Modern Political Escapism

One of the weird features of current age America is it is kind of like a community theater production of popular Broadway shows. The people on stage are enthusiastic to play the roles and the production people work hard to get everything just as the audience would remember it. The audience will tolerate some changes and revisions, in order to update the show, but otherwise they want to see the original. The culture of this age is like a long re-do of the past, in order to get it right this time.

The most obvious place for this is in movies. There are small independent films that try new things, but the big productions are all rehashes of old material. In many cases they are remakes that deviate in amusing ways from the original. This has become so obvious that there are a bunch of hackneyed jokes about it. As soon as a remake is announced, everyone lets fly with jokes about how it will feature a one-legged trans lesbian of color, rather than the white male star in the original production.

Where this lack of new ideas is most obvious is in the realm of politics. The vast Democratic field, which is up to 22 now, is interesting for the sole reason that it is the wildly boring cast of characters. The front-runners are two near-dead geezers who sound like museum exhibits on the 1970’s. The rest remind everyone of the people you meet at a corporate retreat. They are studies in blandness. The primary is going to be a beauty contest without a talent competition, because no one has any talent.

One of the interesting things to come out of the Ben Shapiro meltdown on the BBC, besides him behaving like a spoiled teenager, was the exchange over which side of the political class has new ideas. Shapiro was right to point out that the new ideas on the Left are just remakes of very old ideas, but he was unable to name a single thing the so-called conservative movement has to offer. The American Left is a post-modern art installation, but the American Right, the official one, is the storage closet.

If you go to National Review Online and search for the word “socialism” you get more than a hundred pieces ranting about socialism this year. The word “automation” generates no hits for this year, despite the fact automation of labor is the most important economic topic of this age. The word “immigration” gets some hits, but all from the two people who focus on it and nothing but political observations. Is there a “conservative case” for or against immigration? They have one for men pretending to be women.

In fairness, those “conservative case for” pieces that dissidents love to mock have dried up of late, in favor of a trip down memory lane. The conservative movement is now committed to fighting socialism. Every day they put out tired essays like this one from Kevin Williamson. National Review is committed to promoting the moronic strategy of the Republican Party, which is desperate to campaign on anything other than what their voters see as important. America has always been at war with abstract ideas!

Of course, they never actually argue against socialism. There’s no conservative case for ending social security. That’s a giant wealth transfer from the young to the old. The same is true of Medicare. They can’t even muster a case against programs like subsidized school lunches. Instead, like Ben Shapiro, they focus all of their energy on attacking the ideas of unstable females like Ocasio-Cortez. American political debate is a bum fight outside a debilitated old bar in a town that has seen better days.

In fairness, there are some people on the permitted Right that understand Buckley Conservatism is dead. This Rod Dreher post about J.D. Vance speaking at the American Conservative dinner touches on it. The thing is though, you see why these guys are hopelessly trapped in an ideological cage built for them by the Left. What Vance imagines is some weird new conservationism that proves once and for all that the Democrats are the real racists. It’s reactionary nostalgia for yesterday men.

The fact is, Buckley style conservatism was always just a wart on the face of American Progressivism, intended to make it less attractive. It was never a fully formed moral philosophy that could stand independently from Progressivism. It’s why it was so easily infiltrated by libertarianism after the Cold War. Both ideologies are dependent on the Left to exist. Libertarianism was a critique of central planning, while conservatism was a defense of Western order in the face of 19th century radicalism.

Whatever comes next is not going to be rooted in middle-aged white guys emoting about black single mothers. That Vance speech is just another version of the same old plea for mercy conservatives have been sending out since they lost the fight on freedom of association in the 1960’s. Cobbling together tribes of losers, hiding out in the jungle long after the war has ended, is not the future of the Right. What comes next is going to be a moral philosophy rooted in biological reality.

In the meantime, both sides of the political order will belt out show tunes from their salad days, while pretending they are having a serious debate. It is, in part, a way to avoid facing up to present reality. Why talk about the inherent instability of a majority-minority society when you can debate climate change? Why talk about the plight of white people in America when you can rant about Venezuelan economic policy? In addition to being a dearth of new ideas, modern political debate is a form of escapism.

To Support my work, subscribe here.

138 thoughts on “Modern Political Escapism

  1. “American political debate is a bum fight outside a debilitated old bar in a town that has seen better days.”

    Well put. But where can those of us who merely want to be left alone and not be soiled by either bum go? Alas, politics is everything and everywhere–we can’t escape it any better than the serfs of old could escape the whims of the king.

    Maybe all this impeachment and investigation nonsense in Congress is actually good. If those bums are distracted, maybe they won’t sit around thinking up more rules and taxes for us proles.

  2. You are majoring in the minors, because of your belief system. The ISSUE is the destruction of Christianity. This is a battle against powers and principalities. Read Rev. 1-22 God wins

  3. ” ” American political debate is a bum fight outside a debilitated old bar in a town that has seen better days ” ”

    Awesome, just awesome !

  4. Z says that “what comes next is going to be a moral philosophy rooted in biological reality.”

    There is no “moral philosophy.” There are morals, and they are universally recognized. These morals are usually stated as “shalt not.” In other words, don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t take your neighbor’s wife … you know the rest. Usually there will be a couple of positive admonitions such as do something for the poor, show respect to the elders, honor the local deity. There are minor variations from culture to culture. Repeat, minor.

    All human societies always operate on the basis of this elementary morality, to the extent that they operate at all.

    Not sure what the Z means by “moral philosophy,” but it might be akin to devising a new shape for the wheel. The wheel is round – period, end of story, now and forever. Ditto human morals. Human morality is as fixed and timeless as human anatomy, perhaps more so.

    Human morality does develop, but not change. The development consists in widening the circle of people toward whom moral behavior can be expected.

    Now then. “Rooted in biological reality.” Our notions of reality are indeed capable of being shaped by philosophy. I suppose I understand why the Z wants to single out one facet of reality, i.e. biology. But I don’t think that’s necessary or strong. I think his point would be stronger if he called for a philosophy “rooted in reality.” As to the question of what constitutes reality, I would refer to “British Empiricism,” as described by Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy. It boils down, I think, to ordinary observations made by large numbers of ordinary people who are in free communication with each other and who are free to shape their behavior accordingly.

    With all due respect to the Z, such a philosophy isn’t “what comes next.” It’s been here all along. Like, before the beginning of language. Living organisms operate, to the extent that they operate at all, by making real observations in the real world, and shaping behavior accordingly.

