Fighting Back

One of the basic errors the so-called conservatives made when dealing with their Progressive betters is to assume the Left has a rational plan. The Buckleyites always started from the assumption that there was some logical plan behind the liberal schemes, so they spent a lot of time to trying to abductively arrive at the motivation. The Right spent most of their time making well reasoned arguments against what they assumed was the true motivation of the Left. The result was the Left won every battle in the culture war.

This post from an English professor at Emory University about the logical ends of diversity is a rare example of someone noticing the flaw in this approach. He starts by doing what no one on the conventional Right dares, and that is admit defeat.

Conservatives, libertarians, traditionalists, and classical liberals need to get clear on something: the ideological contests are fading. What Irving Kristol famously said in his 2001 Bradley Lecture, “We in America fought a culture war, and we [conservatives] lost,” applies well to higher education. Conservatives fought wars over multiculturalism, Western Civilization, affirmative action, the Academic Bill of Rights, and political bias in hiring, and we lost every time. The educators have no reason to debate ideas, much less ideology. None of those old issues are up for discussion.

(It should be said that Kristol noted that conservatives still had some influence in one theater of American life, religion, but that exemption is irrelevant to the 21st-century campus.)

You can tell ideology is a settled matter by the way in which faculty and administrators handle the core terms—diversity, inclusion. No moral or conceptual examination of those terms ever takes place. Liberals and leftists mouth them without even pondering what they mean save for the simple-minded aspiration of “more women in science” or “more blacks among the leadership.” The only rejoinder conservatives have is, “What about the diversity of thought and opinion?” to which the educators respond, “Oh, yes, that’s good, too,” then proceed on what they were thinking before. When it comes to diversity, everyone’s a bureaucrat.

He then points out the inherent irrationality of the diversity rackets, at least on the college campus.

Now, diversity means just that: getting more underrepresented people in place. That’s all. The campus managers don’t think about what will happen then. Diversity among the personnel—that is, more proportionate representation of all “underserved” identities—is an end in itself. If you asked a dean what diversity is for, what purpose it serves, he wouldn’t have an immediate answer. He spends so much time in a habitat of tautology (“diversity is good for . . . diversity”) that the very question stumps him until he remembers blather from the Old Times about diverse perspectives and educational benefits and repeats it like a ventriloquist’s dummy. But don’t try pressing him on it. He doesn’t want to talk about it. The self-evident good of diversity has long been established, and he clings to it like a Catholic does his rosary.

The professor does not have the courage to point out the obvious. Replacing capable white people in college positions with non-whites, reduces the quality of the staff. It is not so obvious in the humanities or social sciences, where much of the work has been nonsense for a long time. In the STEM fields, it is a recipe for disaster. Any effort to scale up the diversity rackets popular on campus, to society as a whole, is a recipe for rolling back a millennium of human progress. Without white men, there is no modern world.

At the end, the professor suggests an answer whites should use when asked by a white interviewer about diversity. It’s good advice, only if you know going in you will not be selected because you are white. It would be fun to point out to the diversity spewing white person that the best thing they can do for diversity is quit their job. It is, however, an example of that old habit of the Right. The professor thinks such a “gotcha” response will result in the great Progressive awakening, when the blindfold will drop from Lefty’s eyes.

It is why the Left in America went from one victory to the next in the culture war. They never faced an adversary willing to fight them on their own terms. The American Left has always been a spiritual movement. Talking a lefty believer out of their beliefs is as rational as talking a Muslim out of his faith. No one ever argues that the solution to violent Islam is a well reasoned argument with facts and examples. Even the dullest American understands that this is not how religions work. By definition, faith is not about facts.

American Progressivism grew out of the Puritanism associated with the founding stock of New England. Reform movements of the 19th century all had their roots in New England Christianity. Just read the writings of abolitionists and the Christian foundation is plainly obvious. Then in the 20th century, as Norman Podhoretz explained, Jewish intellectuals embraced Progressivism as their religion. The Left lost its Christianity, but it remained a spiritual movement that became more intense, more exotic and esoteric.

It is an important lesson to learn from the failure of the American Right, in their 20th century fight with the Left. They lost because they never understood the enemy. They invested all of their time conjuring an enemy they could beat with facts and reason, while the Left went about destroying the enemies they had in their path. It’s not a mistake that a new alternative can afford to make. You don’t beat a moral order with reason. You defeat it by attacking it on moral grounds, while offering an alternative moral framework.

131 thoughts on “Fighting Back

  1. Strange, isn’t is, that with the constant talk of needing more women in STEM and in sports, we did not hear anyone asking why no women were among the divers who rescued the Thai boys? Are women being discouraged from becoming world-class divers? Are the schools not pushing this activity enough for women? Is there an inherent bias when choosing who will go into caves to rescue young boys? What is the problem here? We must work on this immediately.

    P.S. After that, we can work on the problem of transgender males taking part in women’s sports and knocking them out of competition.

    • I also notice a distinct absence of calls for more women in the fields of garbage collection and sewer maintenance. These essential functions are almost entirely male. Why do we tolerate such patriarchal chauvinism in these fields?

  2. By definition, faith is not about facts.

    Not sure what you mean about that. Faith is about facts – it is believing the truth of certain factual claims (e.g., Christ rose from the dead; 2+2=4; a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same manner). Having “faith” in those facts means you have either accepted an authority/witness to those facts, have arrived at those facts through “faith” in your own reasoning ability, or have arrived at those facts through “faith” in your observations of it. It can be true that your faith about a certain fact is misplaced through a defect in the authority, reasoning, experimentation or observation, in which case your faith in that fact may not correspond to the reality of the fact.

  3. Actually it’s reached a point where the only way to defeat it is to kill every last one of the bastards.

  4. This is a great post. I think that one of the fundamental flaws of the Right was in assuming that the Left were simply misinformed and that they could argue a leftist out of their errant ways.

    “No one ever argues that the solution to violent Islam is a well reasoned argument with facts and examples.”


