Of Two Minds

Probably the only thing that everyone agrees upon in modern America is that the ideological divide has grown wider over the last few decades. This divide becomes even starker when one redefines the Right to be the center of dissident opinion, rather than conventional conservatism. While the Buckley crowd runs faster after the radicals as they plunge into the darkness, the dissidents are pretty much where the Buckley Right was at the start of the cultural revolution in the 1960’s.

In fairness, the dissident right has moved further into the biological realism camp in the last ten years or so. If we define Left and Right as one pole being the blank slate and the other being biological reality, the Right has now moved further toward the later pole, as the Left has raced toward the other. This is explains why the great compromisers, the Buckley Conservatives, have been pulled apart over the last two decades. It is no longer possible to ignore these poles and no longer possible to bridge them.

One thing that everyone outside the radical Left seems to accept is the Left has become far more emotional and emotionally unstable over the last few decades. The Left, of course, would dispute this, if they bothered to address it, but even the most cowardly of Buckley Conservatives agrees with this assessment. The Left is now defined by its emotional outbursts and demands to shut down anyone that dares question the tenets of their faith. The waves of censorship are a direct result of these demands.

A good example of this institutional hysteria is the recent book by Hindu nationalist Angela Saini, which purports to show that biology is a social construct. This is a woman, who for very personal reasons, has to claim that race and ethnicity are figments of our imagination, but writes books celebrating her people. Saini is a great example of the internally conflicted and perpetually panicked Left. Her latest book is an effort to use cherry picked science to anathematize the human sciences, in defense of ideology.

The fevered tone, however, is self-defeating, as it further isolates the blank slate crowd as a ghetto culture of radicals. When an algorithm can create your face just from your voice, the notion that we are not what of biology dictates is preposterous. When ancestry companies are relying upon cheek swabs to tell people their race, ethnicity and the origin of their people, Angela Saini sounds like a mad woman. This is what the Left appears to be today. A collection of emotionally overwrought primitives.

The question is why the Left appears to be going mad. David Aurini has a go at it looking at the Big Five Personality Traits. The radical Left is high in Agreeableness and Neuroticism, while being very low in Conscientiousness. As a result, they panic when they perceive any threat and demand everyone get along – or else. They are also more intensely on-line (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube), which tends to amplify their sense of being surrounded by threats, thus elevating their level of panic.

Of course, another way to looking at this great divide is along sexual lines. The Left is clearly more feminine today than at any time. The people on the Left assailing biological reality are people like Angela Saini, Amy Harmon and Cordelia Fine. They write books claiming biology is a social construct. While there are some thirsty betas on the Left nodding along with these sorts of women, the point of the spear in the war against the human sciences is mainly populated with the daughters of Mars.

Another aspect to this is the browning of the Left in America. The Left is not only being feminized, it is being tribalized by people like Angela Saini. She can never be occidental and is therefore condemned to live outside the Western tradition. Because she can never be fully part of the West, but is detached from her people’s past, she has to work toward creating a new reality that can include the immigrant reality. While in the past, Left and Right existed within Western identity, the Left is slowly detaching from it.

This is probably the key reason the Left now feels so alien to even the milquetoast members of the Buckley Right. People like David French desperately try to keep pace with the Left as it rockets away from the core of Western identity, but he remains tethered to Western tradition. There’s simply no way to fit the shared reality of strangers, who immigrated to the West, into the shared reality of the natives. Their realities are too different and largely at odds. The Left is now defined by its degree of separation.

Just as important, this new identity evolving on the Left is a negative one. It is defined by its hostility to the core Western man. The attempts by those in the remnant of the Buckley Right to find common ground with the new Left is seen as an assault. Any effort to incorporate the identity of the new comers into the Western tradition is viewed as cultural appropriation, another way of saying an assault on their identity. As a result, it appears the West is at war with itself as the distance between the poles widen.

To some degree, the West has been at war with itself for a long time. One side has always thought the importation of strangers was suicide. The other side came to believe it was vital. There’s no bridging the gap between these two opinions. It turns out that the former was always correct. The new political divide, therefore, will be between those alien infiltrators, and their native collaborators, hostile to the heritage identity, and the natives, who remain in the core Western tradition and identity.

To support my work, please contribute here.