    We don’t need new philosophy or new morals. What is needed is the courage to apply existing morality. Admitting and telling the truth, for example, would go a long way. Including, for example, difficult biological truths that Z is evidently referring to.

    Now we’re back to square one. What to do? How to do it? How can our Western culture, mired in the worship of unreality, be brought to it’s senses? Are we accomplishing anything on Z’s blog? Are we spinning our wheels without real traction in the real world?


    Tom Hurlberth

  5. I wouldn’t mind all the anti-socialism talk if it wasn’t trying so hard to avoid talking about the issues that got us here.

    Class balkanizing rhetoric is far less effective when there’s less class stratification, but while these dunderheads keep quoting de’Toqueville as a great affirmation of American Exceptionalism, they are oblivious to the fact he admired the equal footing of all classes in a virgin society, which belies what part of the French Revolution he was on.

    Sure, let’s fight socialism – by addressing the failures of radical individualism, unethical business practices, predatory lending, manipulative fiscal policy, and socially destructive immigration that have all served to make socialism (from countries with fewer of these issues [until relatively recently]) look a helluva lot better than the other option.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the young people who want socialism are looking for the kind of experience you can only get from a large, intact, and supportive family – something absolutely foreign to all of them. What can I say? Marx was right.

  6. Dreher was going to retire early and fat on the “crunchy con” scam. It didn’t work out.

    • Say what you will about conservatives being stupid, but at least they didn’t fall for that.

  7. A lot of abandoned, decaying resorts in the Poconos where things used to be really swinging before the music stopped and everyone moved on…

  8. I’ve always been amazed at the hypocritical attitudes of Americans and their “socialism is evil” mantra. It’s one thing to point at Venezuela and say it’s a failed socialist state, but it’s another to compare it to socialist systems that work quite well as we have in Europe, such as health care and public education

    I’m not talking about the welfare system because we all know that system was never designed to support hundreds and thousands of people who have effectively become wards of the State..

    Obviously, forms of socialism do work and have worked quite well in Europe and America; subsidized farm programs public roads, public schools, public libraries, public parks and public hospitals. Of course I’m talking about these in the past tense when they actually made sense and served the public quite well.

    Unfortunately instead of managing these programs properly, they were either privatized to the point of being unaffordable ( care and public schools) or became so bloated and distorted from their original charter, they can no longer function as they were once intended.

    The point is, socialism, in some forms, benefits everyone equally, like a public library where rich kids and poor kids can go and read a book in peace and quiet. But when it becomes a mechanism of taking money from one group and handing it out to another, that’s not socialism, that’s wealth redistribution pure and simple.

    • The only problem with European Socialism is that it requires Europeans to make it work. Almost any economic system will work to some extent, barring actual Communism, if you have the right people. Right now, we do not have the right people, and we are getting fewer every day. Hell, give me a country full of Swedes or Germans, and I can make anything short of full Maoism sorta work. But what works with a country full of Somalis? I honestly don’t know.

    • Disagree. With socialism, you eventually get mission creep until you run out of other people’s money. Europe has been freeloading off America for defense for decades. Medicine is not unaffordable because it was privatized. It only became unaffordable when the government started messing with it.

  9. You mean at the NR there is no “conservative case for socialism”
    … for progressivism
    … for saving Obamacare
    … for partial birth abortion
    … for letting opoid addicts die (if they can’t get to U-Haul)

    Personally I have a case for torpedoing the NR Cruise ship, but not enough participate.

  10. One of the things that deserves far more analysis is why Buckley conservatism failed. Buckley gets a lot of heat on these blogs but I don’t think people recognise how intellectually bankrupt the right was at the time of the founding of NR. Buckley was trying to build a coalition against the Left but since the numbers of “right wing” intellectuals was so small membership had to be limited to the lowest common denominator, which in the end turned out to be anti-mainstream Left.

    One fo the reasons why Chambers left NR is because he realised such a broad church was intellectually contradictory and would be unable to mount a meaningful fight against the Left. Just as Judeo-Christianity is an intellectual incompatibility, so is atheo-Christianity, or Darwin-Christianity. Intellectual coalitions of these elements are incompatible and thus the movement ends up killing itself.

    The “new thing” is going to be religion but its not going to be the religion of old. Kumbayah Christianity is dying and unless it reforms the West is over.

    Chambers understood this and that is why he left the National Review.

    • Yes, Buckley conservatism was inevitable and necessary, given international conditions at the time, and it did have its share of victories. The big problem with Buckley Conservatism is that it refused to make way for something more appropriate in the early 1990’s after the USSR collapsed. Instead, it just became this Reagan Memorial Society, with about as much relevance to what’s going on now as those Japanese soldiers they kept finding back in the 1960’s and 1970’s on remote Pacific islands who thought that the war was still going on.

  11. OT, but have you made any progress in being able to accept cash donations, as opposed to credit, debit, etc.? All it would require is a post office box, or drop box of some sort.

  12. The problem I have with a lot of the alt right is it seems to spend a lot of time just saying what it isn’t rather than what it is. It offers great critiques of liberalism (be it the classical liberalism of libertarianism or the modern moonbattery of the current left) but no good outline of what it is for. Like ok, diversity is corrosive to civil society. We live in a diverse society, what do we do about it? We don’t like the concentrated power of centrally planned socialism or the crushing impersonality and “creatively destructive” aspects of capitalism. What is our guiding principle there? Say what you will about the tenets of progressivism, Marxism, libertarianism, Buckleyism etc but at least it’s an ethos Dude. A movement that is just a blob held together by stop the brown hoard influx isn’t gonna last long.

    • There was a guy who went by the name of Lawrence Murray who wrote great, forward thinking stuff on future-State topics. Unfortunately, he went dark and never returned when Mike Enoch was doxed.

      You can find some of his stuff on Counter Currents, but he deleted his excellent personal site (sad face)

  13. “What comes next is going to be a moral philosophy rooted in biological reality.”

    From ‘Ecclesiastes’:

    I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

    Where does ‘biological reality’ stand on the ‘time and chance’ question? How will a moral system derived from science explain the death of a 170 IQ genius at 20 or justify feeding lifelong welfare-recipients of 80 IQs until they’re 95?

    There exists an ancient moral structure to handle these questions, as we see from the quote above from the OT, but we’re all for science now and these are questions we must answer decisively, when asked, if we have indeed a new and comprehensive moral system.

