The original sin of modern conservatism is that it never came to terms with the reality of the Left’s race delusions. Last century, Progressives came to the conclusion that the obvious racial disparities in the world were solely due to racism, specifically the racism of whites toward the world’s non-whites. Everything that defines the American Left now is based on this assumption. This a lie, not a sin. The sin was that the American Right, or at least those who came to define the Right, never honestly challenged this claim.
Instead, Buckley-style conservatives accepted this two part assumption about the world and tried to fit their ideas within it. This was mostly expedience. By going along with the Left’s egalitarianism, they could have a place at the table. With the Civil Rights Movement, the Left claimed the moral high ground on the matter of race. Confronting them on the reality of race would have required courage the conservatives did not posses, so they chose to make an accommodation with the Left. Cowardice became a feature of the Right.
This mistake has haunted Buckleyites for fifty years, because there is no way to fit conservative ideas about society and culture with what amounts to race delusion. The fact that race is real, ethnicity is real and human diversity is immutable, means differences between the races are eternal. Worse yet, by casting the issue in moral terms, opposition to the Progressive race program was by definition immoral. After all, if racial differences can only be due to white racism, any white resistance to reform must be racism.
There was always another problem with Progressive race delusion. Eventually, the Left would run out of ways to address the immutable racial differences. That means they would run out of possible explanations, leaving them with just one conclusion. That is, racism is what defines white people, so the only way to achieve social equality is to get rid of white people entirely. This is why the media is full of over-the-top anti-white rhetoric. The Left is now entirely defined by a visceral hatred of white people.
This leaves conventional conservatism with nowhere to run. When the Left howls about white privilege, the white guys of Conservative Inc. have no response, since they can’t get away from the fact that most of them are white. Then they have the neocons, the shape-shifters of American politics, who will be white and non-white depending upon how they want to play an issue. The result is that any resistance of the Left is automatically a white guy thing and therefore immoral. The prevailing morality is now explicitly anti-white.
As their ranks dwindle, the Buckleyites seem to have some sense they are now in a blind alley, but they are baffled as to why. Super-cuck David French thinks conservatives should try to out-hustle the race hustlers. Roger Clegg would like to hide under his bed until the issue goes away. That’s the default position of conservatives on most things now. The swarthy cohort of the Buckleyites thinks the way forward is to bore everyone to death on the issue and this guy has decided to hold his breath or something.
The conservative position on the Left’s anti-white turn is a combination of pleading, groveling and wishful thinking. The reason is they can’t do anything else as long as they accept the Left’s egalitarianism and blank slate assumptions. If all the problems of the world are due to white racism, and all other efforts failed, it is only logical and moral to get rid of white people, or at least make them sub-citizens. If the problems persist, then killing off the whites is not just the right thing to do, it is the only thing that can be done.
Buckley conservatives have written often about the original sin of race, but the real original sin was their unwillingness to confront Progressives on their racial delusions. Whatever American Progressivism was in another age, in this age, for more than half a century, it has been a cult based on the belief that whites are the root of all evil. It is a toxic religion that makes Bolshevism look optimistic by comparison. There was never any reason to accommodate it, other than expediency and greed. Now it is the ruling ethos of our age.
The opposite of race delusion is not a different form of race delusion. That’s the problem with colorblind society argument. There can be no such thing as a colorblind society as long as society is populated by humans. Man is tribal and hierarchical. These are defining features of our species. To think otherwise is at odds with biological reality. The dream of the colorblind society we hear from civic nationalists is just as nutty as the Left’s delusions about racial justice. Egalitarianism is not just wrong, it is toxic and perverse.
The foundation stone of western conservatism is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation. The point of society was to mitigate those aspects of the human condition that interfere with a peaceful and prosperous existence. The original sin of the Buckleyites is they agreed to abandon that core understanding. The result is a movement composed of hollow men, inexorably shuffling toward their demise, as they plead for a second chance. Sin pays its wages in death, but reality is eternal.
“There can be no such thing as a colorblind society as long as society is populated by humans. Man is tribal and hierarchical. “
I have some problems understanding these two sentences. The notion of what constitutes a “colorblind society” is vague, and needs quite a bit of unpacking. The same goes for the “tribal” nature of man, which you suppose to be some sort of immutable human characteristic–a notion that I find prima facie baseless.
1. Zman, what do you mean by a “colorblind society”? If you mean the current neo-marxist requirement for “equal outcomes”, then of course I agree that it’s nonsense. As public policy, trying to force equality of outcomes is wrong, stupid, and wicked. If you mean that being “colorblind” requires the assumption that all races are equally possessed of intelligence, then again I would agree with you–I make no such assumption. In fact, I am perfectly aware of the statistical facts about IQ distribution.
But that is not what I mean when I say that I am “colorblind”. I am colorblind in the sense that when I come into contact with a person who has dermal pigmentation different from mine, I do not make any immediate assumptions about the capabilities of that person based on his skin color. It’s not hard to tell a stupid person from a smart one. One or two minutes of conversation is more than enough for me to assess the mental acuity of the person to whom I am speaking.
Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but I have been taught to be careful of the words I use. Being “colorblind” is a personal characteristic, not a social one. It finds its expression in treating everyone I meet as their behavior merits. Perhaps this strikes you as naive, but I think that fairness is a fundamental characteristic of a good man. I try to be good. (And I have failed far too often.)
2. Now what could you possibly be thinking when you say that human beings are inherently “tribal”? I’ve studied a little anthropology, and I’ve read about tribal societies. There are still tribal societies, but they exist in primitive…excuse me…”underdeveloped countries”. The tribe is a primitive form of social organization. It has no place whatever in a civilized society (even one as broken as ours is at the moment). All sorts of things come to mind when I try to imagine what could prompt you to say that man is somehow inherently “tribal”. None of them make much sense.
Do you consider yourself a member of some tribe? Unless you mean that you are a Cherokee or a Blackfeet (Blackfoot?) I can’t imagine what that tribe could be. Are you one of those people who think that there is a “white tribe”? But that’s utterly ridiculous; there are many different kinds of Caucasians, but there is certainly no Caucasian Tribe. There are nationalities, sure. For example, I was born in Germany, and German is in fact my native language. Does that make me a member of the German Tribe? No, because there never was such a thing. If forced, I suppose I could call myself a member of the Baiuvari tribe, which is what Tacitus called those people whose chief virtue was that their women could bring you at least eight beer steins at once.
Yes, if I have to revert to a tribal identity, then let it be one that features women with spectacular breasts bringing me large quantities of beer.
Generally speaking, only whites have the capacity to be colorblind. You may be too cool to be interested in race, but race is interested in you. Your high-minded sophistication will not protect you.
Generally speaking, only whites have the capacity to be colorblind.
That’s because whites are so awesome. As a rule of thumb, the more awesome your culture is, the more confident you are as a person. Most POCs are burdened with a range of inferiority complexes and jealousies towards the ruling race, that’s why they think about skin color all the time.
With friends like thèse, who needs enemies?
Being born in Germany and speaking German as a primary language explains a lot.
What did I say about the word “unpack”?
1. But the colorblind rhetoric is lovely. And true. As one commenter previously stated, it’s the meaning of “prejudiced” as opposed to “racist”.
2. Just look up “tribe” in the dictionary and you will get the gist of it, Sidehill. It’s not that difficult to understand. Here is the etymology: “In the Biblical sense, which was the original one in English, the Latin word translates Greek phyle ‘RACE or tribe of men, body of men united by ties of blood and descent, a clan’ (see physic). Extension to any ethnic group or RACE (emphasis mine) of people is first recorded 1590s.”
So many words to be deliberately obtuse (looking at you, not me – I may be obtuse, but not on purpose).
To “unpack” means to provide context. It means to give an explanation of a particular assertion because that assertion can be taken in many ways. To talk about being “colorblind” without context is just to assume that readers will interpolate whatever it is that you are thinking…mind-reading being as rare as it is, what really happens is that you are not understood; people just assume they understand–and you assume that you are understood.
If you think a dictionary is of any use whatever in resolving any but the most elementary disputes, then you you don’t understand argument. You also seem oblivious to the circular nature of the “definition” you’ve cited. This is par for the course these days; I belong to an older intellectual tradition where people at least felt some need to explain what the hell they were talking about. To say that man is inherently “tribal” is a meaningless statement of itself; the fact that the dictionary has an entry for the word doesn’t help. The question is what did Zman mean when he made the assertion, and it’s not answered by recourse to the dictionary. He is the only one who can answer that question.