Or, You can send money to me at: P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432

144 thoughts on “Of Two Minds

  1. Women are behaving exactly like what I would expect women to behave in a matriarchy where they aren’t influenced by strong men and gain status by acting out. What I find both fascinating and depressing is how many uni educated men are pmsing after 2 years about Trump winning like a teenage girl pmsing over Bobby taking Sally to the prom in spite of promising he would take her.

  2. was out tonight. so many people think it’s so cool to say they’re leftists. since red pilled, i’m very aggressive about saying, ‘no sorry, that’s stupid and fake. i’m right.’ got no time for their utter bullshit anymore.

  3. One cannot buy enough canned soup and freezed-dried meat to withstand the near future. Recommended: Buy good liquor, toothpaste, toilet paper; you’ll be a JP Morgan in the end-times.

  4. I wonder. A lot of their most successful tactics are rounding back on them and biting them on the arse. They were great at dividing and conquering, for example… and now they have divided themselves to the point that they can’t function or get along.

    I see a third party in the making.

    • Their quest is power for its own sake. Administration is some other department. But at least they have successful tactics … we can readily defeat them provided we can acquire normies who are too afraid of the castigation and potential consequences. Nobody wants to lose their due.

  5. Angela Saini is not a Hindu nationalist, it is very common for Indian-origin leftists to use their skin color and origins to hate white ppl. Put the broad in Mumbai for 5 minutes and she would start telling the world how Hindus are evil for not allowing islamization to go forward fast enough. Leftists are evil and treacherous, whatever their skin color.

  6. I encourage those of you who are new to our thing to visit Ron Unz’s site for his current article regarding the modern narrative. Skim past the mathematics discussion and dive into Ron’s treatment of WWII and its aftermath. Download the linked works and review those as well. Ron has created a readily accessible primer concerning the foundations of our thing. That is all.

  7. What is horribly fascinating about the Left today is how drastically different their perception is from reality. While a lot of people on the Right suffer from Deus Volt fantasies, we are also often pretty self-deprecating but the Left imagines they are the side of compassion and tolerance and science when in truth the average Leftist is a violent fundamentalist, a jihadi, that makes a snake handling Kentucky Primitive Baptist seem nuanced and reasonable by comparison.

  8. The ideological left and the dissident right account for minuscule segments of the population of a whole. In between is a huge no-man’s-land of normies, who mainly avoid both committed sides. If there were a level playing field in the middle, the d-right would probably be making recruits at a pretty good clip, since the left is so fully staffed with moonbats.

    The trouble is that the left occupies almost all positions of power, governmental and cultural, and can enforce its principles whether everyone else agrees or not, likes it or not.

    I don’t know what the winning strategy for the d-right is, but it does include taking back the institutions one way or another. The debate is played out on both sides.

    • … moreover, Judge Smails earlier comment:

      “Unfortunately, the SJW side has all the billionaires. … .”

    • I doubt we can retake the institutions, but we could create parallel ones, if the fat cats would cease donating their dough to the alma mater and instead invest that money in combating the Left. Failing that, there is secession of one sort or another.

      • Parallel institutions are sorely needed, but would be under instant attack by the state, the media, and the cultural icons, and would never get accreditation.

        We can also defund the universities. Seriously. Only about 20% of what goes on there is really necessary. Make the administrators have to choose between a faculty of medicine or a faculty of humanities. Between a department of cellular biology or a department of women’s studies.

        If they want public money they have to surrender the ideological monopoly.

        We can also eliminate about 50% of government departments and jobs. Once the “educated” professional victims and parasites can no longer pay for their suburban mc-mansions or afford organic kale they will lose their air of elite-ness.

  9. Lady Omarosa with her smartphone made West Leftism problem global. After she got into situation room, specialists over the planet Earth asked with horror , is it possible that mentally unstable women also have access to Western weapons of mass destruction ?

    • If one is to be believed, such a situation occurred with Nixon in the final days of his Presidency. Kissinger (I believe) claims to have worked a deal with the Joint Chiefs to ignore presidential directives for such a nuclear strike. Whether that happened or not, I find it hard to believe that without a tremendous buildup of conflict and tension, a nuclear strike could be ordered and willingly carried out by the military. Nothing short of a serious first strike would give the President carte blanc to unitarily launch.

    • Juri – after seeing Hilary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice in action during the Obama administration, I think the world could reasonably conclude that the “mentally unstable women (with) access” ship has sailed.