    Yet how has this situation come about. I think there is this huge flaw in Western Political culture which tends to impute rationality towards political actors when, empirically, this is demonstrably false. Yet, the American Political tradition, particularly, upholds this view as an article of faith and it is something upheld by the conservative “Right”.

    I think it’s really important to start thinking really hard about what it means to be Right. American “conservatism” is unique in that it is a conservatism which supports a liberal conception of man and therefore “Americanism” undercuts a lot of basic stuff that the traditional “European” right took for granted. Part of the reason that we’ve been so useless against the Left is that our Right keeps furthering their ideals. And I’m not talking about the Neocons here. I talking about the good old Paleocon Right.

  5. The reason for the hysterical, bug-eyed, unglued response to Donald Trump from the Western left is due I believe to the fact that he heralds the coming of an effective fightback against them, something they have not had to cope with or even contemplate since at least the 1930’s or maybe even longer. They’re lashing out dementedly at everyone and everything (even each other) because, frankly, they’re scared.

    We would do well to bear in mind that, while all seems hopeless to some, we have actually never been so well placed to defeat them.

  6. Diversity? Clarence Thomas is a great Jurist, not because he is black, but because he is intelligent an remains loyal to his oath to defend the Constitution. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an atrocious jurist, in spite of her diverse femininity, Jewishness, and ACLU background, because she had no intention of complying with the oath when she took it, or since. The “Right” could do worse than build their defense on that ancient document and insist on the debate beginning there.

  7. “You don’t beat a moral order with reason. You defeat it by attacking it on moral grounds, while offering an alternative moral framework.”

    We have too few weapons Mr. Z, to do this. The left controls the university and the media. Am I to present this “moral framework” to Rush Limbaugh?

    William James. Talked about the moral equivalent of war. Sad to say, but we may need war equivalent to morality. Time is short. It’s looking like it will take mayhem to change minds.

  8. How do religions start? As cults
    What was Puritanism?
    A cult.
    What we need is “True Believers”
    thats what the Alt-Rite is becoming, people who know the Gospels and scriptures of the Right, the know it, so much that it is the Only way forward.
    A mass movement of fervent believers who have right and truth on their side.

  9. Here’s the thing: we have no one to blame for the mess we’re in but ourselves. When all this nonsense in the schools and in the public square started, we didn’t vote, we didn’t get elected to school boards to stop this nonsense, we didn’t join, let alone get active in the PTA. Hell, only 58% of those eligible voted in 2016. And only 65% of the whites voted in 2016. We were too busy, making money, watching sportsball, etc. I talk to a bunch of old timers like me, and every one will admit to not voting more than they have voted. Hell, I took a crew of 8 white male pipefitters to the polls in ’08 to vote against Obama. These guys were all in their 30’s & 40’s and every one a family man. We got to the polls and not a one of ’em was even registered to vote!
    See, we can’t be bothered to due our civic duty, to exercise our franchise. And look at the whirlwind we wrought upon ourselves with our very own laziness. All this talk about a civil war? Won’t happen if the NFL is playing that day.

    • ” every one will admit to not voting more than they have voted.”

      How can you admit to voting more than you have voted?

  10. The Right imagines the fight as The Longest Day, but it is more like Starship Troopers.

  11. There really isn’t any difference between the parties on important issues. What we get is kabuki theater. Prior to Trump winning both side promoted amnesty, TPP-globalization, off-shoring of jobs, industry, keeping the welfare-police state going. Both sides actively colluded to deny the presidency to Trump.

    Remember the Sea Island meeting?

    Even today both sides have no issue with Silicon Valley censoring and invading people’s privacy to the point that it makes Orwell’s 1984 seem limited by comparison. Both have no problem turning college grads into debt serfs and letting a out of control medical industry a**-rape us, or let China dump massive amounts of Fentynl into the U.S.

    Congress could have easily impeached Sessions and Rosenstein, but they never did because they don’t care. All their investigations are for show. Benghazi, Uranium One, Fast and Furious, etc. All a joke.

    I could go on, but the point the conservatives/GOP never had any intention of representing us, they just represented themselves and their paymasters.

    • …except that one party has the Freedom Caucus, the few in congress who are trustworthy and put America first.

  12. Z: “The professor does not have the courage to point out the obvious.” That’s pretty strong. If he does that, he’ll likely be harassed by a mob in his classroom, lose his job, and not be rehired by another university. He writes under a public identity. He has put a real name to his real face.

  13. The left’s homicidal morality is no more up for debate than their intellectual tautologies. The appropriate response is and can only be political subversion of the left from the left and political confrontation of the left from as close to the center as possible. A new morality will follow on the heels of these actions. Not because of any delineated system the right has to offer, but because the alternative is having no future.

    • “political confrontation of the left from as close to the center as possible”. “A new morality will follow on the heels of these actions.”
      Maybe so, but getting “close to the center” may be helped much by affecting what constitutes the center, and arguing in moral terms may well affect what constitutes the center.

      Such a moral argument (vs. “diversity”) could be:
      “Forcing feeding to us this diversity is to demand, that we TRUST people whose conduct has utterly lost our trust. We were ASSURED that Obama meant us well, but now we know that he was quite tight with Farrakhan, who has long been famous for hating our guts (see ).
      As if trust in Trump wouldn’t be gravely damaged, by a pix of him smiling with David Duke. Under these circumstances, you Lefties must PROVE to us that you don’t likewise hate us. And, yes, we see your hatred of us as brutally IMMORAL.”

      • And, this Obama pix is only one of so very very many many reasons we have for this mistrust.

        • And, rub it in, on their hypocrisy: They’re fine with Brown or Black hatred of Honky; they only diss Honky hatred of Browns and Blacks.

          • And, they miss no opportunity, to conflate Honky FEAR (no matter how reasonable) of Blacks and Browns, with Nazi-style hate of Blacks and Browns.

      • This is surprising. That a man with Dershowitz’s background and intellect not to research O (it didn’t take much!) and to back him is — well, I’m disappointed to hear it. I don’t really pay attention to D except when I run across him in another story and had the opinion he was not the type to fall for O’s “hope and change” bit.