I’m criticized for using too many words to demonstrate my lack of understanding. I accuse you of being inarticulate. But so is everyone else these days.
It’s one thing to define your terms and another to parse every word of a simple declarative sentence.
My pastor recently gave a sermon deriding civic nationalism. He didn’t call it that, he called it the “melting pot idea”. He said that the notion of being “color blind” was completely ridiculous and wrong-headed. Why? Because we have to respect diversity, and how can we do that if we don’t appreciate (and kowtow) to those Of Pigmentation.
Everyone has given up on civic nationalism. The dispute between left and right is essentially about what they want to replace it with. The left wants us to worship at the Altar of Vibrancy, and the right wants…what?
This is what I’m complaining about. If all you’ve got to hold on to is the assertion that we have to be “tribal”, then you have to assume that we (whoever you are) are part of some “tribe”. Or is it “race”? Is it your particular family group? The guys you go shooting with?
Hey, I’ve tried. I stood in front of a mirror and said to myself, “I am a white man”. No matter how often I said it, my self could not take it seriously. Sure, I’m technically “Caucasian”. Does that mean I’m supposed to feel some mystical unity with all other Caucasians? Don’t be ridiculous. I despise the French. It’s equally stupid when a dark skinned man says “I am a member of the black race”. The fact that he doesn’t see the emptiness of his own words is irrelevant. Such statements are complete nonsense. There is no unitary “black race”.
So when I hear people talk about “tribalism”, I take it as an attempt to give some kind of background to identity assertions of this sort. And it’s kind of essential, isn’t it? If we can’t have civic nationalism, then don’t we need some sort of unifying principle? Or is it truly “every man for himself”?
The left at least has an ideology. The right has only vague rhetoric and brownshirt LARPers. Where are the brilliant theoreticians of the right who articulate the principles that unify us?
“The foundation stone of western conservatism is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation.”
Yeah, unblinking, unreserved acceptance of a thing called the ‘human condition’ sounds real conservative to me. I’m not bright enough to grasp the human condition, so I guess I’m not a conservative.
“The foundation stone of scientific Marxism is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation.”
“The foundation stone of Christian doctrine is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation.”
“The foundation stone of classical Chinese philosophy is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation.”
“The foundation stone of early 20th century eugenics is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation.”
“The foundation stone of 21st century suicide cults is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation.”
All plausible statements, that require a counter-argument. It’s not a forum I’d choose to join, personally; I know no foundation stones that impel me to want the world I love to go on – my ‘conservatism for dummies’, I suppose.
Indeed. You’re not bright enough.
No. You’re cute. And I’m cute. But I’m not a willfully blind fuckhead. You are.
It’s just another way of saying that there are facts of life that some people remain in denial of and that anyone doing this can’t consider themselves to be an actual conservative.
Absolutely brilliant Z man! BRAVO!
Disagree with this bit: ” this guy has decided to hold his breath or something.”
He’s a mole in any conservative/Western Civ .org/ Look at bio
Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.
Reihan Salam is executive editor and a National Review Institute Policy Fellow. He is a contributing editor of National Affairs, a member of the board of New America, and an advisor to the Energy Innovation Reform Project and the Niskanen Institute. Previously, Salam was an associate editor at The Atlantic, a producer for NBC News, a junior editor and editorial researcher at the New York Times, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a reporter-researcher at The New Republic. With Ross Douthat, Salam is the co-author of Grand New Party: How Conservatives Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream (Doubleday, 2008).
Whatever American Progressivism was in another age, in this age, for more than half a century, it has been a cult based on the belief that whites are the root of all evil. It is a toxic religion that makes Bolshevism look optimistic by comparison.
Yes it is. Progs will not be happy until we are dead or shackled. And they are not even hiding it anymore.
PS no idea why it is ALL italics when I use that here
The Left has been moving the Overton Window vigorously and successfully for a long time. What starts as a one of their radical propositions becomes tacitly acceptable and then becomes taboo to contradict. It’s a little like the capture of land in a war. What was yours becomes the site of a battle and then may become a fortified position of the enemy. That is guaranteed to happen if the enemy receives no resistance whatsoever.
My guess is that the BS about “white privilege” is one useful place for battle now. If you find this creeping into the curriculum of your local schools, put your foot down. Detailed analysis and debate are counterproductive. Instead, a useful line is “No child should be made to feel guilty for the color of their skin.” When they counter this, simply repeat it. “No child should be made to feel guilty for the color of their skin.” On further sputtering from them, repeat it again. The more people who say this to the schools, the more likely it will be to win this particular battle. So bring some neighbors.
This is an idea that most normies can appreciate. It has not yet become taboo to say this. It is important to say it.
Z-man, you are going from strength to strength. I always found your observations interesting and provocative, even when I occasionally disagreed with something. But you have developed into a writer with an economical, bracing style as well.
I sure hope the blog is secure when the next wave of de-platforming strikes.
True. There’s a book lurking in these essays.
I hope there’s a bloody movement lurking in these essays, guvnuh
“I sure hope the blog is secure when the next wave of de-platforming strikes.” I think about this a lot. I think Z’s got between 2 months and a year before being eliminated. Without question the PTB keep a close eye on this blog. Why would they allow such an insightful/corrupter/threat to go on much longer? They’ll get this blog on a charge of inciting violence. We are way too casual in such talk here. But how can we help it, we’ve got to vent.
Another reason Buckley conservatism was no match for progressivism is that it was an otherwise incoherent political philosophy, i.e., fusionism, cobbled together to fight the Cold War. The speech that got the young academic fired by the White House explains this very well:
“Fusionism was so called because it was able to construct a narrative that fused together traditionalist Burkean social conservatives and religious Christians, firstly, Cold-War hawks (Cold Warriors), secondly, and free market economic types (including libertarians like Friedman), finally, together… [T]he tripartite coalition to which [fusionism] refers makes no internal sense by itself, but rather it borrows its coherence artificially not only from the geopolitical threat posed by the USSR, but also from its reactive opposition to communist ideology as such… The very real fusionism [i.e., communist economic theory and atheism] that belonged to classical Marxist theory made the reactive and contingent fusionism in America between free-market libertarians and religious Christian social conservatives possible; furthermore, the fact that this enemy atheistic-economic ideology received its expression in a major competing World Power made the hawkish foreign policy element a natural part of this coalition. With the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the artificial supports providing temporary coherence to movement conservatism began to disintegrate.”
I strongly recommend reading the entire speech. It explains in detail why Conservative, Inc., is stuck in the Reagan era.
I suppose this is the speech? Thanks for the link bro…
I’m triggered…I’m going to my safe space… (Seriously, I’m sorry… I took another black pill today, and I was depressed…got lazy…)
Buckley conservatism was no match for progressivism because it was all talk while progressivism was all action.
Buckley was a CIA stooge. They were controlled opposition.
I think we missed a step, especially where the “Civil Rights Movement” is concerned. At that time, there was no indication that the objective would be as sideways or insane or even as explicitly anti-white as it’s become.
That’s because the point of the “Civil Rights Movement” was access to other people’s stuff. Everything else was secondary at best. With it, everything became a “public accommodation” and thus subject to the whims of bureaucrats and the threats from race hustlers. From that objective, all other consequences flowed.
Once you get past that, and the *reasons* Buckleyites and other Normal Americans were willing to concede the stated (as opposed to real) objectives of the “Civil Rights Movement,” then you begin to understand how we got here.
Ann Coulter wrote about this in one of her books. She claimes that the civil rights movement had essentially won all its causes – by boring old judicial activism – by the time MLK decided to provoke a conflict with Bull Connor, and simultaneously shift the civil rights movement from, well, civil rights, to social justice.
Not just “other people’s stuff” but also “Other People’s Associations”.
You can’t have a Straight White Man Drinking Club that is a non-profit. Just Can’t.
You must allow females, fags, Other Colors, and aliens to join, or else you will be DePlatformed and hounded out of existence.
This is a big deal. Good point.
Prior to modern science re: the heritability of traits there were stereotypes. That they were/are mostly true is not the whole story. There are geniuses and the cognitively impaired on the tails of every (normal distribution) demographic. If the dissident right wishes to be a force, we should recognize this. It’s all down to the averages. Policy should not be made by the fringes.
The dissident right does understand averages and the Bell Curve, and in fact, it’s at the center of our discussions and arguments. It’s the left and mainstream right who ignore and demonize the statistical analysis.