  10. It seems to me that the Dissident Right is like Scott Evil from the Austin Powers movies. If you recall he was the only character who spoke sense in the movies, which made his character hilarious.

  11. The Z-Man misuses too many names. The Z-Man thinks the blank slate means “society can be willed into any shape you like, regardless of the people in it.”

    But it does not mean that at all. The blank slate means that people are born without knowledge and that every belief gets acquired through learning. The concept comes from John Locke, which he introduced in 1689 in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

    The Z-Man needs to come up with his own lingo. He can not swipe words, phrases, names and the like for his political philosophy from allied fields of philosophy and expect to be taken seriously.

    What Z-Man, wrongly, has called a blank slate, is so-called cultural nationalism.

    It is hard to take him seriously when, consistently, the Z-Man errs in this way. His works are replete with such errors. Either he does not understand the field of practical political philosophy at all, or he is a weak rhetorician who, deceptively, is trying to get new recruits into ethno-nationalism.

    • Unlike Ted Beale, Z-man will not waste endless pixels responding to this kind of gamma-pedantry. Whose axe are you grinding? Given the obsession with definitions, I’m guessing libertardian Objecto-sperg.

    • He uses it in exactly the same way it was used by Steven Pinker in describing the reigning academic philosophy in justifying multiculturalism, egalitarianism, diversity and universal suffrage.

      ‘Practical political philosophy’? Practical to whom?

      ‘…deceptively…trying to get new recruits into entho-nationalism’?
      Interesting phrase coming from someone who is a member of a hyper-nationalist ethnic tribe.

    • John, there is a modern common usage for the concept of Blank Slate. As such, Z-man and others here have always—and correctly—used the term in discussion. To be pedantic here contributes nothing to our conversation. To attempt to use or redefine the term as you might have us do would lend to confusion. As pointed out, Pinker uses the concept as does Z-man—and for that matter, Jordan Peterson has as well (IIRC).

      I used to abhor the term “fake news” as it was overly broad and the nuances of such important in discussion. I spoke up and was politely ignored and the discussion went on. So it will be with “blank slate”.

    • Tiny Duck, Z Man has more erudition in his pinky finger fingernail than you have in all of your being. You’re downright silly.

    • Come on. Yes, of course Locke originally popularized the idea of the blank slate. But it’s contemporary usage is completely in line with how Z used it here. Strange post – how could you not know that?

    • I’ve only been reading this blog for about a year, but I’ve read Z’s definition of “blank slate” at least a dozen times already and his definition is both historically accurate and applicable in contemporary usage. It is also a foundation stone of the core themes in this blog, and succinctly represents the insanity of the Leftist dogma of denying biological reality. As an example, not everyone born can become Albert Einstein if only we educate them properly in approved Leftist dogma. Now please comment on something that requires brain exercise rather than misapplied history.

  12. Both the strident supremacy and low empathy of the Bindi, Han and Hebrew factions of Big Other can be used to our advantage. For example, as Sailer has documented, SoCal’s Tiger Moms are already unsheathing their claws over Black and Brown encroachment into their enclaves and its impact on their cubs’ schools.

    As much as we chide old school paleos like Sailer and KMG, they’ve done useful ground-work in showing how Bindis & Asians, unlike most members of the (((Tribe))), cannot keep their contempt for melanoids on the down-low. However, these arguments will never reach the Browns & Blacks b/c they’re Thought Criminals.

    We need to find more creative means to gas-can the embers of discord between the Plebs and Proles of the Ascendancy. Politicians, even on a local level, are more useful than talking heads for this. Any piss-ant politician with an ant-hill to piss from can introduce divisive proposals and create strife and division for our benefit. Local school boards are a great platform for this, and it’s not very hard to win one of those spots with very little money. Organization and focus are more important for little local positions like that.

    On a more meta-level, aggressive action against de-platforming and censorship is needed. If they can shuffle guys like Sailer and KMG into the Gab-ghetto, their already limited effectiveness is almost wholly neutered. I always cheer the Hoteps on Twitter because they’re converged with us on separatism and mocking “nogs,” and they’re much more Shoah-resistant.

    Based Blacks aren’t going to save us though. For sheer numbers + better IQ, we need “Azteps,” particularly the white-bread mostly-Euro Hispanics that already run their tribes. How we crack that code remains to be seen. I’d gladly cede SoCal to “Aztep” separatists if they promised to burn down Hollywood and treat immigrants from south of their new border in the same brutal fashion that Mexico guards its own southern border. Open for suggestions….