  14. The reason why libertarianism has gotten as far as it has is that, precisely as you recommend, it offers a consistent, easy-to-understand moral base that is an alternative to the left’s. As Stefan Molyneux put it, libertarianism bases its legal approach on three things: contract law, property rights, and the Non-Aggression Principle – or, to make it as simple as possible, “don’t lie, don’t steal, and don’t start fights”. Those are moral positions, not factual ones, and it’s why libertarians generally have more success debating leftists than conservatives do. Watch Molyneux when he does this, especially on one of his call-in shows. It’s pretty fantastic, and very instructive about how the right should debate.

    (Of course, the reason why libertarianism hasn’t gotten farther than it has is that it obviously doesn’t offer any realistic solutions for the problems we face today, but one can adopt their debate style without adopting their policy positions.)

    One great example of this is Molyneux’s insight that ethics is not a guideline, but a relationship – in other words, that it’s simply self-destructive to allow unprincipled people to cheat you by scrupulously holding you to your own ethical standards while following no ethical standard themselves. This absolutely destroys a key Alinskyite strategy that the left has used to devastating effect for years. And again, it’s an easy-to-understand moral position: you have no obligation to be scrupulously honest when dealing with known liars and cheaters. That’s just a recipe for being lied to and cheated, and there isn’t a decent moral system in the world that requires its adherents to be a sucker. This is the kind of thing we should be thinking about, and using in our debates.

    • Could you give an example? The way I see it, yes you do have an obligation to be scrupulously honest, when dealing with anyone. In fact, that’s the moral grounding that makes us different from the Left. But “you’re an idiot, I don’t debate with idiots, especially with idiot children” is an honest approach to leftists, even though it’s provocative and hardly polite. So what would Molyneux have you do differently?

      • The way I see it, yes you do have an obligation to be scrupulously honest, when dealing with anyone.

        When the Saxon invaders land on your shores to loot your village, kill your men, rape and enslave your women, do you have an obligation to be scrupulously honest with them?

        • You have an obligation to kill them. If they say, “Tell us where your women are hiding,” you have an obligation to say “No.” If they say, “We come in peace,” you have an obligation to say “Prove it.”

          BTW, love your flag avatar. I think Robert E. Lee would understand what I mean.

          • A key component of battle strategy is making your enemy believe things that are not true.

          • That’s true. If you’re talking about battle strategy, that’s a perfectly valid tactic. If you’re talking about politics — which deals with people of opposing viewpoints living in peace with each other — lying will get you into all kinds of trouble a lot faster than speaking the truth.

            I’m not really into Molyneux — he struck me, the first time I listened to one of his Youtube rants, as someone who simply didn’t know when to shut up — so I honestly don’t know what AntiDem meant in his original comment. Hence, my request for an example. If what Molyneux was referring to was the tendency of establishment Conservatives to look down on people who depart from “civil” discourse when dealing with libs…well, that’s a far cry from being dishonest. As I said above, calling an idiot an idiot is honest. Nothing wrong with that.

          • I think in the terms of what he and Molyneux are saying, “you have no obligation to be scrupulously honest when dealing with known liars and cheaters” he means that you should deal honestly with people who are honest, but once someone is outed as a liar and a cheater, you are no longer obligated to unilaterally stick to the rules of honesty and fair play.

            People who lie and cheat you aren’t part of the set of “people of opposing viewpoints living in peace with each other.” Lies and cheating are not peaceful. People like that are your enemy. Thus, on to battle strategy. I think Robert E. Lee would understand this.

          • In other words, I guess: if someone is lying and trying to cheat you, lie and cheat first.

            You should understand that honest dealings, even with your enemies, are going to make a greater impression on the impressionable than lying and cheating. There are a lot of people who haven’t yet chosen a side. I don’t advocate always being “civil”; but I do advocate being honest, because that way — at a minimum — we can attract to our side not only more people, but the kind of people who will be useful. Otherwise, you wind up attracting cheats and scoundrels, and there is no controlling them or working with them.

            Frankly, I’m pretty much advocating the approach Trump has taken. He isn’t afraid of saying anything if he believes it’s true. And he says it artfully, in the way best calculated to make liberal heads explode. I’ve been waiting to see this all my life, and now it’s finally here. In a way, what we’re living through is one of the most glorious periods in US history: some people are finally being honest.

          • Let’s say you have some relative – a cousin or brother-in-law, perhaps – who’s one of those perpetually-broke types who always has some scammy get-rich-quick scheme up his sleeve (which can’t possibly be working, otherwise he wouldn’t be perpetually broke). And let’s further say that at some get-together, he asks you whether you have any money around that could be available for investing. In fact, you’ve just deposited a $10,000 bonus check from work.

            Do you tell him the truth, knowing that for months to come he’ll ceaselessly pester you to let him have it for his latest questionable scheme? Or do you just lie and tell him that you’re poor as a church mouse?

            I think we both know what you’d do if you had any sense about you.

          • “Lies and cheating are not peaceful.”

            This is not universally understood and it should be. Politicians all lie = politicians are not peaceful = all politics is violence.

      • The way a leftist operates is to find out what your stated beliefs are, and then to use them as a weapon against you by placing you in the no-win position of either letting them get away with unethical behavior or opening yourself up to charges of hypocrisy by violating those stated principles as you fight back. For example: we can say that civility is important in debate. The leftist will find this out, and then use the nastiest smears, most sneering mockery, and most bellicose name-calling they can think of against you. If you do nothing, they look witty and passionate, and you look like a wimp. If you fight fire with fire, they trot out an old clip of you saying that civility is good, and then smear and mock you even more for being a hypocrite about being civil. Or…

        Or you say that ethics is not a guideline, it’s a relationship. It only works when both sides respect it. So to the civil, I extend civility. To the uncivil, I extend incivility. Either we’re both doing this or we’re not.