That’s why I said “prior to.” I know we do. It’s the “all ‘X’ are ‘Y'” that causes people to turn away.
There should be opportunity for capable Blacks to compete on a results-based environment. No adjustments for “slavery” in engineering/medicine, and I won’t need a 50 point advantage for a game of basketball.
Not only are both the left and the right (Conservatism Inc–not “our” right) committed to not acknowledging racial differences, but the right is claiming to be more non-racist than the left, and even calling the left “the real racists” That’s the theme of Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie. It’s all about the history of the Democratic Party, showing how racist they’ve been clear back to the days of Andrew Jackson. It’s DR3–“Dems R the Real Racists.”
Young Charlie Kirk and his college organization, Turning Point USA, is focused on MLK-worship and colorblind and content of character politics. Charlie recently posted that “there’s no such thing as race.” Dinesh and Charlie and many other Republicans get a lot of things right, but on race, a lot of young people are being led down the wrong path. I don’t see these types acknowledging racial differences any time soon. They’re determined to be seen as being morally superior to the Dems in the non-racism game.
Not just on race, on gender as well.
In their efforts to expand the franchise, their philosophy has gone from denying human nature (race and sex), to denying reality (climate, economics, Islam, Juice, and Russia).
Just believe, and you can make anything happen!
So I was recently told.
In reality, it’s just a snow job.
It goes further than that now. They deny the existence of the things you have seen and heard. Your own eyes and ears are lying to you, dontcha know?
Perhaps I’m delusional but I think thinks are trending slowly in a better way. When I was younger you didn’t mention the enormous race discrepancy in crime. If you did it was quickly hushed away as merely an effect of socioeconomic differences. That was that. Before the internet the data to challenge that wasn’t easily available. Even if you could find the data showing that wasn’t the case you wouldn’t get the people on TV to say it.
During the height of BLM madness people would point out the crime and race issues constantly. And not just in far right corners of the internet. In response the left had to get think tanks to write little papers about how what you saw had some other esoteric cause besides innate racial differences. It would be signed by someone with some type of credentials. I don’t think the new tactic was as potent as what they used to do through mass media control. More importantly the taboo was broken on saying it.
Buckleyites really seem to come off as Post-Modernists with their non-hierarchical view of humanity. It’s not surprising since most of them came from upper class backgrounds so they never dealt with blacks growing up. They were a abstraction to these country club whites. They could afford to indulge in many forms of insanity and derpdom.
The whole notion of a color blind society reeks of Post-Modern thinking that views qualitative distinctions as the enemy to be eradicated. cannot help but wonder if the architects of this noxious notion were influenced by Derrida and company at some point.
The left as it is currently constructed is defined by two and only two things; both of them hatreds. They hate:
1) The white race
2) The Christian religion
Anyone who will not fight for both is the enemy.
When I was in high school I wouldn’t always look at the pretty white girls walking down the hallway. I’d look at the black girls looking at the white girls. The way their expressions would darken rendered the idea of a colorblind society laughable.
The black girls at my kids’ high school (thank god they graduated!) were always getting in fights with the Mexican girls. Fights where the black girls would go crazy, screaming, with fists flying and hair-pulling, etc.
The demographics at this high school are changing rapidly. Whites are fleeing, so soon the students of color will have it all to themselves. I recently heard a lot of teachers were also leaving the school.
“Whites are fleeing, so soon the students of color will have it all to themselves.” Here in LA (LAUSD), the schools have racial balance minimums to try and stymie white/Asian/Jewish student flight. It’s absurdly complicated and parents and schools use all sorts of trickery to thwart each other. Funny how 60 Minutes etc. never expose THIS kind of crap.
I have a friend who’s a teacher in LA. Her school admin is trying to phase out the F grade, so no one can fail. They’re not saying try not to give F’s. They are literally wanting to abolish the F. Primarily because the students can’t pass math.
Funny, the standardized math tests and minimum grade requirements were implemented by the Left/CivNat/NeoCons, because of their unrealistic expectations for Latino kids (blank slate). But all the Left did was succeed in failing and causing stress and depression in all these kids. So now they’re just going to remove the possibility of failing. Oh why not. When you rule everything what’s to stop you?
Things like that are why I wonder where the women are with their racial awareness. If the black girls were watching the white girls with darkened expressions – you can bet that the white girls damn well knew this.
Not sure what the dynamic was in your high school – maybe those black girls knew they couldn’t get out of line – so they didn’t.
It wasn’t like that everywhere. The wife in one of the couples we are close friends with went to a high school in a Boston suburb that was “integrated” thru busing. After the court ordered busing stuff started – her suburban high school was filled up with black students. Since she was going to the high school before they came – it was a pretty stark different after they were bused in . Lots of fights , harassment – etc, of white girls by the black girls. This was late 70’s to early 80’s time frame. And she still remembers – and uses the N word quite liberally when describing it.
It’s depressing to think about how far away we are from being open about talking about race differences. Even many of my close friends and family get very uncomfortable when I even hint that the races might not all be the same.
My kids and my nephew have recently competed in track and field, and among family members (not my own kids-they’re race-aware) I’ll sometimes make a comment about blacks of West African descent dominating the sprints and jumps, or Kenyans dominating long distance races or the absence of Indians (H1b-type) in track, etc. The usual response is uncomfortable silence. You would think my comments would be a jumping-off point to an interesting discussion, but nobody wants “to go there.”
The indoctrination is deep and it’s going to take a lot to undo it.
I hear you, Wolf.
I urge referring *family* to Derb’s non-black version of The Talk, with your addendum of:
“Would you really have your family ignore Derb’s utterly *practical* advice, considering how the dangers from BLM types have skyrocketed, since he wrote that (in 2012)?
How big do the Dallas-type massacres have to get, and how (subtly) hateful do Lefty spokesmen (e.g. Obama in Dallas) have to be, before you start to doubt the MSM Party Line (on how cuddly blacks are)?”
I think the upcoming holocaust in South Africa might jostle a few more people out of their stupor. Noticing differences and not trying to create equal outcomes isn’t racism.
The educational system does a great job of teaching people to self police. The more educated the person, the more prevent the self censorship. Also, the more prevalent the hatred of the acceptable parties: white working class and, in the North, white Southerners.
“Shape-shifter” is a nice little dog whistle, but we are past the point where we can drop hints.
“Leftism” and “neo-conservatism” and “NR conservatism” are just different capes that Jewish matadors wave in front of white Dirt People.
Any analysis that omits the leading role of Jews in the War on Whites is incomplete.
Back in the 50s and 60s, the cornerstone in the crusade for racial justice was not the fight against racism, but the fight against “prejudice”. That just meant you shouldn’t judge an individual by the group he belonged to. Framing it this way made it acceptable to almost everybody, since different people could interpret it in different ways. Those who had no experience of blacks could interpret it to mean that, eventually at least, blacks would perform on par with whites. The more experienced or more skeptical could content themselves with thought that since only a fraction of blacks would ever qualify, what harm could there be in having one or two percent of positions of authority or expertise occupied by the talented tenth. Since outside of the South and big cities in the Northeast, most whites had absolutely no experience of blacks, most of them fell into the first category, that of the naïve. Plus, in those days there was strong social pressure on blacks to conform to white standards of behavior, at least when they were around whites, so even whites who had some interaction with blacks were often relatively clueless (the exception being Southerners, of course, with their long history of direct experience). And blacks are very good mimics. It’s impossible for younger people today to understand just how civilized black people could be back when they had to be. And then with the media covering for them in any case, back in a time when people accepted media propaganda uncritically, it came to be within the realm of possibility that we could muddle through somehow.
The thing is, the first people who realized this was never gonna work out were the blacks themselves. Sure, if they tried real hard, they might get up to 3 or 4 percent of top positions in society, at most, even with the white liberals cutting them slack. But that would be humiliating, to try so hard and come up so short. Plus, who wants to work hard when there are better options. Much smarter to keep playing the victim and accusing whitey of racism. That way they’d be guaranteed a bigger slice of the pie with a fraction of the effort. So they started lobbying through the courts, or rather their Jew allies did. We think blacks are dumb, but they’re a lot smarter than white liberals. Meanwhile those white liberals needed an excuse for why blacks couldn’t perform at the level of whites, so they had an interest in going along with blacks’ bullshit.
As far as the conservatives, they were left spluttering that if blacks would only try harder, they could achieve… Well, that last bit is left unsaid. There’s no question that if blacks tried harder, they could achieve more than they do, but that’s not saying much. As to whether they could achieve at the level of whites…, well the question becomes moot. Achievement is the result of aptitude plus effort. Lack of effort, or negative effort, precludes any evaluation of aptitude. Maybe in terms of animal cunning at least, blacks are smarter than white conservatives too.