    • The kind of “conservatism” that appeals to Azteps is more our brand than the CivNats – race, kin, heirarchy, patronage & strong-horse “display” culture. It’s how they already run their own societies. Witness the popular approval and overall liveability of authoritarian to quasi-fascist Euro ex-pat states like Uruguay, as well as Argentina and Chile in their better moments. Globohomo liberal democracy appeals to the baser elements of Latin societies. Their elites would require very little “capture” effort to keep selling themselves under our brand.

      • When things get real, won’t the white ex-pats in Latin America be surprised when the meek, friendly locals cut their throats and take their stuff.

  13. In group out group all around the town. Anyone who has attended grade school knows the reality of people and their behavior regardless of diversity. We are not the same we are not equal they are not like us. Leftist thinking along with the willful ignorant thinking on the right manifests the delusion they need to operate in. It exists like an ever mutating virus. Never being able to complete the circle of objective analysis. The poles are indeed too far apart for any compromise. Going Galt will not be enough. What to do. It may be time to visit the crystalline city under Mount Shasta for the answer. I will ask the voices for directions and verification of the current password. I hope the vortex will lead me to the portal. The promise of total consiousness is just around the corner. Just kidding.

  14. There is no “West” in any true sense without a foundation in actual Christian faith, worship and practice. Full stop. The widespread collapse of Christianity in all its varieties and denominations fully explains the West’s failure to defend itself from ongoing barbarian invasion and internal dissolution. There is no going back.

    • Christians are among the biggest importers of the Third World. See Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities. Many Christians I know are full of the “love everyone always” slogan, which to them means bring the whole world in. But I suppose this can be seen as the collapse of ACTUAL Christianity.

      • Well, it is doubtful that actual Christians of any sort would import Muslims. It’s also doubtful that actual Protestant Christians would import an unassimilable mass of Spanish-speaking Catholics. Etc.

      • Don’t forget the LDS church gives money to the refugee resettlement racket, too. Love the world, invite the world. More church members outside the US, particularly Mexico, Central and South America—Marxist lite countries—that’s big tithing money the church depends on. The globalism of Mitt Romney reflects the globalism of the church. The church will not be there to defend the people of the Intermountain West. When the inevitable push comes to shove by the Left over altering 2nd amendment or some other pet Lefty platform, the Left will hold hostage the church tax exempt status, the church will roll over and obey. Most people here are sheep, nice sheep….but blinkered sheep who vote Romney church party line and will be mesmerized stunned beyond belief when they get sold down the river.

      • Yes, those are the pozzed, modern Christians doing the 3rd world importing. They are not the pre-Vatican II type Christians with strong traditions that understood protecting their own.

    • The Christianity that founded the West died before Nietzsche made it public. There is no going back to Charlemagne’s church. Pace Dreher, there’s nothing left to preserve. We need a new faith based on kin, tribe & nation which recognizes transcendent values of heroism, honor & the right to life on this earth tempered with a bit of humility for the imperfections of human nature. Medieval Christianity achieved much of this, largely through admixture with German paganism and full-spectrum dominance of the cultural sphere, but those days are gone. We need a new faith.

      • Sounds like a consumer shopping for a new and improved product. Belief in God and Jesus Christ is not going to be swapped for a new religious product. If you must view Christianity as a product to be consumed, there is no other product that works better for or brings out the best in white Europeans. It’s glib or maybe even arrogant to presume we’ll just make a new faith for ourselves, anointing ourselves as the Creator. Such hubris and treachery moral relativism brings about.

      • Thanks, I’ll stick with old one that has failed. If I can’t go back to Charlemagne’s church, I’ll go back to Saint Augustine’s, or – novel thought – to Christ’s. If all the components of a sound and socially-constructive faith already exist and are well-known, then why on earth would we ‘need a new faith’? It sounds like reinventing the wheel.

    • And alas, much of what passes for Christianity today is nothing more than a vehicle for Leftism. This is a direct result of Leftists taking over seminaries, religion departments and schools of theology.

      • @Ostei, true, the Left manipulates mainstream Christianity as a socially acceptable veneer and camouflage for its nihilistic, anti-Christian agenda. The Left has invaded and gutted Christianity for its own purposes, but wears the Christian cloak as, well, a cloak, to conceal its true agenda.