  14. “The likely prospect is that politicians of all parties will say, ‘well, Enoch Powell’s right, we don’t say that in public but we know it in private…and it will, no doubt, develop as he says, but it’s better for us to do nothing now and let it happen, perhaps after our time, than to seize the many poisonous nettles which we would have to seize, if we were, at this stage, going to attempt to avert the outcome. So let it go on until a third of central London, a third of Birmingham, Wolverhampton are coloured. UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR COMES. Let it go on, we won’t be blamed. We’ll either have gone or we’ll slip out from under somehow.’ ”

    — Enoch Powell, commenting on his 1968 “Rivers of Blood Speech” in 1977

    Well, that’s why the politicians are doing the shabby, pointless community theater: to avoid having to “seize the many poisonous nettles”–which, spelled out, are the “biological realities” of race, demographics, immigration, and ultimately repatriation.

    Politicians are cowardly, short-term thinkers. Perhaps it’s their fault, or perhaps it’s due to systematic sorting patterns of our type of political system. But that “do nothing now” attitude will lead to catastrophe in the long run.

    • Powell was a marvel. The ability to see and state the obvious is the rarest of qualities in any of us, much less politicians.

  15. Ok, I realize that I keep harping on Steve Sailer (which is odd for many reasons, not least of which are that I have huge respect for the guy and send him money every month) but his latest Taki article is related to the Dreher piece. Even guys on our side seem to be stuck in some weird time warp.

    Sailer lays out an action plan to save the country:

    1. Dramatically cut legal and illegal immigration
    2. Junk the “nation of immigrants” rhetoric
    3. Get rid of affirmative action
    4. Demand that ethnic groups that push for their own tribe get “hooted down as the grifters they are”
    5. Abolish “Hate Whiteyism” by punishing hoaxers and shaming those who believe them

    Now, this would have been a reasonable list for a GOP candidate in the mid 1990s, but in 2019, it’s ridiculous. Has Sailer looked around lately. Does he realize how marginalized gentile whites have become. Just how exactly are we supposed to get any of that done. We had a bit of a shot on illegal immigration with Trump, but even that seems to be dead. But the other points on the list are delusional.

    As best as I can tell, the new Sailer strategy is to beg Jews and their white SJW minions to go nice on gentile whites because hammering us may be past the point of diminishing marginal returns and even to the point of being “Bad for the Jews.”

    Sailer, like Dreher, seems to believe that there’s a way out of this predicament for whites that involves working within the current system. All of his suggestions require blacks, browns and Jews to give up their tribalism and racial hatred for whites that has allowed them to win power over whites and huge amounts of money.

    And just why would they do that, Steve? Because of your persuasive debating skills? Because they don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Because we’re all citizens of this country and so should give preference to people outside of their tribes in favor of your fellow citizens?

    It pains me when a guy like Sailer – one of our Mount Rushmore guys – can’t see that we’re long past working within the old system, that we need to blow that system up. We need to create our own communities, and legal and political attack dogs so that the other tribes stop shitting on us because we fight back, not because we appeal their better angels.

    Dreher has the excuse of ignorance. Sailer doesn’t.

    • Too many right-wingers have what you might call a “diagnosis-cure gap.” That is, their grasp of reality (the diagnosis) is perfectly clear-eyed, but their practical suggestions (the cure) are woefully inadequate. It’s like a doctor who diagnoses you with cancer, and then tells you to drink more water.

      But just for opening people’s eyes, Sailer is a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

      • Sailer is great for opening people’s eyes. Besides being intelligent and thoughtful, he just seems like a great guy. There’s simply no way you read his stuff and think of him as extreme. He’s perfect for gently deprogramming whites raised on EQUALITY and white guilt, so I should cut the guy some slack.

        And I would if I thought that he held onto his CivNat beliefs as a cover, but I’m beginning to think that he really believes that stuff. I just don’t want Steve to steer people in the wrong direction after they’ve begun to wake up.

      • Moldbug had lots of issues along these lines. A better diagnostician of the flaws of Western Democracy never existed, but his solution was absurd at the time, and looks even more so now. I mean, the idea that an organization run by a dominating CEO and dedicated to making a profit would never engage in political virtue-signalling and repression looks pretty misguided now, doesn’t it? Yarvin always was too much of a libertarian for his own good, in spite of how much I enjoyed reading his stuff.

    • If our enemies took Sailer’s advice they would win the long game. It would take enough wind out of our sails. It would kick the ball out another 2 generations. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren would have to face a much worse situation as a dwindling minority.

      Luckily for all of us our enemies and their neolithic bio-weapons can’t even tap the brakes never mind slow down or stop.

      • You’re right. Steve’s prescriptions aren’t just misguided; they’re positively dangerous. They’re the slow gas leak that kills us in our sleep.

        I think that it’s hard for some people to accept that it’s over. The country – their reality, really – that they once knew is over and will never come back. The Enlightenment is dying. The West as we knew it for 500 years or more is disappearing and will never come back as it was.

        Steve’s an idea guy, a debater, but as Z has said, the Age of Ideology is being replaced by the Age of Demography. Ideas will take a backseat to tribe. You don’t debate ideas, just splitting the pie. I think that’s very hard for someone like Steve to accept.

        • What we have now is the logical conclusion of the Enlightenment. I wouldn’t say it’s dying so much as it’s simply fulfilling its function.

    • Very well said, Citizen. I don’t send Sailer money – because I don’t have a lot to spare (hubby put me on a strict budget) and what I do have to spare goes to higher priorities – Zman, a few others. I’d love to win the lottery and lavish funding on the hard right – and even then I wouldn’t give much to Sailer. You’re correct – he’s a smart guy, and I still peruse his posts, but he’s part of that nostalgia porn that Zman writes about. Despite his HBD awareness he remains a civnat who thinks he can appeal to non-Whites’ “better nature.” Not happening. He’s the old way of thinking and it shows in his commentariat – boomercons, obnoxious pseudo-right Jews, various what-about-meee-minorities who profess to be supercitizens but still rush to defend their racial or ethnic group, etc.

    • Most of what I read in DR circles has an implicit understanding that you should be preparing to fight. VD refers to being anti-fragile.

      Finding ways to work in the system shouldn’t be the only thing being done, but neither should be prepping for all out war. Work within the system, pray for a miracle, prepare for the worst case. At the very least, we might make progress that minimizes conflict even if it doesn’t eradicate it.

      I suppose a criticism could be made for a lack of post-conflict political organization theory.