        A good real-life example was recently seen in Pax Dickinson running that sleazy Rolling Stone reporter around in circles for a couple of days. He lied to her and then publicly humiliated her. But then, she’s a liar who abuses people’s trust and twists their words, and works for a publication that nearly ruined the lives of good young men by publishing a salacious and completely false rape allegation. So yes, he lied and acted uncivilly, but to quote our lovely First Lady, “I really don’t care, do u?”. She got what she deserved and won’t be back in a hurry. I have no problem with that.

        Honesty to the honest, civility to the civil, trust to the trustoworthy. For liars and slanderers, nothing.

        • Almost a perfect ending. I was really hoping for a swamp and alligator feeding finale to give it that last bit of oomph, tho…

    • Molyneux sometimes frustrates me. Not enough to try to call up and be a punching bag on one of his call-in shows, though. When he gets into conversations about nuts-and-bolts of how he thinks a free society should be organized he describes what is essentially an anarchist system. Libertarianism is not anarchism. It assumes that there is a valid role for the state, but as far as I know, Molyneux is never specific about what that role would be within his moral system. On a recent article he was talking with a person who believed that there was a role for some government limitations on the free market:

      Unfortunately, the caller was pretty inarticulate and poor at expressing his views, so Molyneux just walked all over him with his very high verbal ability.

      As Molyneux got into specifics, the voluntary edifice for societal organization he was creating simply became so complex and interconnected I don’t understand how any intelligent listener could not realize, “Stefan, you just created government by another name.”

      I have never seen Molyneux have an answer for the practicalities on the ground: humans always create governments. Humans always manipulate power and influence structures for their own benefits.

      The kind of Libertarianism you see espoused by true believers like Molyneux and writers at Reason (and even moreso, anarchy) simply require human nature to be rebuilt before they can work. Even most of the commenters at Reason seem to understand that the hardcore libertarians and anarchists have simply smoked too much dope.

  15. This ground is covered by Dr. Kevin Macdonald in his many books and articles. Puritanism is fertile ground for J activists. Puritans are already predisposed to extreme behavior particularly the women. Their endorphins come from “Public Acts of Morality’ which is why you see endless carping in Academia/Media about various crusades it’s a contest to see who can stand up in that Quaker meeting house and be the most self righteous.
    Opposition to hierarchy, and insisting on equality was always there, they were called levelers during the English Civil War perfect dupes for a Bolshevik.

  16. No, we haven’t lost. Not by a dam sight. The reason the white college professor does diversity is because all the cool kids are doing it and he doesn’t have to pay the social consequences. But when he is confronted by a sensitivity mob the way Jordon Peterson was, the blindfold comes off, the gloves come off, and the guns come out. That’s why Hillary was kicked to the curb in the last election and more winning is on the way. The caste system in India collapsed when the lower classes gave the higher ones the finger and quit.

    Dissidence is spreading like wildfire. White men are waking up everywhere. So are the women. They’ve got husbands and sons passed over for good jobs because some vibrant deserved it more. The mainstream media can no longer hide the fact that bridges built by progressives and vibrants (figuratively AND literally) – collapse.

    My last political debate with my proggy parents went like this:

    Welp, get used to him because you assholes got him elected in the first place.
    “Did not!!! How dare you think like that…!!!”
    Looks like you’re gonna get him re-elected too. And let me say this about that: if you don’t like Trump, just wait until you see the next guy…
    “There’ll be a civil war!!!”
    Yup. And guess who owns all the guns in this family, and which ones don’t? Still think gun control and disarmament is a good idea?

    So here I am floating out in the void, with more guys like me showing up every day. And their herd shrinks every day to.

    We are going to win this. The only question now is how big the cull is going to be.

    • Feeling good about things these days, myself. Kicking NATO/OTAN (“OTAN” for all those diverse Frenchies kicking the Croatians around on the turf) in the balls was epic.

      Recent Twitter threads by Thomas Wictor and REX suggest that there is a lot going on under the surface that is going our way in DC, but also that the rot is a lot stronger than we even suspect.

      If CTH gets you going, try those two. I am not a Twitter guy, so I get there by using It aggregates, so there is a lot of fluff there, zero in on what you want.

      • Careful! Currently addicted to twitter!
        I just bookmark faves and read ’em, not on social media, I don’t read ‘news’ anymore.

    • The cull is going to be huge. It has to be huge. Massive. Merciless and unrelenting. Doctors don’t give a little sip of chemo, they give all the chemo the patient can withstand in order to kill every malignant cell they can.
      I’m generally a placid and nonviolent person but when I saw the video of George Lopez pissing on Donald Trump’s star in Hollywood (?) I forwarded it to all my buddies with the message “Now I’m ready to start killing liberals”.

  17. Now that’s the kinda stuff that make the Z man a political watering hole in the progressive cyberdesert. Totally agree w the post. We need to take the moral high ground, and act as if it is our inherent birthright.

  18. Swell. Nothing like degenerates who are proud of their degeneracy. The left derives their strength from calling evil good and good, evil. As the Z man says, it’s a moral fight, beginning to end. How do you engage them in this battle? As Z man also says, not with handing the left facts. But by handing them their ass. Call them what they are, moral degenerates, homosexuals, etc. and they are wrong! The reason the left is forever changing the language and terms is because they want to obfuscate the obvious, and never admit the truth. This will not end well, nor peacefully. The left always goes violent when they don’t get their way.

  19. We hope you expand on those last few sentences in future posts. A little general and vague.

  20. “You don’t beat a moral order with reason. You defeat it by attacking it on moral grounds, while offering an alternative moral framework.”

    YES! But … what is that alternative moral framework? It used to be part of our culture, that unspoken commonality or way of looking at life that most Americans shared. If we could go back in time, and walk into any small town around 1930, we’d find a set of ideals and values, behaviors and expectations, shared by most people. The problem, dear Z, is that we can’t re-form this “deep culture.” It’s not something we’re going to think through, nor is it something we can attack on moral grounds because that deep culture — a shared set of ur-values — no longer exists.