  15. Many years ago (70s? 80s?) when the Nazi Party (real Nazis, not Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch) wanted to march in a parade in heavily-Jewish Skokie, IL, I remember Jerry Springer, Jewish ultra-liberal, stating that they should be allowed to march. He talked about “disagreeing with what you say, but defending to the death for your right to say it.” That wasn’t an unusual position for the left. It sure is now.

    • The Leftists exploited free speech to gain something like absolute power. Now that they’ve gained that power, they seek to eradicate free speech. The support for free speech was always nothing more than a cynical ploy in the plot.

      • Exactly – they recognized it as a useful weapon in their struggle, and once victory was achieved, the last thing they want is to leave that weapon around for challengers to use.

        • Matt, correct. So we are back to a persistent theme in this group wrt conservatives (however you wish to define them) allowing their “principles” to be used against them in this struggle. Based on negative (but quite necessary) feedback from this group, I’ve seen the error of my former thinking in this matter. In a struggle for survival, principles that favor the enemy’s tactics (i.e., can be used against you) are for losers and must be abandoned. First win, then develop/define/establish “principles” to maintain the victory. Now where have I heard this before. 😉

          • The only principle we need is this. What is good for our people? If breaking up or nationalizing corporations (Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google) helps us, we should do it. If taxing the globalist ultra rich and corporations to help restore our manufacturing base helps our people, we should do it. If free speech is abused by those who would deny it to others, we should silence their speech. If free enterprise gives us more prosperity within the context of a high-trust white society, we should implement it.

    • Unfettered free speech is an important ideal when you’re seizing power; not so much once you have it.

    • The point of that was to provide cover for pornographers, communists and other deviants.

    • Good observation, Wolf. The Left did not feel invulnerable back then. It felt embattled, and understood the need to carve out enough room in the culture to continue its own freedom to act (and subvert).

      I think the election of Obama was the psychological turning point for Leftists. For the first time, they had evidence that they were in the majority, and could now call the shots any way they chose. Though they still prefer to imagine themselves as scrappy underdogs, deep down they are now smug triumphalists who feel assured that all those people who spurned them in high school now have to dance to the Leftist tune, or else. Since generosity was always a self-interested calculation for them, in the post-Obama order they dispensed with it entirely, and have become martinets.

      But the election of Trump showed that their invulnerability–and thus their smug certainty–was not as assured as they had been led to believe. That seed of doubt seems to have driven some of them mad; others into deep denial. But having tasted for eight years the power to act with relative impunity, they have not been able to let it go, and now seize any available opportunity to dictate and punish, just to feed their addiction to that feeling of being the powerful wave of the future.

      It’s been said in this forum before, but it’s worth repeating: As individuals, Leftists really are fragile. We shouldn’t underestimate the power they derive from their (once our) corrupt institutions. But we shouldn’t be terrified to stand up to them.

      • Chris, excellent analysis! As I elaborated above, your analysis touches on how quickly the Left can abandon their “principles” once such no longer suits their long term goals. The Dissident Right must adopt the same behavior, or lose.

      • Chris, I agree. The election of Obama symbolized the New America, where Whitey no longer dominates. The election of Trump said, wait, lefties, not so fast, Whitey is still here and not giving up just yet. Which sends a clear message to the left that much work needs to be done to erase Whitey as a political and cultural force and clear the way to their multicultural nirvana. (Red pill translation: multicultural hell)

    • Wolf, it was the late 70’s, and not just Jerry Springer supported freedom of assembly even in those circumstances. It bears remembering that the ACLU represented the Nazis in their litigation against Skokie.

    • Erdogan explained it pretty well. He said Democracy is like a bus that you take to you destination and then get off it.

      The Left used the BofR, supporting the working class, etc. All in a effort to gain power and then abandoned them when they got what they wanted.

      This is why Carlson calls them power hungry nihilists. It’s alsos why you can’t hold a dialog with them anymore.