  16. Well of course Conservatives and the GOP refuse to talk about issues that are important to the people. Why? Because they represent the wealthy, not some guy in Ohio who runs a small machine shop . In social terms the GOP is almost totally in in sync with the Democrats on all major issues except abortion and guns.

    Were it not for these two issues the GOP would not exist. as a national party.

    Whites keep making that mistake of thinking the GOP/Conservatives are on their side, they’re not. I watched the GOP here in CA destroy the state, it wasn’t the Democrats, they just watched as the GOP went full on corporate whore mode and gave the Democrats total power in the state. It was more important to the GOP to stay in good graces of cheap labor donors and Silicon Valley globalists than to represent the people. Now the GOP doesn’t even exist in the state for practical purposes.

    As Z says both parties are doing everything possible to avoid real issues. But they’ve always done that since I can remember. They do it because we are not their constituency, the wealthy are.

    • “As Z says both parties are doing everything possible to avoid real issues. But they’ve always done that since I can remember. They do it because we are not their constituency, the wealthy are.”

      This isn’t just a political phenomenon, it’s a universal instinct that is accelerating.

      I’ve been noticing the greater influence of the enlightenment gurus lately (Eckhart Tolle, etc..); people who are naturally disinclined to think about geopolitics (the feminine-minded) are drawn to them more as cognitive dissonance builds. Being unable to resolve the problem with hysterics or compelling men to violence, they retreat to a philosophy of inner peace and “transcendence”.

      Very much reminds me of early Christian philosophy and is probably why Nietzsche described the philosophical impetus of Christianity having a spirit amenable to women and slaves. To be fair, it was the fanatical zealotry of the early Christians which made the religion attractive to the Roman government. Monotheism is a hell of a drug.

      Additionally, has anyone else considered the obvious absurdity of putting more than one form of monotheism in the same place? Monotheist religions are, by definition and necessary characteristic, mutually exclusive with each other.

  17. Time for a new ideology with the extended paterfamilias-style family at its core (not muh individualism), revering heroic ancestors, elevating HBD & race realism over the cult of equality, incorporating aristocracy as well as merit, preferring localism, decentralization, subsidiarity and distributionism to “free” global markets, ruthless unashamed protectionism, and draconian border control. And we Pinochet the libertarians.

    • We need to put up big statues of Hillare Belloc and GK Chesterton. Chesterton’s statue would be *quite* large.

      • I’ve always smiled at the description of Hillare Belloc and GK Chesterton as two buttocks of the same bum.

        Can’t recall who,

    • I’m totally on board, Exile, except for one thing – I don’t think women, even unicorns like me, should be allowed to vote. But I’ll happily make sandwiches!

    • And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?

  18. Could only read the first two paragraphs of that twaddle.

    Dreher is a smart guy, just unprincipled. He subtly gave away last election that he knew the current situation, but his moral framework and checkbook prohibit him from speaking about it honestly. His only solution is to churn out pablum for his revenue stream and preach retreat per The Benedict Option.

    Its like these guys make a plan of retreat before the enemy even bothers showing up.

    • Yes, and if Dreher actually thinks that he and his fellow Christians are simply going to be allowed to retreat into the boonies and live their lives as they wish, I have but two words to say to him;


      I mean, seriously, where has this guy been the last few decades? Maybe someone should send Lon Horiuchi over to explain it to him.

    • The Benedict Option is EXACTLY what the left wants us to do. Don’t fight, don’t try to win, Christians have lost – they’ve won. Give up the public square and just retreat back to your christian communities and pray to Jesus. Let the Liberals run society. You’ll notice that Dreher is ALWAYS punching right and hysterically attacking the “Religious Right”. Which is exactly what his Liberal/Left masters want him to do.

      Unlike others, I don’t think pundits “secretly signal” they’re on our side. Or “Secretly” want us to win but… Nobody, can write column after column year after years and suppress their true feelings. Dreher wants to Conservatives to Lose.

  19. From the Dreher post: (Vance told a story about being present when a corporate CEO type asked rhetorically why he, as an international business executive, should care more about the interests of American families than, say, Chinese families. Vance said he told the man that his own financial success and stability depends on the US military policing the trade lanes, and on various contributions made by the American people, in the form of taxes and other means. That man owes something to his fellow Americans, Vance told him. He’s right about that, don’t you think?)

    The real answer to the CEO is simple. If you don’t know why, you’re an idiot and it can’t be explained to you, so we should just tax the hell out of you.

    • I noticed that passage and was going to post it myself. It encapsulates everything, from the deracinated corporate leaders to the politicos who can’t even think in racial terms.

    • No the correct response is you’re an American living in America. And your first duty is to your countrymen. If you aren’t an American – then get the hell out – and go live in Globalistan. We don’t exist for you to sponge off us to make money overseas.

  20. Hey, here’s a crazy idea… what if we acted like our country was actually a country, instead of a giant international battered women’s shelter? What if we acted like our country was actually ours, and belonged to us, and wasn’t just an international cookie jar, with free cookies dispensed to every Bangladeshi, Yemeni and Congolese who wants one?

    What if America belonged to the Americans who actually conceived, designed, built, and fought for the place, and not to an endless swarm of pathetic Guatemalans waving around their greasy pleading ninos as a kind of weird get-out-of-monkey land-and-into-the-nice-Wypipo-country free card?

    What if America was just the place where the Americans lived, and not a gigantic lifeboat?

    Nah, that would make Jews and Muslims and Negroes feel uncomfortable, so we can’t have that.

    As every schoolchild knows, America was founded in 1913 when the Jews sailed to Ellis Island, beat up Big Red Hanrahan after he punched Uncle Moshe in the nose, and invented science and the Federal Reserve. Before that America was just an enormous overgrown wilderness, where evil cave-dwelling Wypipo spent all their time whipping slaves. Then Muslims built the Golden Gate Bridge, Martin Luther King landed on the moon to end slavery, and everybody learned how to conduct a gay-marriage ceremony in Spanish. It all says so right there, in the poem by the rich, sentimental slave-owning Jew that is stapled to the Statue of Immigration.

    You laugh, but that is what your grandchildren’s school textbooks ( heh, well not YOUR grand children’s, somebody else’s) will say in fifty years.

    Now put down your fair-trade coffee mugs and get back to remembering the Six Million.

      • Perhaps we should have an organized, large-scale uprising where we storm the Statue of Liberty and remove that ‘foolish’ plaque from its base. Then load it on a boat and sail out to sea in the dark and ceremoniously drop it a couple of miles into international waters where it will never be located. You know, a similar exercise to tearing down the Confederate statues. We no longer want their dirty, ignorant, unwashed masses to befoul our country.