    I think our goal should be re-creating and re-forming small towns or communities of like-minded people, perhaps with “statements of faith” that make clear how people in this community must look at the world. These places have to be real places, geographical places, not just buildings to which we drive, such as a church. The Orthodox Jews have a rule that everyone has to walk to synagogue, which had the unintended benefit of creating strong, tight communities. We’d do well to match this.

    A few months ago, I was in Moscow Idaho. This is a college town dominated by a R-2 state university (University of Idaho), but in this town, right in the center of the city surrounded by college stores and coffee shops, was this little college — New Saint Andrews. I asked around and discovered that this little college was new, less than 20 years old. It’s Calvinist, but based on the old Great Books in the original languages. One degree. I can’t remember what they called their degree, but it’s essentially a Classics degree. From nothing, they’ve built up a student body of about 300 students, give or take.

    This gave me hope. In the middle of a government university town, a little fledgling college, is making it. Growing it’s student body. Not taking fed dollars. No loans.

    Think about this. It may be a template for what we need to do in higher education which is walk away, dust off our feet, and start again. Build alternative institutions in their neighborhoods. In their faces!


    • You can’t have a common culture, common morality, or common sense, when you lack a common people.
      It’s as simple as that.

  21. This is also why their media seems so unreal, surreal, disconnected to reality: they’re not exactly making reports or analyses, they’re handing down EDICTS: “this is the line.”

  22. France is DESTROYING Croatia in the world cup

    This is further proof that People of Color (diversity) is NECESSARY for a successful organization

    diverse France is absolutely SLAUGHTERING homogenous Croatia

    • It means that Africans are more athletic in certain areas than Whites are though as we’ve noticed with Croatia , the gap isn’t that insurmountable

      This is BTW, Duckster not new news for anyone

    • Yeah, POC make good athletes. They also have a natural sense of rhythm and a gift for rap lyrics.

    • “A loss despite controversial calls by the referrees”-
      In other words, the powers that be had to cheat to win for Diversity

    • The Africans on France’s team were of utility because they’re coached by a White man. All that feral power is thus constructively directed.

  23. As a proud homosexual, I can offer you a clear case where diversity is of great benefit. Frankly, here in the Deep South, there are many who would rough up LGBT persons if not deterred. We have formed an alliance of convenience with the African American population. Most of the gay bars are in black sections of town.

    Blacks provide protection by warding off bashers. In return, we in the LGBT community provide them with economic enfranchisement and with our above average IQs, warn them of the nuances of structural and institutional racism, helping them to win jobs and outmaneuver white privilege. We share dance moves that enriches both communities and stimulates the entertainment industry.

      • It appears that “shar(ing) the dance moves that enriches both communities” is the key thing going on there, IMHO.

        “Provide them…with our above average IQs”. That one has me going in lots of different mental directions. I think I’ll just let that one stand on its own.

    • Why not deter them yourselves?

      And why proud? That’s not rhetorical…it’s a real question. Either you’re the way you are by nature, in which case your pride is as silly as being proud of being left-handed; or you chose it, in which case you’re proud of thumbing your nose at society and nature both. So, why proud? You ask others to accept you; why can’t gays simply accept themselves without this obligatory pantomime of pride?

      Or am I committing the basic error of assuming there’s a rational reason?

      • I’m still trying to figure out the “institutional racism” part. Haven’t believed in that since university days, long ago….unless we’re talking about those applications that say “We are an equal opportunity employer,” which means “don’t bother if you’re white.”

      • –Why so many gay bars in the hood?–
        Gay Blacks with wives and kids living The Life on the “down-low”.

    • I tried finding out how often gay bashing actually occurred and was proven. Straight men get assaulted all the time, but for some reason if they happen to be gay people assume motive. Since men are the most likely victims and perpetrators of assault, any community of only men, especially one involved in drinking would have higher assault numbers than average. Turns out once it became an actual hate crime (where motivation had to be proven not just assumed) the cases became more rare than lightning strikes. The motive is rarely gay bashing, if ever.

      You are essentially purchasing tiger repellant, and saying “see no tigers, it works!” I’m sure the black community has a great deal of fun ripping you off though.

    • I finally build up the courage to express myself in this forum, and I get more downvotes than actual trolls! What betrayal. Im so blackpilled. Face it, having relatively alpha black males around white males who are betaed by them is what keeps gays safe from physical harassment.

      • Next you will be telling us that Moslems are great at protecting you also…You got downvoted because you were trolling…Get over yourself cupcake…

      • Love it!
        You’ve inspired a TrueConservative sermon on love, racism, and the Saintly Doctor Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King

  24. Its hard to take Bauerlein seriously

    Emory must be scraping the bottom of the Barrel. I would think a college professor would be able to articulate his white nationalist bent with a lie more eloquence. But then, listening to white slave staters telling history is like listening to a rapist explain the rape. Somehow the victim is always to blame.

    • Nothing like an interview run and edited by a hostile publication to present somebody’s ideas accurately.

      • Don’t talk to the press period, ever for any reason.

        This even applies to not quite enemies like Fox and friendlies like One America.

        The only maybe exception, a desperate parent with a missing child but I probably wouldn’t talk to the press under those circumstances , 100% chance even if I had the perfect alibi they’d try to make me out to be the prime suspect.

  25. I think you’re missing the foundational dysfunction just like the conservatives that you criticize. Progressives behave as they do because they know their battle is a life or death issue, not politics or culture or anything else discretionary. At their core, they are parasites and require a host to survive. Their survival strategy is simply to obtain and maintain control of the power structure of any society in which they feed. They will use whatever technique works in order to accomplish this end.

    • You’re projecting. You are the one trying to impose a rational set of motives on the Left.

      • I’m not imposing this motive. It’s the fundamental imperative of all living things . . . to survive by whatever means necessary. The productive element of society does this by growing food (or otherwise creating value). No one starts out wanting to become a parasite, but institutionalized dependency has seduced far too many into this addiction. Progressives are no different than a junkie craving the next fix.

      • Seeking power is the most primitive of all impulses, so I wouldn’t say this is imputing a “rational” motive.