Large blocks of text not divided into paragraphs are not the reader’s friend.
It’s a feature, not a bug!
Equality is a windmill they can tilt at forever.
Just like climate change, another eternal struggle.
I just finished Thomas Sowell’s excellent book “Discrimination and Disparities” which should forever put an end to “Disparate Outcomes” being proof of racial discrimination. But of course, it won’t.
If he were not on the conservative side of things he would be better known. “Basic Economics” and “The Vision of the Anointed” should be required reading for anyone that seeks to understand ‘how we got here.’
I commented the other day about how much better race relations were in the 80s and early 90s. Back then everyone still bought into the MLK stuff about judging people by the content of their character.
Now I expect the Left to start tearing down MLK statues when they get done with the Confederates.
Drake, you’re making a crucial point, about how much things changed in the last 2+ decades.
One theory about this might be, that this change was preceded/ paralleled by a concurrent rise, in what is now known as Pussy-Hat-ism.
When the MSM started to slobber all over the likes of C. MacKinnon, a pit emerged in my stomach.
Whiskey has long argued, that the key driving force in all this is MadAve’s groveling to (mostly single) middle-upper class women, age 15-35.
In the 80s, civil rights “leaders” like Jackson and Sharpton completed the transition to con-man grifters. Rather than shut down the cause and stop talking about race, they made it into a racket.
Yeah, Drake, this not too long after, in 1983, the Minneapolis city government *hired* MacKinnon to draft a porn ordinance.
(She’d already become a major player before that year.)
Lots of truth to this, Drake. In the late 1980’s race relations got about as good as they ever were, post-integration, and a lot of us thought, especially after the collapse of the USSR, “Hey, maybe all of this is going to work out after all”.
That’s why the LA Riots and the black joy at the OJ Simpson verdict came as such a shock. That’s when a lot of us realized that no, it wasn’t working out, and it never was going to work out. Before the early 1990’s, you could actually believe this without (seriously) deluding yourself. After OJ and Reginald Denny, not so much.
Toddy Cat, yes, OJ and the Rodney King riots. The mask dropped right there. “Taking it to the white man”, two times over. The black communities celebrating the hoodwinking of the white man, twice. That was it for me, I never looked at things the same way again.
Yeah, Dutch, and you can also thank the MSM bitches (first CNN?), who gave us the famous OJ verdict split screen, of cheering blacks, and stunned whites.
The whole MSM slobbered all over that clip.
I remember that. I wonder if they realized how many whites saw that as a racial Pearl Harbor or 9/11? No matter what happened after than there was no going back for a lot of us. You could ignore a lot of things, but you couldn’t unsee that.
Blacks cheering a jury verdict purely based on skin color wasn’t a break point IMHO.
But seeing helicopter shots of some CA surfer looking dude getting his head bashed in by cinder blocks as the tribesmen danced around him bleeding out on the street …………. now that had an affect.
In the late 1980’s race relations got about as good as they ever were
I blame Eddie Murphy.
Actually, there’s something to that. At any rate, Eddie Murphy was one of the last movie stars that was liked by both blacks and whites. I’d say more of an effect than a cause, but still…
Drake: ” Back then everyone still bought into the MLK stuff about judging people by the content of their character. ”
As with everything else uttered by St. Michael King the plagiarist and White-whore beater, “content of their character” was a canard. He tailored his message to what he knew the good Whites wanted to hear. What he genuinely advocated (and later partially revealed in his 1968 Playboy interview) was quotas, reparations, affirmative action, and a socialist “redistribution of wealth.”
If the Left ever starts to go after the MLK statues, I would only hope they’d find the hard right had gotten there before them.
tl;dr: Stop repeating any leftist/civic nationalist piety as “truth.” It’s all lies from top to bottom.
There is a pronounced acceleration of Progressive gains since Reagan’s terms.
If you ask me, the prime suspect atop any list of contributors to this acceleration is the explosion in the non-profit sector since 1992. Because most 501 (c)’s devolve into media companies, their reams of published “research,” media-appearances, ad buys and glossy, bound Annual Gift Solicitations (all larded, of course, with the hype and dross that typically dresses vulgar personal ads on Craigslist), had to go somewhere,…
…Had to be read by someone, to some effect.
Global Warming, Abolish I.C.E., Free Mumia, Hillary for President, and Pussy Hats: since 1990 billions (if not trillions) have been spent by this sector producing these reams of hyped marketing brochures and broadcast films and curated curricula. Pretty good digs for a “Non-Profit” sector, huh?
I smell a rat, and this American thinks we need to take a hard look at this sector’s tax-free status.
I’d like to see the Fed’s do a random, public audit of our non-profits. Maybe use a lottery system to choose the 501’s for audit to avoid favoritism. Be they the hefty Tides Foundation, or a diminutive, immigrant-rights outreach office in Brooklyn, ALL deserve the gimlet eye of a devoted public tribunal. They cannot complain; they sought the special license from us regular tax-paying citizens, we should begin to police their misuse of the privilege we lend.
By gum, I think you’ve nailed it.
Before social media, were the non-profits.
Left Inc. and Cuck Inc. don’t build, they just launder the money and avoid the taxes.
This is big. The ill effects of these corporations began a long time ago. Thinking Rockefeller foundation supporting Alfred Kinsey. His university was just happy to get the money and the elites were giddy (yes, literally) at the prospect of overturning the social mores of the day.
The sooner more conservatives realize that these things need to be taxed out of existence, the better.
Many non-profits started off funded by well meaning even conservative leaning rich and powerful men, and are hollowed out from within by leftists who then morph said non-profit to their own means.
Gary North has written about this many times
Interview conducted in 1982:
The problem goes back quite a bit further than just the present day
Just take all of your racial and gender issues, your virtue signaling, your wailing about the inequities of life, your angst and your unresolved anger, and take it somewhere else. Get out of my face. Life is short and it is a gift, and I am not going to waste it dealing with your issues and your pain. Go away. Crawl in a hole. Pull the blankets over your head. I don’t care. And if you can’t deal with your issues without getting me in the middle of them, then things are going to get ugly very fast.
Racial egalitarianism functions as a political perpetual motion machine for the left:
Postulate=all races are equal in ability. Observation=outcomes are grossly unequal between races. Conclusion=some form of inequity exists in society which must be remedied by leftists. Even when no tangible unfairness can be detected, so unassailable is the postulate of biological equality, that undetectable institutional racisms and stereotype threats and black rages are postulated into existence, much as Maxwell inferred the existence of radio waves, lol! Maybe I could win a grant to invent a device to detect the racism waves!
But seriously, the leftists at some level cynically understand that the underlying postulate of egalitarianism is false and they have created a forever wound in society, a crime for which we whites will always be guilty.
Michael Wharton got there first:
“For [Britain]’s burgeoning ‘race relations industry,’ Wharton invented the ‘prejudometer,’ which simply by being pointed at any person could calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, ‘the internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice.'” https://tinyurl.com/y7kyzscl
Nice! I swear Brit Lefties had no way of race-shaming their opposition – so they imported half the Third World and ruined the country just for the chance to call people racist.
Good to see you back here, Derb!
Your stuff about Ice vs. Sun People, and about immigration numbers being “of the essence”, rings sooo true.
“When the Left howls about white privilege, the white guys of Conservative Inc. have no response, since they can’t get away from the fact that most of them are white. ”
The funny thing is it’s mostly the old white Democrat politician loons and the brainwashed college kids who cry about white privilege the most. I hear it more from them than I do blacks.
If you ask the kids if they hate white privilege so much, why don’t they vote out the Pelosis and Schumers of their party since they got rich gaming the system as white elitists. . But they won’t because betray the party and give them a free pass, but will point to Trump or the Koch brothers as their examples. Offer to take them to trailer parks filled with poor white people and tell the kids to explain to the residents how they have all benefited from white privilege. They won’t go. Can’t get outside of the echo-chamber and get exposed to things the reeducation camps (aka: higher education) never wanted them to know about.
Or you could tell them to give up all their possessions and dole them out to minorities since they are suffering from so much guilt, but they won’t because they worked hard for their material possessions (nagging Mom and Dad to buy them shit). They are woke to their privilege so its okay for them to have things, but since I am not in their group think, I suffer from white privilege so I must give up my things.