    • Oh knock it off, Postcard. Everyone knows that de wypipo invented lots of things too, like racism and global warming and patriarchy and internment camps for Japanese people. Learn some history, bigot!

  21. “What comes next is going to be a moral philosophy rooted in biological reality.“

    Exactly this, but as Z pointed out earlier, our side has its own issues in the idea war.

    On a personal level, I’d love nothing more than to never again hear the name of a certain Italian who LARPed so hard he thought he was impervious to bombs.

  22. What this post seems to imply, but does not actually say, is that there is an unmet demand for not only a new political party in the US, but for multiple new parties.

    When you see the enthusiasm for the new Brexit Party in the UK, the unlikely appearance of the NL-5 Star alliance in Italy, and the way the Yellow Vests (though not an actual party, yet) have all shaken their respective country’s political systems to the core it is depressing to see the 1A vs. 1B two party system in the US.

    The Booby would go so far as to say those “cowardly” French have shown more balls in the last six months than Americans have since at least 1992. Why immerse yourself in a political spitball-fight between two parties that differ so very little in practice?

    Here’s some ideas to build new parties around:

    * Direct Democracy. Make the citizen the ultimate sovereign, Switzerland-style.

    * De-fund the universities. Rebuild them only when they commit to being institutions that respect free speech and the free exchange of ideas, and hence create a society that respects free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

    * Pay as you go. Don’t allow governments to rack up consumption bills today for future generations to shoulder (not a new idea, but has never been done in practice).

    * Right of secession for individual states. That’s right.

    These are just random ideas. Nothing utopian, as they could lead to any number of outcomes, good or bad, but at the very least they would help unseat the current establishment.

    If you have better ideas the Booby would love to hear them.

    • The problem with pay as you go is that there are some good (though I would say incorrect) arguments that debt allows a community to ensure that folks that are using the benefits paid for by that debt are paying for it. Example – ‘My tax dollars went for 30 years into the new community pool fund, now i’m too old to enjoy it. Better to borrow the money and get the pool now!’

      The idea that you might plant a tree that you’ll never stand in the shade of is lost on most people, in most places.

      True story: My great-grandmother, when she was age 85, planted an oak tree in her back yard in rural Tennessee. She said to my dad, “This tree is going to give some great shade!”

    • How about the “Streamlined Legislation Party”? We’ll think of a more catchy name later. All bills have to be 10 pages or less, using a reasonable font size, margins, and 1.5 line spacing.

      All provisions of the bill must be related to each other and the title of the bill.

      The full text of every bill is publicly released 1 week before it moves from committee to Congress.

    • There needs to be a new Morality Code and Party people can get behind. New 10 Commandments.

    • Our (that is to say the British) Cuckservative Party is on the verge of being flushed down the toilet of history. And our cucks make even your cucks look like the John Birch Society by comparison.

  23. There was a candidate in the last presidential election with some new ideas. He proposed combating illegal immigration, limiting illegal immigration, ending senseless military interventions and implementing economic policies to help Americans. He was a bit rough around the edges, but he seemed to be popular with voters. But I guess, in the end, folks decided to go with someone else…

  24. There was a moment there when it looked like the debate was going somewhere new with Trump. Now that GOPe has that under control we’re back to the Republicans’ greatest hits. These guys are like the Generals always planning for the last war. The boomer zeitgeist is depressing. It’s always 1985 in the halls of power. “Socialism and Russia are our greatest threats!”

    Nobody under sixty cares! I think I can sum up the Republican platform succinctly: dumb brown Congresswoman say dumb thing. Freedom isn’t free. My granddad liberated six trillion Jews from Auschwitz. Thank our military we’re speaking Spanish instead of German and my son can be a woman. God bless the GDP.

    • So much this. The comments at Instapundit and Brietbart make me a sad panda. As also the IRL comments I hear from ‘conservative’ family members. So ready to prove that they aren’t horrible racists!

  25. ” The culture of this age is like a long re-do of the past, in order to get it right this time.”

    This past weekend we were treated to a damaged black tranny(sainthood) peddling Chips Ahoy! (Junk food as offering) as the latest update in the celebration of motherhood (tradition).

    If we aren’t already inching up on the abyss…

    • A juked-up, loud mouthed mulatto tranny selling kids cookies. Wonderful.

      Right of SECESSION for individual states I believe will be boiling to the surface. Am hoping as the Left grows more and more violent to us, as they are conditioned to view the right side of the divide as evil incarnate, and their hysteria becomes lefty riots and destruction, that people on our side practice using the word “secession” and begin to throw it into the playing field. We need to hear that word “secession-secession” and be familiar with it. Familiar enough that mainstream politicians feel the rumblings of “secession” and new leaders from our side ride in on this word “secession” and threaten the old dinosaurs.

      Please discuss this…….Any Futurists out there who can describe their vision of how “secession” will or will not take hold? Really wish to hear your thoughts!

      • The coming election will raise the volume of the anti-white war to 11. Hopefully, this will go a long way in driving your point home to many.

        Also, the coming EU parliamentary elections if they go hard nationalist will unnerve our rulers.

        Separation will become a topic in the normie sphere and among our rulers.

        Make it more costly to keep us around than to let us go.

        • Excellent…..good points. You gave examples of white pills and pennies from heaven. Make it more costly to keep us around than to let us go. Your examples are prior to making it more costly. How do we do that…make it more costly?

          Be nice to see an option here and there. Even I am getting antsy while the storm gathers. Am open to being told….Range! Sit still and be patient. Good girl! That’s an option!

          • We have a lot of people who see what’s happening but bite their tongue. How many? Hard to tell, but innate biology is on our side so as the conflict between races increases so will group solidarity.

            An awareness of white group interests is our first goal. The reaction of our enemies, especially the hysterical over-the-top reaction to even an oblique overture to any form of white identity, will help us get there.

            We don’t need or want everybody. But if we can get 1/4 to 1/3 of our tribe to work together for white group interests … we’ll be fine. Better than fine.

            Our immediate goal is to tweak them as often as we can so as to drive them to hissy-fits and over-reach. Nature will take it from there.

          • Yves….thank you. You make good points, well thought out and well written. Have copied your rumination and will, when the spirits flag, re-read and re-inspire. “If we can get 1/4 to 1/3 of our tribe to work together for white group interests … we’ll be fine.” Tweek them to hissy-fit and over reach.