        It’s probably the most accurate of all possible descriptions, even if it is somewhat limited in predictive ability. The model of a power cult explains most of the left’s behavior, though, especially its long-term narrative shifts (i.e. from libertarian, when they were out of power, to authoritarian, when they were in power) and incessant short-term hypocrisy (there is no such thing as biological sex, unless you’re a tranny), both of which are features, not bugs.

      • many people leading the Left do have a rational goal, its multi-cultural, international cosmopolitanism with them on top, Bilderberg Group stuff basically

        The Left at the lower echelons think this Utopian vision will give them free resources, diminish conflict and allow them a very stimulating and fun world to live in.

        Neither party is evil in the moral sense only delusional with a poor grasp of human behavior

        As what they want, while not ill intended, only causes harm, they can’t be allowed to have it

        What confusing is the Left doesn’t care how the goal is achieved or what the cost is which of foreign to the Right

        The non globalist Establishment Right seeing the historical chaos and terror of the last hundred years and change wants none of that and is often terrified by the notion of the tiny bump in the road

        This is why President Trump and the various other Right factions, scare them. Those factions while thoroughly Right in the ways that matter , see farther back accept its a war footing and play to win.

        The only weakness the other right factions have really is ideology, they don’t have a real plan on how to run the show if they get power.

          • A fair dispute but however delusional it is the Left believes the world they want to build will be happier and better for people to live in

        • I’ve been told my entire life that: “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.

          Well guess what – ignorance of human behavior is no excuse either and does not make what they do any less evil.

          There are NO “free” resources – NONE. The belief that there are – is one of the foundational illusions that the left has fostered and promoted to gain adherents to their worldview.

          You are correct about one thing though: lefties in the lower echelons think this vision gives them free shit. The Free Shit Army they have built – would be and has been a civilization destroyer even absent the racial assault they have really ramped up in last decade or so.

    • Yes – exactly.

      This is why right wingers need to wake the hell up and understand the battle field they inhabit.

      Learn to start saying things to leftists like:

      ” You know what – I don’t need you or your government to survive – neither does my political philosophy – YOU – and your belief system on the other hand …. REQUIRE me to survive. You may threaten me and want to kill me , but in the end you are slitting your own throat because you’re an unproductive and essentially useless person and you’re insistence on the welfare state has created a whole bunch of other useless people. You have created a situation where there’s a whole bunch of people in the world that I am being threatened into supporting – and don’t think I don’t understand that MY life would be better – if you were all dead. You may THINK your life would be better if I was dead – but deep down you know you depend on me – so that cannot possibly be true”

  26. Even the most rigid, fundamentalist Christian groups could only dream of having their adherents be a fraction as committed and intractable to their articles of faith and dogmas as even the average Leftist is. You can find all sorts of heterodox teachers at “Christian” colleges who will vacillate on the Trinity or the eternal nature of hell but you will be hard pressed to find anyone at a secular college that doesn’t parrot the party line on “diversity is our greatest strength”.

    This is, as you point out, the problem with the Left-Right struggle in this country. Our side spends years formulating rational, coherent positions on a wide variety of issues. The Left counters with slogans and emotions. In an environment where the average American barely has the attention span to read a tweet, how are you supposed to counter a picture of a kid in a cage, even when it is shown to be a hoax, with some lengthy discourse on the importance of national borders in a society with a social welfare system? Thus Trump, who doesn’t spend a lot of time yammering about esoteric principles. He just says stuff like Europe is being invaded and that is bad. He is the best counter we have had to the Left in my lifetime and that is largely what drives their hatred of him.

    • What Trump said in front of the whole world about Europe being invaded and the importance of European culture surviving is one of the most important things he’s said. That’s the kind of talk that needs to be normalized instead of legal-good-illegal-bad.

      • It’s an example of what I mean by de-legitimizing the moral order. When the President says these things, it makes it hard for the other side to intimidate people into going along. Stripping away their moral authority is the key to sowing doubt in their minds and confidence in our side.

        • His Overton-Window smashing, in the long run, may be remembered as his greatest achievement.

        • Exactly.

          When Trump says these things it sets a level of moral legitimacy for people to build on top of.

          I personally think that Trump gained that legitimacy very early on when he made comments about illegal aliens being criminals.

          He made the following comment on June 16, 2015:

          “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

          As I remember it – the lefties and Democrats popped a gasket over this one.

          Then on July 1, 2015 – Kate Steinle got murdered in San Francisco .

          The way I interpret this one is : there’s nothing to drive a point home like the murder of an attractive white woman, in broad daylight – walking with her father – in a city that is haven for illegal immigrants.

          For a lot of right leaning people I know this whole thing was a nice big arrow in the quiver to shoot at all the liberal pukes that were still bitching about Trump’s ‘racism’ from his previous comments . It was an almost perfect “see I F&^$ing told you so!” moment.

          Even in MA – we have occasionally have ” see I fu&^$ing told you so!’ moments like that. Here’s a good one from the archives:

          Haitian immigrant with 9 prior drunk driving convictions smashes Boston Globe truck off highway onto ramp 40ft below. Driver ends up in hospital. Haitian threatens troopers with voodoo curse and talks about coming for all you white [expletives]. Haitian is driving a Cadillac – and has 3 EBT cards on her – only one of which is hers. The Boston Globe is a liberal rag that constantly defends any and all manner of immigration.

    • Ah, but that’s (thankfully) just in academia. Those real “adherents….of…fundamentalist Christian groups” (not the ones in academia, but in the world, like the rural areas where many of us live) are just the opposite and will frankly tell you what they think of the constant push toward “diversity.”

  27. The left won mostly by having the courts and mass media in their control to get their message out. They always knew what court would rule in their favor and that is where they took their causes. They are now on the verge of losing their control of the Supreme Court. Without the courts and media they would not have won much.

    • True, but they have also won because when they act out like spoiled children, the rest of us have rolled our eyes and moved on. Who wants to actually stop what we are doing and deal with that sort of thing? To say nothing of how to confront such behavior without losing your livelihood or ending up in jail?