So I find now rather than trying to debate them to see how they are being played as useful idiots, I tell them I feel sorry for them because they’ve been played like a fiddle.
“What the hell does that mean, I’ve been played like a fiddle?”
One day you’ll wake up and when you do you’ll find out.
It’s fun and informative to just come out with the question to your SJW relatives and friends: OK, all your enemies are gone – wiped out, re-educated, whatever. It’s your world and there is no one in your way. Describe the world you want to build… Answer?
Reality is a bitch if you are an egalitarian…The genetic distance between Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans is the same as that between wolves and coyotes, and the distance is even greater between Africans and Asians..Africans have an average IQ in the low 70s, while American blacks average around 85 because of intermixture.Hence the testing “gap” which never changes, despite trillions spent on educational gimmicks…North Asians, though profoundly un-creative, test even better than whites.
Since liberals, and many “conservatives” can’t accept these facts, which have been obvious for centuries, the answer is simple. Create a world where this cognitive dissonance goes away……The problem is that the world you create will resemble a mix between the Congo and Guatemala, and won’t have machines or flush toilets.
“and won’t have machines or flush toilets.”
Well, that solves the trannies in restrooms issue.
A mix between Congo and Guatemala? That would be Venezuela…without the whites.
It goes back well before the Buckleyite conservatives. They were simply the accommodation to the New Deal. (Their intellectual heirs are busy accomodating to women in the military, men in women’s bathrooms, etc.) But there were preceding conservatives conserving other stuff, like woman suffrage, anti-slavery, and indeed universal manhood suffrage — all of these things were the flaming radical progressive leftist crazy ideas of their time.
The problem here is democracy. All of the things I mentioned above became popular, and got done. Once accomplished they were so popular as to disqualify from public office anyone who opposed them. So, how do you get elected in such an environment? You capitulate.
Here is R. L. Dabney writing about conservatism in 1871:
I think Z has quoted this in the past. Indeed, it reads like it could have been written yesterday. Didn’t Madison write something to the effect that no democracy ever endures without destroying itself?
Garet Garret wrote The Revolution Was (available on the Mises website [www.mises.org]) in 1938.
“Then they have the neocons, the shape-shifters of American politics, who will be white and (((white))) depending upon how they want to play an issue.”
FTFY. This is what makes this creature most insidious of all. The ability to instantly blend and wear the European mantle to beat itself over the head in prostration before the Sacred Altar. Then to blend back in as (((THEE protected class))) immediately after. What an insidious lizard species.
The “Original Sin” in modern parlance, is Whiteness. Full stop. You alluded to this later in the article but it wasn’t the main point. It is the most important point however because if you are guilty by birth and a Nazi by definition, own it. Wear it proudly, and start punching back HARD. Either rhetorically or not, depending on your risk tolerance.
I will also say the next time you see a white person saying “I hate white people / fuck white people” for their disgusting virtue signaling, immediately engage. Agree & Amplify. I hate them too, why don’t you start with yourself? You’d do everyone a favor by self-termination. One less evil in the world.
It is the coward’s way to point at “those white people” until there are no more of us then the pets will turn on, and savage the owner. These people need to be the FIRST eaten, not the last. Do everything in your power to incite their pets against them as directly as possible. You must play the ugly, honorless, sick warfare these cretins engage in. They are gutter snipes that will never stand on a field of battle, quite content to drive the dagger in the back at any turn. Turn the blade first, and vigorously…
We are endlessly told by conservatives that we have the better ideas, we just need to package them better and non-whites will magically become conservatives. This mindset is reflected in John McCain’s parting shot posthumous letter where he rails against “blood and soil” nationalism and talks about being a nation of “ideals”. Meanwhile the reality is that American politics has become a de facto race based two party system of whites voting Republican and everyone else voting Democrat. While conservatives have been trying to rebrand small government and lower taxes to people that benefit from big government and don’t pay taxes anyway, the Left has been assembling an electoral coalition that is united by their hatred of white men and is in the process of forming a permanent electoral majority that will relegate Republicans to a minor irritant to the progressive agenda.
One of the more galling parts of this BS, about the US “being a nation of “ideals” is that, (it keeps getting more obvious that) McCain etc. have no interest at all, in requiring their beloved PoCs to have any respect (beyond the most naked lip-service) for these ideals.
I assure you McCain did not write that letter. He merely signed it. As Trump said of him, “What a dummy!”
McCain had one last chance to address the American people. This was his valedictory, his words from the grave, his swan song. And what did he choose to do with this one, unrepeatable message, his last words of wisdom and council?
He bashed Trump. With his last dying words, he sought the applause of the Establishment. Sad and pathetic.
Or maybe he actually believed it. Which in a way, is almost worse.
And one can only hope that his pansy friend Linda Graham joins him in hell soon.
John McCain… the over-the-top worship of that warmonger is nauseating. The death and misery he brought to so many millions of people! Speaking of McCain, I just found out that McCain’s son, Jack, married a woman of color in 2013 (https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/meet-john-mccains-new-daughter-in-law-1790884854, https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/senator-john-mccains-son-jack-mccain-marries-renee-swift-201326/). She’s a captain in the air force reserve. And John Boehner’s daughter married a Jamaican born man of color (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/john-boehner-future-son-in-law-busted-pot-report-article-1.1326868#) around the same time. He was described as a “construction worker” and got busted for weed, so I take it he’s a bum and she’s a pothead mudshark. They’re all aboard the Multi-Culti Express!
“Multi-Culti Express”! Good phrase, Ursula.
A friendly amendment would be: “Multi-Culti, Deep State, Wall St. Express”, seeing as he slobbered all over the “Invade the World, Invite the World” policies, and he helped push the ’08 bailout.
Thanks, it was a nod to McCain’s Straight Talk Express bus of his 2000 and 2008 campaigns. He got in big trouble in 2000 for ‘straight talking’ the word “gooks” and had to apologize. The offended PC community’s response was just a glimpse of what was to come. When some of my fellow countrymen tried to warn us about Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism back in 2000, I thought they were silly and wildly over-reacting. Now I bless their hearts for seeing what it meant and trying to tell me of its danger. A big lesson for me in that. Similar situation with Pat Buchanan who tried to warn us about things he saw back then, heck he was telling us back in the late 80’s. He got laughed and scorned off the public stage in the 90’s as we embraced what we called centrism but was really globalism under those grifter Clintons.
Yeah, Ursula, Pat etc. may’ve come off as somewhat silly and over-reacting, but, to my knowledge, not dogmatic, let alone snobbish.
Instead, I saw him/ them as behaving rather like the ’60s Lefty profs, *regarding* their *TLC* approach to Normies.
(This, contrary to the attitude pushed by certain readers here, that explaining things to “sheep” is a waste.)
If I read you right, as having been a Normie, I’ll wager that, had Pat etc. dismissed you as a “sheep”, you’d have tuned him out pronto.
(Unless I’m missing something.)
“If I read you right, as having been a Normie, I’ll wager that, had Pat etc. dismissed you as a “sheep”, you’d have tuned him out pronto.
(Unless I’m missing something.)”
Sorry, what does this mean? I don’t personally know “Pat etc.” but I admire his observations. All I was trying to say was that because his views were a threat to the budding globalist agenda, the elite used their tool, the MSM, to force him off the public platforms back in the 90’s. It’s unfortunate because had he stuck around, I and others would have heard more of what he was saying, and we might have stopped the globalism before the cancer spread to all media, government, institutions and immigration might have been curbed. That’s all I’m trying to say.
No Vietnamese killed more Americans than insane McCain.
Actually we have a THREE-party system. Always remember the UniParty, which cynically pollutes the discourse and encourages the other two parties to stay at each others throats, while they continue the ongoing extraction of our national wealth into the pockets of the globalist few.
Yeah, ffarkle, and McCane was using his Uniparty Cane to spank us all.
I’ve never much thought that the “conservatives” were trying to rebrand small government and lower taxes to people who only benefit from government and don’t pay anything.
What I have wondered though is why they couldn’t even sell small government and low taxes to people who DO PAY.
If you think that trying to sell constitutionally restricted govt. to black welfare families is where the battle has been I don’t think you’re really been paying attention much. I’ve been having these arguments with people for the better part of two decades now – and all my arguing has been done with white middle class faces. It’s been very very very predictable that the push-back I would get on arguing for smaller government and less taxes would take some form of “we would have a smaller military” – or – ” what about the roads – what would we do without roads?” – or – “we need public schools!! what would we do without public schools?!!” .
