within the game from the target group. So are bloggers who notice and point this out.
Those who want to dispute Darwin or evolution should also have a greater tolerance for the scientific views of others.
The voting pattern of Jewish senators for affirmative action and immigration is sufficient basis to conclude that the Jewish group player in the game is acting to reduce Whites to a minority. This is an adverse event for Whites. This opens the door for systematic study by Kevin MacDonald or bloggers.
Jewish humor against Whites is also systematic and documented. So this is sufficient to allow Whites to study this as a game move and to respond with their own humor as a game move.
Moreover, Jews by their immigration policy and affirmative action policy have increased Diversity and thus group solidarity and conflict. They know by their history that this is what happens when that happens. So it is part of the game to study it and to respond to it. That includes with the literary and other arts, which Jews use against Whites.
Game theory and evolution are linked subjects and obviously link to genetic based group differences. It is therefore a valid part of studying evolution to study conflict between groups which can be distinguished in terms of genetics, whether current or lineage.
Not to defend the above is to fold on scientific method, the right to have our own literary works which express our group experience and point of view, and to participate in the game for our group. In the evolutionary game, such a disarmament would imply group extinction for Whites. Free speech is a mechanism for group survival and we should not give it up without being defeated totally. This includes scientific and literary work that express our experience, our conflict with a specific group, and that group’s own literary and labeling efforts against us.
Moreover, a demand from a group we do that would itself be evidence of that group’s intention that we go extinct as a group. Actions by that group to carry out sanctions on Whites for expressing our group experience and point of view in conflict with that group would also be evidence of intention. This is what Kevin MacDonald and others do.
The fact that we have to keep coming back to our group’s right to notice and comment on the hostility of another group towards us is itself evidence of a problem and systematic moves by the other group against us. Since when is noticing obvious harm inflicted on us such as Senate voting patterns for affirmative action and immigration a sign of mental deviance or of improper behavior? Game theory says we should notice it. So does evolution. So does common sense.
The Declaration of Independence was not a declaration not to notice systematic harm or abuse directed our way by another group. It was the contrary. Moreover, the DofI says where such conflict is sustained and systematic such as in Senate voting patterns on immigration, separation is the correct solution. This is our founding document as a country. So we can invoke it to justify our own response today.
Moreover, reducing us to a minority is part of reducing us to an absolute despotism, and certainly a relatively greater despotism than in 1776. This has in fact already happened and is growing worse. Thus we can resort to the arguments and remedies of the Declaration of Independence.
Are game theory and evolution, at least when applied to humans, to be thought crimes because one group sees them as adverse to their strategy and tactics? Can they be labeled as deviant with a special word for that? Can they be labeled as deviant when applied to one group to analyze it, but as non-deviant when applied in the same way to another group to analyze it?
Isn’t this evidence of a strategy by the group in question? A strategy adverse to the target group? And if maintained over time and by different individuals of that group, then it is a group strategy and even a group strategy? This is the Culture of One Way Critique? What you do is bad based on science, but what we do you can’t talk about. Is this not a strategy and an adverse one to the target group? So the target can analyze it and notice it and discuss it and develop a strategy to take account of it. Separation is the obvious strategy that comes to mind. Whether separation by country club, office, and school or by country this is the indicated solution.
Dispossession of White Christians from Harvard is an example of how they lost in this group struggle. It is an example of adverse action by the other group to dispossess us. We can notice it and analyze it. Kevin MacDonald or bloggers have every right to. Moreover, to receive funding in grants to do so.
Trying to label him as deviant or this work as deviant to deny funding is a move in the game and we can analyze it and receive funding to do so.