      • Its more than livelihood,the non religious Right is mostly “good order, leave me alone and money money money, money” That’s not enough defense against the religious fervor of the Left.

        Worse so many churches were subverted that the best defense, that old time religion is damaged as well

        Leftism works like aids, wipes out the institutions that serve as immune systems to protect the body politic than subject it to mass degeneration

  28. Can you imagine universities being totally populated with David Duke type professors and administrators? Then imagine lefties and all progs turning their children over to them for four years. Would never happen.

    But that is what our side has done and continues to do for decades. Talking about starting out behind the eight ball. It is a commie world and we occupy a small corner of it.

    • Too many BoomerDads think about university in terms of sportsball and slutty co-eds. Massive student debt, rabid feminists, fake court systems, multiplying administrators…these have never occurred in the minds of the average person. While he has his flaws, Aaron Clarey should be mandatory for every young male.

      • Boomer dads are happily no longer a thing, the youngest of them are over 50 and very few have college aid kids.

        Also sportsball is loosing its luster and with #metoo so are coeds who outnumber guys anyway

        Every guy knows the risk and while people still think they need the sheep skin to get a decent job, that too is slowly changing

        Colleges as brainwashing centers are on borrowed time I think and good riddance.

        • The business world appears to be slowly evolving too. I remember seeing an announcement a year or two ago from one of the major accounting companies (I don’t remember which one it was – but it was a well known name) – where they said that new hires would not be *required* to have a college degree. My memory is that the announcement said something about how a college degree was not a guarantee of a person being a good employee.

          Once the business world starts figuring this out – the college scam is living on borrowed time because the obscene tuition rates will then become totally unjustifiable.

          I think this also brings up another point – that white nationalist / alt-righters really need to come to grips with:

          Guerilla warfare.

          The progressive left has been waging societal warfare for a long long time. Insurrectionists sow discord and doubt. Given how insane the entire system has become – it shouldn’t be that hard to sow discord and doubt about the current regime, but yet it seems like the vast majority of right wingers I run into absolutely SUCK at it. When talking with a friend or neighbor who is going on about how high college tuition is – they’ll say stupid shit like ” I know it’s crazy – people have to mortgage their houses just to pay for it” – instead of sowing discord and doubt by saying stuff like ” I know – and companies now are starting to realize that the college degree is not a good indicator of a productive employee – training programs and community college graduates with the right credentials can be just as successful.

          The latter response is leading the person towards the red pill. The first response is just going along.

          Sow discord and doubt – at EVERY TURN. That’s the way the system starts to crumble. Sooner or later it will take too much energy to keep it going. The left wants to create a closed loop system – they want exergy. They don’t have that system – at least
          not yet. Your job is to make the system so inefficient that it fails. That means creating a system of decreasing rewards for energy expended. You get that thru sowing doubt.

          Do your damn job.

    • Exactly, and the reason is that decades of propaganda and feminism have turned most people into total cucks, perfectly willing to go along with the destruction of their children and society.

    • Actually, some people in the middle of America are waking up. The University of Missouri has seen their enrollment fall off 35% in the last 2 years since the Melissa Click & fake outrage incidents. This is a figure the University’s administrators cop to. It’s a start.

      • There was a larger proportional decline among blacks (40%) than with whites (20%). Blacks in MO mostly live in KC/STL so they presumably chose to go to the universities in those cities, which is financially beneficial if they are commuter instead of residential. There was a notable drop in donations from alumni, almost entirely white. It doesn’t really matter unless the faculty is purged and conservatives are given control of their first R1 university.

  29. The one major exception, as you’ve pointed to elsewhere, is gun rights, which has been the most effective right-wing populist movement of the past 30 years. And the NRA and its supporters have been so successful because they didn’t care what the left wanted or how “reasonable” any particular gun control proposal sounded. They framed the debate in terms of: a man is minding his own business and is attacked by a criminal – whose side are you on? If you can do that, you win.

    • Bravo, well said sir. Another thing to notice is that although the NRA and GOA is majority white male, they have smartly avoided crude racial tribalism and avoided being zapped by the Media Death Star. Also, their simple to your face arguments gets normies on their side.

      The Dissident Right is intent on committing seppuku by appealing to racialism and falling into the leftist trap.

      • The time for avoiding racialism is over. There’s no “Miss Congeniality” prize for being the last race to embrace racialism.

        • The insanity of our current position is that until 2 generations ago the overwhelming majority of whites were what we would now call racialists. Media and Academia spent the last 2 generations pathologizing white self interest and poured enormous resources into convincing most whites that we had no right to defend ourselves as distinct peoples.
          So we are not so much late to the game, as waking up from an induced coma.

          • Until very recently the left controlled the media, and the narrative, and unless you were paying very close attention or were predisposed to studying history and culture you couldnt see what was happening.

            And if you could see it, no one would beloeve you.

          • The media monopoly lost its grip with the coming of conservative talk radio after the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. What hasn’t changed is that conservative media isn’t considered respectable. Conservatives have foolishly treated the liberal media as legitimate, even Alt-Righters were “notice me, senpai” thinking that there was no such thing as bad publicity.

      • You’re right. Our success as a people depends on never speaking about racial truths. Just like the cuckservatives, we’ll win by never addressing the deepest problem. I’m already planning our victory parades, which will be 90% non-white. I bet we’ll get some great tax cuts as well! Maybe we can get Marco or Jeb! to run again!

    • I think you are right about that. In particular, the repeated assertion that disarming the population has always been step one in oppression – a viewpoint that has always been mocked by the left. They never stopped making that case & people have been listening. If you look at a map of “shall issue” states over the last 20 years, you can see how successful this has been.

      • It also helps how mendacious the Left inherently is. The NRA Right saw the UK and OZ get gun confiscation and know that gun control advocates always lie. So they have no trust in them and knowing they are liars can casually ignore anything they say.

    • That’s partly, if not largely, because gun rights were formerly a liberal position. There’s nothing inherently “right-wing” about the right to own a firearm, aside from the fact that it’s an important part of Amerikaner culture, but that’s a tautological explanation.