This is why continue to say : if you can’t even uncuck your fellow whites – who are carrying the burden , then how the hell do you think you’re going to win this fight?
One good way to measure the level of pozziness among white faces is to bring up BLM and Trayvon Martin. I’ve seriously pissed off a couple of white middle age men when I offered up the opinion that George Zimmerman was justified in shooting his ass dead, and that BLM was nothing but a bunch of lying idiots. It was actually quite amazing how deeply pissed they were that I even offered up an explanation that maligned the sacred darkness.
Calsdad, I hear you on talking to whites, but I’d use the BLM card before I’d play with the Trayvon one.
That (like many) legal case has its complications, e.g. Stand Your Ground.
Whereas, on BLM, simply ask
“Why don’t they call it Black Lives Also Matter? Their failure to do so, in the context of so much of their rabid rhetoric, tells me that they really mean ‘*Only* Black Lives Matter’ !
Is it really *fair* of Lefties, to expect whites to trust people who so obviously hate us?”
Then, hit ’em with Jeong, Coates (e.g. on 9/11), etc.
These cuck whites may still squeal, but you still may well’ve made an enduring dent.
Whenever you can personalize things, about *Fairness* for you and loved ones, you enhance chances of denting the typical Normie virtue-signaler.
BLM is intimately tied to the Trayvon Martin incident since that is what they used as their reason to exist in the first place.
I don’t think you pick apart something like BLM without showing the bald faced lying that makes up their foundational reasoning for their very existence.
If conservatism is the acceptance of reality – then lets start at the beginning and talk about the reality of the incident that spawned BLM in the first place.
The reality is that Martin was engaged in slamming Zimmerman’s head against a concrete sidewalk (which he started doing after attacking him) – so by every self defense law I’ve ever read (including the ones here in liberal MA) – George was in imminent danger of sever injury or death – and were therefore ENTIRELY justified in shooting the little shit dead.
Pretty much every single “fact” that BLM offered up and protested about after that event was pure horseshit.
Every middle aged white face I’ve engaged with on this topic who was a BLM supporter – had eaten the BLM narrative of how that whole thing went down hook line and sinker. When given the FACTS (otherwise known as reality) – of what Martin did, combined with what the laws actually say about shooting somebody in self defense – they STILL keep bitching and moaning about racism and how shit like how Zimmerman had “followed him” – and how that “wasn’t right”. Essentially what is going on here is that the BLM narrative has been swallowed completely.
Trying to argue this out with black faces (being a white guy) – is completely useless. That’s a job for other black faces – and there are some out there. I don’t envy them their task.
But if we can’t even get fellow whites weaned off a narrative offered up by a crazy black-centric org like BLM – I fail to see how we’re ever going to be able to set this country right again.
Concentrate on the do-able. Un-cucking whites should be doable. In my experience though – most internet commenters are simply not willing or able to do the work in meatspace. It’s almost universal that they resort to some variation of “Trump is going to save us”.
The Zimmerman case had ZERO to do with Stand Your Ground laws. They were not even mentioned in his case.
Of course you know, Zeroth, but in case others missed it, Trayvon Martin was a thief:
How a Miami School Crime Cover-Up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin’s Death
“Revelations that emerged from an internal affairs investigation explain why Martin was not arrested when caught at school with stolen jewelry in October 2011 or with marijuana in February 2012. Instead, the teenager was suspended from school, the last time just days before he was shot dead by George Zimmerman.” …
“Both of Trayvon’s suspensions during his junior year at Krop High involved crimes that could have led to his prosecution as a juvenile offender. However, Chief Charles Hurley of the Miami-Dade School Police Department (MDSPD) in 2010 had implemented a policy that reduced the number of criiminal reports, manipulating statistics to create the appearance of a reduction in crime within the school system. Less than two weeks before Martin’s death, the school system commended Chief Hurley for ‘decreasing school-related juvenile delinquency by an impressive 60 percent for the last six months of 2011.’ What was actually happening was that crimes were not being reported as crimes, but instead treated as disciplinary infractions.”
Obama policy of decriminalizing criminal behavior. Which they’re still doing in California at full speed:
Jerry Brown signs bill eliminating money bail in California
It was noted in this or another article that someone apprehended on a non-violent misdemeanor will be processed and released likely within 12 hours. In California, I’m pretty sure they made theft of $950 and below a misdemeanor. Kamala Harris started this crap before she left to fill Barbara Boxer’s senate seat. Thanks for encouraging crime! Barf.
Hilariously, desegregation has exposed more whites to race realism. My older boomer generation relatives have no concept of modern america because they were never inoculated. I’ll never forget the guy in basic explaining the “plight of black america” to me. He was from Utah LOL. The greater the “diversity” of a community the greater the race realism.
Steve sailer showed a map a while back how all the suburbs around Milwaukee turned red. The Cush welfare of Milwaukee attracted the lowest of the ghetto population from around the country.
There is no debate to be had. If you want to confront Lefty on this issue, it’s going to be ostracism, deplatforming, and ridicule. Violence after that.
We are not going to vote or reason our way out of what is coming. It isn’t the fault of Buckley Conservatives, it’s the fault of left wing f-knuckles. They got their fair shot, they blew it, now it’s time for the blacks to go to the back of the bus, the sexually disturbed flinks to go to their rubber walled cells, and for the women to STFU and get back in the damned kitchen and make a sammich or something.
Or it’s time to get the rifles out. I am good either way.
No, the CIA funded Buckleyites made things much worse by eliminating voices with a more sane attitude toward blacks and Israel.
Word. Those Ivy League elites did not hesitate to throw Joe Sobran under the bus when he would not be part of the NR Israel Amen Corner.
I accepted the “colorblind” ideal for many years. I thought that it was a principle we should strive for, even if many people fell short, and even if many POCs were still quick to cry “racism” whenever someone didn’t give them what they wanted. (Africa was always a shithole, but I put that down to politics, not to the nature of the people who lived there.)
It’s only within the past year or two that I got aboard the “white ethno-state” train. Hearing the “kill white people” imperative going mainstream over the past year certainly helped, as did the movement to destroy white culture go from banning Confederate flags and tearing down statues of Confederate heroes (because “muh slavery”) to attacking everything whites have accomplished.
Just a minor observation… In the past couple of years the subliminal agitprop has pegged the needle. Watch TV for an evening and consider only the commercials. For a country with only 13% black population, you would think it’s half African. The default Everyman (Everywoman? Everykin?) in a given commercial is now usually black, a carefully fictional white-presenting one. This fairytale narrative was far less common only four or five years ago.
I’ve mused heavily on this. Imagine taking the headlines of today that are socially acceptable and plastering them all about in news even 10 years ago in 2008. Or 20 years ago for certain, you’d have a riot. Now there isn’t a peep. Boiling the frog.
Here is just ONE set and its only a year or two’s worth from one outlet! All the lefty rags write the same shit so times this by 10 and imagine being flooded with that back then. They boiled the frog so well that we can now turn the heat up to char-broil. There is no facade anymore whatsoever and nobody cares which is the truly fucked part.
Or how about “Don Draper” telling you how to erase yourself?
You change any of those to ‘black’ and cities, literally, would be burning to the ground.
I have to admit to being very blackpilled on our predicament. As the saying goes, politics are downstream from culture; our culture seems to be headed only deeper into cultural Marxism, so don’t expect politics to reverse direction. Our culture remains wholly at odds with biology. Biology may be trump, but to paraphrase the aphorism, there is a lot of ruin in a culture.
Biology wins in the end. Of course, the end may be a long time coming.
Biology wins every day. That’s science. Whatever is happening, it’s biology. That’s the dictum we all share, am I right?
A thousand years from now, biology will have sorted itself out and fully revealed its pitiless requirements and tendencies.
As biological realists, we should take heart; the temporary perturbations to natural human development that seem important to us – given our pathetic time-frame – will be worked out over centuries, even if it doesn’t include us.
Yeah, and you wouldn’t think there were ANY Hispanics, even though there are more of them than blacks!
What I imply is that they want to smuggle the Hispanics in as unobtrusively as possible!
The tall light “hispanics” pass as White due to European ancestors. English and Moorish people know that there is a difference.
I don’t watch a huge amount of TV – at least not compared to the average American, but I might get in an hour or two a night.
The presence of black faces in television commercials and in prime time sitcoms is exactly how I’ve gotten the wife more race aware.