            As M.R. Vooman below points out as the quest for reparations rolls out, even back here in Utah, reparations is the magic word that gob-smacks people. Had my first chance to sprinkle a few white pills along the Hurricane Fault. Look forward to many more opportunities.

  26. This morning I read tweets from several MAGA conserva-patriots about getting sharia law banned, but very few ever push permanently preventing Muslims from immigrating here. It never occurs to them to challenge the rules of the game that America is open to everyone in the world.

    • Mainstream conservatism tolerates a certain amount of Islamophobia in this country, as a form of rube bait. Center-right parties in the other Anglo countries ruthlessly expel anyone that criticizes Islam.

      Criticizing Islam from the right is “chasing the stick”. We would be better served to culture jam by praising their social conservatism. Muslims have a get-out-of-jail free card when it comes to criticizing Israel and Jews. We should exploit that.

      • There is a big fear in the Jewish donor class about BDS, because some far-left college students are fans of it, and win a bunch of unimportant low-turnout student government elections.

        Their unspoken reason for this fear is that it is the exact replica of their own strategy, to financially ruin your enemies. The BDS impact on the Israeli economy is negligible, but even the fear has seen the Constitution blatantly ignored. Rather than larping as Nazis, one wonders why these people don’t join BDS groups instead.

      • The problem with the culture jam model is that the right has been using it with “Hispanics” for years – ‘they’re natural conservative Catholics’ etc. Hasn’t worked at all, doubt it would work for the followers of Muhammad either.

        • The Right has normally been hostile to labor unions, and economically favors the rich. Hispanics hate that. That tends to be more salient than racial or language issues, and Hispanics tend to be the least politically engaged of all ethnic groups.

          Islamophobic rube bait also turns off Asian voters, as they view it as a racial attack, rather than a religious attack.

        • I can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Mexican here in SoCal & they are anything but conservative. But why believe our lying eyes when we have statue-poem?

          • I slightly disagree living in So Cal as well.

            Many of them seem focused around family, friends, food, beer , getting by and that is as Conservative as its gets

            Trying to get some state gravy for yourself and get your buddies some is the way of the world and its only Americans and a very few Europeans that have any issue with this.

            That said they aren’t Americans and will never assimilate for the most part and a lot of them need to go back.

          • Oh Lord, the Old “They’re culture conservatives” shtick. Look, Blacks are “Culturally conservatives” and aren’t big on Gays either. So what? They’re NOT conservative and vote 85%-90% Democrat. Show me ONE Black congressman who’s conservative. And Jews love their families. They love their kids. They love learning. They love their fellow Jews. Almost all them just want to have a drink and a laugh. They’re “natural Conservatives” Except – 70% vote Democrat -always. Wishing it was true, doesn’t make is so.

            This is just Boomer nonsense. Something Hugh Hewitt or Erick Erickson would say. Mexico and most foreign countries have large numbers of Socialists. They have honest-to-God Socialist parties. And the poor people who belong to them are EXACTLY the people who immigrate here.

        • Catholic Hispanics banned gay marriage in California by ballot initiative so there is some truth there. If offered I suspect many would ban abortion as well and a lot would ban services for illegals too.

          You can blame the courts interference for that and the Establishment Right’s cucking and general lack of putting actual Conservatives on the court

          I will say though President Trump has proven to be an exception and has thus far given us some actual Conservative judges not the fakes we usually get

          The ER is only concerned with money and their status and nothing else which is why they have to be replaced

          That “money” thing is also why the ER gets so confused when say someone on the Dissident Right thinks national healthcare has merit

          The ER are economic Liberals, not Conservatives

          Wealth redistribution and even state ownership of natural monopolies (like the Highway system now) not not Left or Right issue. Its only Economic Liberals (ER, Libertarians mostly) that think everything has to be a private for profit enterprise

      • The Muz have a get-out-jail-free card with a small slice of the left. Otherwise, their fanatical Jew (and Christian) hatred has painted them into a very uncomfortable corner. Not to say there isn’t enough dry tinder to spark a proper St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in one direction or the other if you try hard enough. Keep trying, dudesky.

      • “Muslims have a get-out-of-jail free card when it comes to criticizing Israel and Jews. We should exploit that.”

        This is a great point.
        Muslims just will not be shamed into silence on these issues with the ghost of Adolf Hitler.
        This should provide some interesting moments in the years to come.

    • Young and uneducated people accept the world as presented to them. I never understood that open borders immigration was a problem or something that could feasibly be changed until I read about hart cellar act and the 1924 immigration restriction act. Living in flyover America in the 80s and 90s, it was hard to perceive from the local perspective that drastic changes were afoot. Only very high iq people close to the channels of power and policy discussion, such as Peter Brimelow, were able to see it.

      • Conservatives of a certain age are enamored of the “roof Koreans” mythology. There’s also a higher level of older conservative men that have an Asian wife, compared to its reverse.

        Prior to the 90s, the smaller Asian minority was actually more conservative than the population at large. This was a product of Cold War politics, and a tendency to join WASP mainline churches.

      • Unless people are on the front lines, usually they’re too busy just trying to live life, until its too late.

      • “Only very high iq people close to the channels of power and policy discussion, such as Peter Brimelow, were able to see it.”

        Not true in the least.

    • (1) Invite millions of people from a completely alien race and culture into your country.
      (2) Go out of your way to insult their religion.

      Pure. Unadulterated. Genius.

  27. “since they lost the fight on freedom of association in the 1960’s.”

    You are absolutely right to focus on this. This was the big one, the Big Defeat that made all of the rest of domestic conservatism a distraction at best. Along with the concept of “Disparate Impact”, the loss of freedom of association drove the final nail into the coffin of traditional American life. After that, there was really nothing left to “conserve”.

    Of course, Buckley Conservatism never really cared about domestic affairs, it was all about stopping Soviet Communism. Which was indeed important, (although possibly not as overwhelmingly important as it seemed at the time) but it also explains why the movement collapsed with startling alacrity after the fall of the USSR, and why Conservatism Inc. has been obsessed ever since with finding a replacement for the USSR ( Al Quaida, Saddam Hussein, Iran, Putin, Syria, Iran again, etc)

    • Good observation about how defeating Soviet Communism was the lynchpin of the old, now defunct, conservative coalition in America.

      Ironically, dispensing with the Soviets served to remove from the public eye the greatest illustration of the danger the Left represents. Without that practical evidence on display, the Left was free to browbeat the rest of us with its supposed “high mindedness,” and rather easily seized ascendancy in America—to the grave misfortune of ourselves and our posterity.