      It makes no sense that conservatives would lose everything except for this one anomaly, and a more thorough examination will confirm that it isn’t an anomaly at all; the NRA and gun ownership are promoted by the establishment, while confiscation is pushed by a dwindling and very stupid minority fringe. Being pro-gun is directly profitable for the US government; being anti-gay-marriage is not. Conservatives didn’t conserve anything here; the NRA is not the input of the equation, it’s the output. Once you accept that, the apparent anomaly vanishes and the result makes perfect sense.

      All that being said, gun rights fall into the same category as free-speech rights here: the category of “things that will eventually disappear because of radical demographic changes”.

      • Widespread firearms ownership has been an Anglo-Saxon tradition for hundreds of years, skepticism of standing armies precedes the Magna Carta. What conservatives Anglosphere-wide failed on was that the military was professionalized rather than being citizen-soldiers. That’s why liberals are always saying “why do you need a gun”. The historical reason has been forgotten or left to cranks.

    • It is because gun rights are more tangible? That now legal gun on your hip is right there – you feel it. It isn’t a minority hire in a distant corporate office or government agency, it isn’t the stupid ramblings of a crazy professor.

  30. Conservatives lost because they are pussies, and inherently weak. They are and were cucks, through and through. Lots of closeted homos too. Ultimately they should be characterized as traitorous.

    • I remember back in the day Trent Lott on Hannity radio show. Hannity asked him point blank when Republicans (other than Newt Gingrich) would fight back against the smears and lies being told by Democrats. The standard GOP reply at the time was used ‘Well we feel the American people see right through this…..” . Typical gutless move. Of course after the interview was over, livid callers were calling it like it was, GOP afraid to defend itself. The fear of being called racist as you know, was the same as showing a cross to a vampire. Worried what the NY Times and Washington Compost was going to print about them. Couldn’t ruin any chance of being left off of the DC cocktail circuit.

      If only they had 1/50th of the balls that Trump has in dealing with the left, things might be a bit different today.

    • Conservatism might be a laudable trait if you live in a healthy, sane, productive and moral society. Those things are worth conserving.

      Conservatism is a major detriment in a degenerate, filthy, immoral society. That same conservative nature kills off revolutionary zeal in its crib.

      I’ve witnessed it over the past 25 years. Conservatives show a deep and abiding respect for cultural, social, and political institutions that were taken over and repurposed for use against them years ago. They can’t seem to make the mental transition necessary for understanding those aren’t *their* institutions anymore.

      Quite simply: they failed to conserve what needed to be conserved, so now we find ourselves in need of a revolutionary spirit, but this is at odds with their demeanor. We are presently in that awkward phase where ideologies and political dichotomies are realigning in novel and unexpected ways.

      We are now in the post-conservative age.

  31. The left justifies pushing diversity by claiming it overcomes the racism embedded in society. It’s total crap, and ignores the true biological reason why some races outperform others. But that’s how they became religious zealots, as opposed to objective seekers of truth.

    • The big obstacle is getting biological racial difference information into the mainstream. The left won’t even consider that as a possible reason for differences and disparities. Only backwoods hicks or hateful Nazis think like that. And it’s not just the left. Even Charlie Kirk, a guy on the right, recently tweeted “there’s no such thing as race.” Dinesh D’Souza is obsessed with DR3. (DemsRRealRacists).

      If you believe things like skin color are simply superficial, like blonde hair or blue eyes, it’s not surprising that you believe in mixing up populations or student bodies and faculties and corporations with the goal of being diverse. They truly believe people on our side of the river are out of our minds (and probably evil) to think race is real and race matters. That’s a big hurdle to overcome.

      • The interesting thing is that only white liberals actually believe that. All other identity groups on the left are racially conscious, even completely new groups like r/Hapa. And it’s a mistake in believing that white liberals are truly colorblind, to them being white is to be atoning and liberal. What they call “whiteness” must be “dismantled” so that the Revolution can occur to create Equality.

        It’s not an accident that the highest degree of animosity towards Charlottesville came from liberal whites and not from blacks. Most of the ideas on here would lead to ostracism and violence if we voiced them publicly, and that would be from our own people first.

        • “What they call “whiteness” must be “dismantled” so that the Revolution can occur to create Equality.”

          I know this is generally well known here but it’s important to state anyway: equality is never the outcome of a revolution.

      • Anyone who uses the “Democrats are the real racists” ploy must be immediately challenged on the grounds that racism accusations are simply weapons, not arguments. Dinesh D’Souza may be too stuck in his ways to give up his comfortable formula, but he (and others like him) have an audience of normies who think of themselves as conservatives. Some of them might be open to thinking differently.

    • In the words of former UK Home Secretary Jack Straw, the purpose of diversity is to “rub the Right’s nose in it”.

      The average white person is terrified of being found to have heretical views on racial matters, they still want to be seen as a good liberal, at least in public. Polling indicates that 70% of the UK thinks Tommy Robison is a racist that got what he deserved, even though he’s actually a liberal that goes out of his way to welcome non-white supporters.

      • Whenever they talk about “British Values” or “American Values” or “European Values”. They mean liberal values. There is no substantive reason why liberalism in one country is distinct from another country. The cuck right hears “British Values” and subconsciously thinks that the invader is somehow going to be a good CofE member that abjures his ties to his relatives. And if being a weaksauce Anglican is too much for an invader, they clearly don’t belong here.

      • Aristotle’s definition of hubris: to cause shame to the victim, not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has happened to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: naive men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater.

        Nemesis is coming.

    • Agreed. That’s their plan. They’re limited, that’s what they’ve got. Problem is, what’ve got, what’s our plan?

      • 1. Facts don’t care about your feelings
        2. Billionaire cash
        3. Israeli Passport
        4. Fiddle while YT burns

    • The Left are soulless slobbering dogs – they always win because the Right analyzes belly-buttons and philosophizes – the Left gnaws off faces.

Comments are closed.