It wasn’t that hard to just make some casual well placed comments about the ridiculousness of the presence of black faces, especially when it came to the commercials. Now I even have her watching the commercials and figuring out what the percentage of black vs white or other faces are. Especially around evening news time – the % can easily reach 50-75. The other crucial thing is to call out the situations that they stick black faces into. In one drug commercial I recall there’s a lily white elderly couple with a random black child that I guess is supposed to be their granddaughter.
A couple of years ago I could very easily say : ” Hey look there’s another white woman married to a black man – how often does that happen anyway?”. In the last year or so I can call out the white man black woman couples that now constantly show up – and that one in particular just seems ridiculous because I think the white man-black woman combo is far less prevalent than the white woman/black man combo. But watching advertising you would think they’re equal.
My take on it was that somebody somewhere writing up the rules realized that they were just going overboard with the WF/BM combo so they figured they had to balance it all out with some WM/BF combos – so the edict went out and the advertising dummies just followed orders and started spewing out the results.
I’m waiting for the insertion of straight/tranny couples. I’m sure that is next on the agenda.
When you start looking at Black v. White in percentages, you start to see the dismissable obvious, but when you add in an examination of YOUNG Black (incl. mullatto) v. White you see a huge difference. The message is that White/Western people are old and fading fast, so you can dismiss them as unimportant (except as a source of lootable funds). The sneaky “hispanic” undercurrent is found on Spanish-language channels where they openly hate Blacks, mock old Whites, and revere light-skinned blonde-ish tall Spanish women.
I don’t watch tv at all, and for that Reason, my Boomer aged hubby has his own tv room. Every time I’m in there, I find myself constantly critiquing the ads and programs he’s watching. He told me recently that he can’t watch 1/2 the things he used to be cause “I ruined them for him.” The other day he told me, “That show I was watching was obvious Jewish propaganda.”
I about fell out. Here was a well steeped Judeo Christ follower noticing Jewish propaganda!
Steve Sailer was brilliantly correct when he said there’s a war on noticing.
The omnipresence of the black male/white woman couples in commercials is a brutal refutation of the naive belief that markets simply meet demands non-ideologically.
Very few people actually want to see a black male/white woman couple in advertisements. The capitalists would make more money if they didn’t do this, like they did before the 1990s. Yet they keep making these commercials.
Why, you idiot conservatives, why? Because for the people who run the media, race is more important than money. (((They’re))) willing to leave a lot of money on the table to f#ck you over!
The same goes for the percentage of queers and trannies that people think are here, compared to reality.
Most people seem to believe that the county has about 25% queer and 5-10% tranny population, despite those numbers being more like 3-5% and less than 1%.
Media is always warping the miscegenation rate, as well.
If you watched nothing but tv commercials you’d assume 90% of white women get with black men.
In reality, the miscegenation rate for whites in America is around 7% for both men and women and more women mix with Hispanics than blacks, and white men mix predominantly with Asians and Hispanics.
I accepted it too. It only works if all sides accept it.
Leftist have been actively undermining the idea for 25 years.
I also accepted the “colorblind” ideal for years. A little background: In 1964 when I was 13 my sister (10 years my senior) and I were sent on a church Crusade by the Episcopal church we belonged to. We went to Alabama to “fight for equal rights for Negros”. It was a Holy Mission to beat back the racist Democrats and Southerners and give Freedom to the oppressed blacks of the South. We were all caught up in the 60’s style protests and revolution crap but we were not anti war, just anti segregation. Every man in my family for 12 generations served in the military and went to war so there was no way I would go anti Vietnam. In fact I volunteered (like all my ancestors did) for the Army and then to go to Nam.
Imagine my surprise when upon my return from Nam (with two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star) not only was I treated like a dog by my “peers” but was informed by two of the three local Philadelphia colleges (including Temple which was my sister’s alma mater) I could not enroll because they were forced by law to increase their Negro participation and therefore needed 5,000 black students before any whites would be considered.
I was just b!tch-slapped by the “colorblind” society. So I marched for equal rights, got hosed and beaten at a diner, chased by dogs then came home after serving my country, wounded twice only to be discriminated against because of the color of my skin. One could say it was irony but I think it was justice for being a useful idiot of the left.
My point is this: I believed the “colorblind” ideal but only as far as equal treatment under the law and by our government. I don’t think our government should be allowed to discriminate by race, which it does in every way and I don’t believe the Law should discriminate by race which again, happens daily now. In fact it has become SOP for all government and law to favor blacks, Latinos, Africans and Middle Easterners in every way from jobs to loans and from racist Affirmative Action to even more racist quotas.
Basically, I got my compassion handed back to me with a hardy “Shut up and gimme Whitie”. Gotta love the gratitude of a thankful nation.
Excellent comment. I note again the usual high caliber of comments on Z’s blog. Far better than the smug snark on “edgy” blogs like the CivNat cesspool at Ace of Spades.
Ah. So YOU were one of those liberal assholes who came down to show us degenerate Southerners how to behave toward blacks. Now you understand the concept of karma. Glad you were red pilled. Hopefully you don’t have too many mulatto kindred.
Well, Epa, we’d better get more of a grip, than to *vent* by ripping one of those “liberal assholes”, for his deeds at *AGE 13*!!
Or are you SO proud, of *everything* you did at that age?
And, I’d especially hope, that those “liberal assholes” who *stepped up* to serve Their Country, would get at least a bit of slack, for their *honorable* naivete.
There are thousands of dead and maimed whites because of that “honorable” naiveté. “The road to hell….” etc.
I honor them.
One of them, too, huh? I was brought up red pilled. Can’t help you folks who were late to the party. But at least you got here. Take a seat in the rear.
Epa on “Take a seat in the rear”:
No thanx, I’d find another bus to ride, before I’d grovel on yours.
Where-ever you learned that attitude, toward those “who were late to the party”, you were done a disservice.
This, *irrespective* of how early or “late to the party” *I* (or anyone else) was.
Let’s recall, this all started with a comment about a 13 year old’s conduct, referring to “too many mulatto kindred”, as if that was relevant to Hoagie’s points.
You say the cutest things. I hope your bus is air conditioned.
Well done, Jaqship. It’s essential that the regular self-styled fire-eaters here at the Z-blog be calmed down once in awhile by thoughtful people such as yourself.
Nephew, thanx for the support.
If we can’t get basic stuff like this right, our foes will be delighted to use this stuff, to portray us as nowhere near temperamentally fit, to run a one-car funeral procession, or a lemonade stand.
It’s weird for me, as well. When ppl talk about being “colorblind” for most of their life, I just don’t know how to relate to that. My own hubby was the same way, and even though I redpilled him a long time ago, he still slips back into it, from time to time. He told me it was just easier.
Easier, like how it is to go to sleep in Invasion of the Body Snatchers rather than staying awake and trying to live amongst the aliens.
These people are not Southerners like us. They do not get the pain they caused us that continues to this day. They will never understand it, so that’s just something we have to come to terms with.
As an Alabama native who was born in the 60s, my thoughts on this comment are both anger and sadness. We hated you people. The sadness comes from the mistreatment you faced upon returning from war.
what sort of vicious dipshit volunteers to kill people half the world away?
Die soon asshole.
I put that down to politics, not to the nature of the people who lived there
Of course, now you have learned that politics is simply a reflection of the nature of the people.
The politics of Africa are genetically African in origin. Exceptions come from Europeans with rifles enforcing less-corrupt European politics (and civilization, in-general).
David French has just published an article in left-wing Atlantic about his adoption of a pickaninny from Ethiopia. (And at the end of the article, it says, “David French is … a veteran of the Iraq war.”)
“…we held one another and wept shamelessly and publicly in a pizza parlor in Middle Tennessee.”
“America Soured on My Multiracial Family”
What was that famous Shakespeare line- “A race cuck by any other name, would smell just as foul”…something like that.
Hark! What is that? I discern mating call of the sleek-headed cuckold.
David French was a military lawyer with the Judge Advocate General. The closest he came to war in Iraq was a paper cut in his air conditioned office. He was too good and ambitious and valuable to risk his life in a rifle company with the Dirt People humping a rifle and pack like me. He isn’t a war vet, not to me.
That is why I inserted that description of him as a “veteran,” it is hilarious. He “won” the Bronze Star! Jonah Goldberg also calls French a “constitutional expert,” etc.
My great uncle had a couple of those things. All he had to do was survive in a Sherman from D+6 to the end of the war, then get yanked back from reserve status into the Pusan perimeter and do it again (though I think they had better tanks for that one). Seems pretty equivalent. Though guessing French was missing that little “V” thing.