    • Conservatives still have the ability to organize boycotts. But there is reluctance by Cuck Inc to use them, as that’s who pays their salary. Boomercons are also reluctant to undertake a “collectivist” approach that comes too close to “class warfare”.

      John Nolte, of Breitbart, as cowardly as he is, has pointed out for years that cord-cutting is the existential threat to the current media system.

      • Boomers were so terrorized by anti Communist propaganda, most of them would rather shoot their family and themselves than cooperate for a collective endeavor

        The very word collective is the Voldemort of that generation

        Younger generations including us aging Gen X aren’t so afflicted and Gen Y is genuinely all for the collective ideal, for good or ill.

        As odd as it sounds from a Conservative , I admire that. Collective action is the only way anything gets done and collective punishment is the only thing that works on the powerful. Be tribe? Get punished as a tribe.

        That said the passivist approach of cord cutting has great appeal. Its not Max Headroom yet so its still legal , hell its broadly approved off and reduces the income and inflow of poison into the household

        Mid term , big media will try to buy out and control the services but little can be done about that till the current crop of politicians in both parties get more populist and regulate which they might or people cut the last tether and avoid media period

        Should the latter happen and it could our society will undergo serious changes as the last chunk of fake culture will start to dry up and blow away

        This might help shift the Overton Window to “Why are we in a union together when we have nothing in common” which would be next best to a Dissident Conservative rule.

        • The “fake culture” has actually always been near the core of the problem. The moment electromagnetic media made possible the distribution of information around the globe in an instant it became possible to use that media to assemble hundreds of millions of people into false mass cultures and ultimately to drown out and swamp local, “organic” culture everywhere. This process has been going on since the telegraph and today’s Facebook SJWs are just the modern version of 19th century utopian socialists.

          I even think that the very nature of the electromagnetic mass culture, i.e. collectivist, equalist, and coercive could have been predicted early on had anyone been paying attention. The basic problem is that merely controlling media does not in itself guarantee wealth and power. At most it guarantees ad revenue. Most of the “information” distributed by mass media has always been nearly worthless on its own. Think of a newspaper – the old fashioned kind on paper. You might read 0.01% of its content with mild interest. The rest is literally garbage, needing to be hauled away by the trashmen. So the conventional “business model” for any kind of media is always to sell ads. There’s something much more powerful and sinister you can do with it though.

          What if you start telling people, using your media, that ANY difference amongst people is evil and the result of oppression. What if you use it to manufacture a mass “entertainment” culture that just so happens to echo this notion in music, film, TV, etc…? What if you also position yourself through mass political campaigns to seize the power to forcibly eliminate those differences? You now sit astraddle the *entire* resource flow of society! This is orders of magnitude more valuable than ad revenue. In other words we can frame this process using a kind of “political physics”. Mass media is analogous here to the construction of wind turbines that exploit a pressure differential through a mountain pass. Keeping the masses riled up over the existence of differential outcomes is just basic maintenance on the wind farm. Expanding the democratic franchise is analogous to finding the last few mountain passes that don’t have turbines in them yet.

          In this view it is actually very useful to the Left that their whole program is infeasible. If the last differences were ever ironed out the pressure gradient would vanish and the wind would stop. Their power can only exist as long as their (stated) goals are not achieved.

          • “it is actually very useful to the Left that their whole program is infeasible. If the last differences were ever ironed out the pressure gradient would vanish and the wind would stop. Their power can only exist as long as their (stated) goals are not achieved.”

            You may have hit on the touchstone of all left wing politics. Even their monetary and fiscal policies are based on this idea. Political Correctness, the whole ball of wax.

          • The specifics of their program are quite protean. Today’s lefty is all snuggled up with global capital and tech giants. That would horrify the old union Left. If you look at big tech though you see that they are the most pozzed and the most on board with forced gender and racial equalism. They don’t care at all about the old working class issues. They use their social media machines to promote the agendas of Leftist politicians who in turn kickback higher H1B quotas and lucrative government contracts. This simply reflects the new social reality that race and gender hatreds are more politically productive than the old class envy the Marxists were using. To carry on with my analogy above, the gradient is stronger between men and women (and the 57 gender flavors of “whatsits”) and between Whites/Blacks/Hispanics/etc… than between the traditional rich/poor. This means it makes sense to put your political wind turbines straddling race/gender lines now.

    • To his credit, Rand Paul, in his first senatorial campaign, actually suggested that freedom of association (as abolished by the 1964 Civil Rights Act), was actually a valuable right.

      Sadly, it took him about six hours to back away from that statement and, of course, it has never been repeated.

  28. Be careful. By arguing so specifically against socialist things like Social Security, Medicare, and school lunches (you left off welfare?!), you are dangerously close to sounding like a libertarian!!!

      • Sorry, I couldn’t resist trying to zing you. On a different note, I’m not sure if you read the Chateau Heartiste website, but it looks like he is another victim to modern day censorship.

        • @Heartiste is on Gab. I imagine there will be an announcement when he secures new digs…

  29. “Moral philosophy rooted in biological reality” seems to be a contradiction in terms. Nietzsche used to rail against people who wanted to live “according to nature” — nothing is more capricious, cruel, and wasteful than nature. Even A.J. Balfour — the farthest thing from a Radical — pointed out that Darwinism could be rooted in error: We evolved our moral sentiments because they were advantageous at the time, not because they’re true. “Nature” is amoral; it’s pure Will to Power. (Unless, of course, the biological moral philosophy takes into account the obvious difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom – we alone can plan. But that’s a tough sell, implying as it does some unbridgeable gulf between us and The Rest of Nature, which implies a Creator…I don’t think our age, which is ultra-secular when it’s not fully invested in ooga-booga shamanism, will buy it).

      • I note that you are writing about ‘nature’ and Z is writing about ‘biological reality.’ In any event, the beleaguered white man could use a little more Tooth and Claw and quite a bit less tut-tutting. We can leave the tut tutting to the fellows who think it is daring to wear colorful bow ties.

        • Are “nature” and “biological reality” two different things? If so, how? I’m not trying to be contrarian; I think the old Enlightenment paradigm is dead as disco. But “moral philosophy rooted in biological reality” appears to be a contradiction in terms, which makes it a tough sell as an organizing principle.

          • ‘Moral philosophy rooted in biological reality’ requires more knowledge of ‘biological reality’ than we possess at this time, if the goal is actual morality, as we understand it.