If I may be permitted to quote myself from iSteve at Unz.com, since it is relevant here:
“Now we know that while the promise of Galatians—the promise that we are “all one”—is true in the Kingdom of Heaven, in America it does not yet apply.”
When you’re virtue signaling, you might as well go whole hog and play the Kingdom of Heaven card.
There is something pathetic about this kind of holier-than-thou Bible thumping to score political points. Earlier generations misused religious ideals in all sorts of ways, some very bad indeed, but few of them failed to understand that the Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world and will never be … except possibly for a few saints and mystics. It was usually secular revolutionaries like the Jacobins and Communists who wanted a heavenly state on earth, and the results were imported from Hell.
As an aside: would The Atlantic ever lower itself to publish the thoughts of a committed Christian for any cause other than cultural Marxism?
I saw that today. Didn’t Kevin “Die Whitey” Williamson try to write at the Atlantic also and lasted only one article? Why do NR writers keep tilting at this windmill? The desire to be accepted by polite society?
Say what you want about David French’s views on race, he definitely has skin in the game, haha! He has also provided a welcome cautionary tale to other Evangelical cuckservatives seeking to adopt across the globe.
Missy French is pissed that her fashion accessory is passe, and now zhe’s stuck with it fir life.
I remember reading articles in NR up though the nineties stating that Brown vs The Board of Education was decided wrongly, and at some point in there Buckley wrote an article saying that they were giving up on it. Never said explicitly that those articles would disappear, but they did. It was a gradual cuck, but they did it, and now we can look back and nod.
But look at what the cucking accomplished. Two Clinton presidencies, two Obama’s, and endless neocon wars.
And now we have Jonah Goldbrick to preach to us.
I’m so thankful.
The informal histories of Buckley and his operation point to the Johnson years as when they folded on the race issue. They oppose the Civil Right legislation, but once it passed, Buckley decided to change course. I also think the neocon invasion played a role. That crowd brought a cult-Marx view of society with them. They were always anti-majoritarian.
I’m deeply impressed that you keep reading NR, Z-man….Talk about doing the work that other Americans won’t do!
At least part of this was the Buckleyite obsession with the Communist threat as posed by the USSR (which I shared, by the way). Buckley never like the Civil Rights stuff, but he felt like he had to go along with it in order to not have the USA roasted by Commie propaganda in the Third World. This was a genuine dilemma, and Buckley’s policy of not talking about it might have worked had it been recognized as the tactic that it was, but the real problem came when younger “Movement” conservatives actually internalized Civil Rights propaganda, and accepted it as fact. In the face of the silence of their elders, why shouldn’t they? Hence guys like David French, who is actually right-wing on issues like guns, but is to the left of most 1960’s moderate liberals when it comes to race.
In hindsight, many of us 1970’s-1980’s righties were too worried about International Communism, and not worried enough about the domestic leftist threat. All I can say is that, in the 1970’s with the USSR over-running country after country, the Soviets certainly looked fearsome, and indeed they were, up to a point. But as Chiang-Kai-Shek once said, comparing the Japanese invaders to the Communists, “The Japanese are a disease of the skin. The Communists are a disease of the heart”.
A wise man, Chiang. So of course we betrayed him…
The KGB had operatives inside the “civil rights” movement. The FBI knew it at the time.
There’s no doubt that this is true. The true history of the 1960’s has yet to be written.
I was mainly speaking of the other various writers in NR being permitted to write such things. The official line may have been otherwise, but some dissent was still noticeable until then. It coincided roughly with the rejection of paleos like Buchanan.
True. This picked up steam once the older generation of NR conservatives, like James Burnham and Ernst Van Den Haag started to die off/
Color blind Society does not equal egalitarianism. It means the state gets out of the way, and people naturally rise or fall to their level.
This, coupled with free association, would go a long way to fixing our current issues.
And if you had a can opener, you wouldn’t starve on that desert island.
Both colorblind treatment and free association have been outlawed.
Yeah, once we become a majority brown country the state will definitely get out of the way and let people naturally rise and fall. Absolutely delusional.
Good comment – which recognizes the exact same reality that our founders recognized, and at which roo_ster pathetically jeers. I guess he prefers his modern chains.
What you refuse to see is that most non-whites are inherently tribal. They care more about their people dominating society than they care about political ideals, economics, or even basic societal functionality. That’s why you’re never going to get your multiracial libertarian society, although your evasion will prevent you from taking action to protect your society.
Of course there is a small number of non-whites who are less tribal but the process of identifying them is so difficult that it is not worth the effort.
True that. The Kalifornia Soviet Republic has been moving in that direction for many years. The Latinos/Latinas are the worker bees, the Asians hold the economic reins and the Whites are slowly but surely being marginalized on the fringes. Born and raised in SoCal. Saw it happening in the early 1960’s. I’m glad I no longer live there.
The Singapore example of a prosperous multiracial, multilingual society, all of whom are “non-whites” and “care about political ideals, economics, [and] even basic societal functionality” serves as a bit of counterevidence, doesn’t it?
Although it is dominated by its Chinese majority (built by a benevolent dictator), there are substantial numbers of Malays and Indians (74.2% Chinese, 13.2% Malays, 9.2% Indians: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/singapore-population/). The catch, I suppose, is that Singapore is NOT libertarian.
Not all “brown people” are created equal
I don’t know if I agree with all of your assertions in this article, but this one I agree with absolutely 150%:
The foundation stone of western conservatism is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation.
We can argue about what the human condition really is – but my understanding of conservatism has always been that it MUST be a raw acceptance of reality – or as you put it: the human condition.
Yeah, Carlsdad, and part of that reality Buckley didn’t face is, that “there can be no such thing as a colorblind society”, *unless* that colorblindness is enforced by *(inverted) totalitarian* means.
See (honest lefty) Sheldon Wolin on “inverted totalitarianism”.
He attributed its growth primarily to corporate power.
I attribute it more to Deep State power.
Why couldn’t Buckley say:
“We really don’t *know* that races are ‘equal’, so why gamble on that being solid fact?
To ‘make up’ for slavery, why not have US gov’t buy land in Liberia (or wherever), and offer US blacks a take-it-or-leave-it, free one-way ticket to such a place, like Lincoln envisioned?”
If any major number of blacks had bought this offer, the ones remaining here would’ve had a rather weaker political club, with which to beat whites.
The problem is that pesky 14th amendment, the same one which served as the basis for gay marriage and anchor babies.
The problem with the 14th is that Justices have failed to read and understand how Magic Dirt doesn’t exist and that a Nation is a People. Diversity Destroys “a People” then destroys the Nation State/
If it’s an “offer,” hardly anyone is going to take it. They rail against Whitey, but when the rubber meets the road, they want to live in White-run nations.
I attribute more to Deep State power too.
Pretty much every single leftie I have ever run across in my entire life bitches about rich person this and corporation that. It’s so predictable it’s tiresome. What they absolutely refuse to acknowledge is that corporate power is entirely dependent on government power to force thru laws and regulations that benefit said corporations.
IMHO the belief that it’s corporations that are screwing everybody is a red flag indicator of a leftist who is delusional.
Most corporations I know of can be held in check by one simple method: stop buying their shit.
Let’s see you try that with the government
I have decided that I no longer want subscribe to your organization’s products or purchase your goods. Please take me off your mailing list and cancel my account. As of 8/28/2019 I will not longer be sending payment checks.
Yeah – let me know how that works out for you.
More right than wrong, Carlsdad.
I’ll bet that Fortune 500 had to bite J. Edgar, more than he bit them.
If Fortune 500 play ball with Deep State, their competitors get “out-maneuvered”, in Cong. committees, regulatory hearings, etc..
carlsdad, well put
A ‘raw acceptance of reality’?
My eldest brother was cooking steaks on his deck tonight; it was great – we drank IPA beer and the kids swam in the pool; the night was lovely, and the streets were calm. Another pleasant late summer evening in the world white people built, a world I’m proud to be a part of, and I’d love to see survive.
Conservatism isn’t some hard-earned virtue of the mind forged on the battlefield or in the labor camps, but a natural and sane desire to maintain a world one is comfortable in.
What you just defined is a cuckservative.
“Maintain a world one is comfortable in”.
Exactly typifies “conservatives” over the last century or so in the US who have constantly defended the leftist progressive successes as soon as they were passed into law.
So as long as you’re “comfortable” with living in a world where your tax dollars are used to fund sex change operations – that makes you a conservative?