            Note the question-begging here: we want a moral philosophy that coincides with, and supports, what we regard as moral. How can that be? We can have no morals because we have failed to derive a moral system based on ‘biological reality’.

            Enter Pol Pot, who never lost sleep over his ‘reforms’ in Cambodia. He was a soft-spoken man, educated in France, not an obvious brute like Mao or Stalin, applying a scientific moral philosophy to his country.

          • “Tough sell as an organizing principle.”

            Wow. You don’t seem to inhabit the same universe I do. The universe I live in is chock-full of people who are *eager* to believe the unbelievable and the outlandish. Most of them have the vote, too.

            Anyway, when I look around my “silly country” (as one poster here has it), I see literally millions who will believe *anything* they are told. But they seem able to do it only once. Tell them something contrary–facts, for example–and their heads explode. They vote, too.

    • Humans are confronted with the sanity problem. It seems that we cannot function at all without believing in one thing or another. To manage our sanity – an essential tool in the game of survival – it appears that we need some known and socially-shared purpose – the “vision thing” as Bush the First put it so well.

      Whether the content of this system is “true” is kind of like asking if the wigwam, versus the high-rise condominium, is “true”. Well, if you are warm and dry inside, then yes, it’s true.

      We alone among nature’s fauna have discovered that there is no point to this doomed struggle, if cold objectivity is the only guide. So nature injected us with the will to believe, along with endorphins, and here we are, rulers – for now – of the natural world.

      It’s all quite amazing.

    • I suspect Z is thinking more of a morality that *acknowledges* biological reality rather than being based on a false understanding of it. The Left’s official morality is secular too. It’s based on things like “race is a social construct”, “men in dresses are women”, “gender is fluid”, “men and women are the same”, “inequality of outcomes is evidence of racism/sexism/etc…”. This is the Left’s version of “science”.

      When a Lefty shames you for failing to be appropriately appalled that a company’s engineering department has no wymmyn or PoCs he is directly applying this moral sense derived from bogus science. We need to shame HIM for thinking that government can or should try to change this and enforce his silly notions of equality based on bad science. The first step here is to shame people for believing stupid stuff and the much greater crime of trying to impose their stupidity on all of us.

      • Just try to shame anyone for believing stupid stuff. You’ll be rattling a cup in the streets after the social justice attorneys are done with you.

        Let’s not kid ourselves or offer false bravado. We’re isolated and we’re not up for a fight.

        Varlam Shalamov – not Solzhenitsyn or Conquest – wrote the magnum opus about life in the Stalin-era work camps. He pointed out something I can relate to. Let’s say you are facing 15 hours in the snow, BUT, you happen to know that a slab of sausage is wrapped in paper under your bunk, something you traded for, and awaits your return. You don’t kill yourself, which you might do otherwise, knowing that the sausage is there to greet you at the end of the day.

        Maybe tomorrow, but not now. You have something to live for…

        It’s kind of how we live now, No sane human thinks that he’s working for his grandchildren, as our ancestors did. We know – in our guts – that everything is for shit. But – there is that sausage under the bed, and so we choose to live another day.

        • “We’re isolated and we’re not up for a fight”

          This is true. For us the next step must be to build real world communities and networks of people to defend one another. If you’re a lefty you have 10,000 goofy Lefty Meetup groups you can join to meet your fellow pozheads in meatspace. What do we have? Most of us are fearful of doxxing in any kind of public protest or large meeting. There’s also those Antifa goons. Might I suggest small group meetings like what the Christians do with “house churches”. Also, a rule – everyone MUST be armed. No kidding. You don’t get in without a gun.

    • This is *most* interesting! Do you *really* believe that there is something too “far-out-there” for most Americans today to believe? I wouldn’t have thought that myself, but you could be right, I suppose.

    • I did not find the reference to moral philosophy rooted in biology to be contradictory, but hey that’s me. For example, what can be less moral than a educational system that treats all children of varying degrees of intellectual and emotional proclivity as “equal” in educative potential and fails to account for such ingrained differences—to the detriment of all in the system?

    • Traditional conservatism was about governing being mindful of the reality of human nature by using prescriptions that curbed our worst instincts.

      Modern conservatism and libertarianism are just as obsessed with creating the New Progressive Man as progressives are, only made in a different image.

      You especially see it when they make bizarre comments on foreign affairs that assume no modern leader would even dream of building an empire or becoming the politically dominant force on earth. They think The New Man has already arrived.

  30. What’s with this piece? You didn’t mention or even touch on one of the most important issues today and how should conservatives address it? Iran.

    Anywho, a bit off topic but I am running with an idea of yours about photo ops with black conservatives. I am making it an app for IOS and Android that will give options on which black conservative and which selfie you want to put together in a conference setting or casual meetup stock photos. Want in?

    • Is this like a poll or can users create a selfie with themselves and the black conservative?

    • The logistical capability for a land invasion of Iran does not exist. It would likely take several years to create it.

      Only a land invasion would dislodge the government and permanently end their ambitions of a nuclear program and displacing the Sunni as the dominant sect.

      The idea that the Iranians would attack is laughable, the conventional military is still flying vintage F-4, F-14 and F-5 knockoffs.

        • The Shia Iran government has a desire to remove the management of Mecca/Medina from the Sunni Al-Sauds. The Saudis have had some major screwups with the Hajj, where thousands have died in stampedes.

          The average Westerner probably doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia, let alone the further divisions within each camp.

      • The United States has several million new “Americans” with recent experience in land invasion. Slap a uniform on them and drop them on the beach.

    • My kids have these apps on their phones that take your picture and turn it into a 6 yr old version of yourself. They also change you into a girl version of yourself if you’re a man. The software is fairly sophisticated and i was surprised how much my picture resembled my actual 6yr old self.
      It occurred to me that one could tweak the software to create a black or oriental version of oneself. Modern blackface! Imagine the feathers that would ruffle. Compusci?

      To topic: I like this play to cast the NRO crowd as cowards. Let us discuss real issues! Murray’s work? Dysgenic breeding? The intersection of automation and our growing lack of need for strong backs and dull minds?

      • I’m beginning to wonder. What are the blog’s/websites that seriously discuss HBD wrt politics and today’s social issues, especially race relations. Yes, there are sites that discuss the latest developments and scientific journal papers—featuring statistics and charts and graphs. But putting it all together in a coherent framework? Perhaps I’m just not broadly enough read? But even here, it seems the discussion is not made, albeit frequently “hinted” at. Case in point, Z-man’s reference above “…a moral philosophy rooted in biological reality.”

Comments are closed.