  16. I find it interesting to analyze the motivations of whites who have joined the leftist jihad. I do not include (most) Jews as white because of their mid-eastern origins, history, and antipathy toward Western Civilization. I think if you look closely, that you will find that a certain percentage of whites are simply not completely sane. Feminists are obviously one part of the problem, and much of that hinges on their mental health. IQ is another marker, though I suppose a stupid person could be lured by any argument. But you have to question the IQ of white males who willingly join a group of people who are their sworn enemies. Wilmot Robertson referred to some whites as “unassimilable members of the white majority”. He described these as Irish Catholics, Greeks, Italians, and various eastern European groups. This may have been an accurate description of why these groups supported liberal politicians 50 years ago. But as Zman notes, the political poles have moved too far apart, and those former “unassimilables” are rapidly throwing in with other whites as the threat to their own cultures emerges more clearly. (I know. They were slow on the draw.) But it still does not explain the sheer treachery of many whites. If they are guilt-ridden, then perhaps they are not quite sane. A man like Jeff Flake seems to me to have some serious mental issues. There are also a lot of very ignorant whites who support Democrats because of some historical legacy. The grandchildren of ardent union members or die-hard Southerners are still out there fighting yesterday’s bogeyman. If anyone has another explanation, I’d like to hear it.

    • “Question the IQ of White race traitors…”. Not sure if IQ trumps in-group solidarity or what, but I will remind folks that just because we most often talk about the low IQ of immigrant groups arriving in our country, the number of Whites still in this country, at 65%, probably assures that the largest block of “stupid” people in this country are *White*. That block of course will vary depending where you set the threshold, but the results are apparent from elections.

    • There is something in there that gives psychic benefits to such people, when they contemplate or act on their treachery. The idea that the endorphin hits for such treachery are just too good to pass up. That significant elements of our culture encourage just such treacherous thought and behavior, the treachery tends to multiply and come out of the woodwork.

      Similarly, the idiocy of the LGBTQ-and-so-on is that these people define their identity by the genitals they have, they wish they had, they pretend to have, or try to have (surgery), and what they do with it and where they stick it. Hell of an identity there. But the broader culture gives them the attaboys and the endorphin hits for sharing such behavior and attitudes. So we get a lot of it.

      • I simply consider sexual deviants and perverts mentally unbalanced. There is no fixing them.

        • Yup, and they are encouraged to let their freak flags fly. I am not so sure race traitors are much different. Goldberg at Tablet, paraphrased in Ace of Spades this morning, has done some excellent work in showing how liberal whites are the only large race traitor group, and that their “concern” for other races takes their political and societal preferences to places those minority groups themselves don’t go. Was that Michael Savage or Rush who started the “liberalism is a mental illness” thing? Encourage mental illness, and you get a whole lot more of it.

          It also creates a bit of a conundrum for our side. Can half a race be mentally unbalanced? Can that many people be wired that way? I am not a fan of the “blank slate” thing, but it appears that there is some widespread capitulation to this liberal culturally induced hogwash, or otherwise whites are somehow uniquely wired to allow large numbers of them to abandon their own racial self-interest. I suppose there could be nature-nurture middle grounds such as our female dominated culture or the prevailing generational wealth and lack of want involved.

          • I think it’s hard-wiring. There has always been a tendency among whites to “go native.” We are also the only people on the planet who have a genuine and abiding curiosity about other peoples that is not motivated, in the main, by cupidity. We have been the greatest explorers by far, and the impetus behind that exploration was, to a significant degree, curiosity toward non-Europeans.

      • The root problem–so to speak–of course, is that society rewards the treachery and the perversion. Thus treachery and perversion beget treachery and perversion. How we descended from a normal society to the current one so quickly will be the the story of America’s collapse, when the history is written.

    • Honestly – I think this “experiment” (as Zman calls it) – is based on a lot of BS.

      Since when have “whites” all hung together? It’s like you guys are retarded or something and have never opened a damn book.

      Pop Quiz: what did they just celebrate the 75th anniversary of ?

      Europe has been blowing itself up for thousands of years. Whites have NEVER hung together as a race. So what you’re proposing is just as much fantasy land as the leftie experiment of saying that we’re all equal under the skin.

      As a white Anglo Saxon of Scottish/English lineage – I think a lot of what affects this country started way back when we started allowing in Irish Catholics and Italians and other Eastern Europeans. Being up in New England – it’s pretty obvious to see that the Irish and Italians didn’t exactly “mix” with the original founding stock and it’s world view.

      Looking back far enough with a realistic assessment of what happened when the US last had a massive immigration surge – and comparing to what is going on today – looks to me like just more of the same with the dial turned up to 11 so that it’s firmly in the black zone.

      The lefties got their inscription put at the base of the Statue of Liberty – they semi-successfully “integrated” all those Irish and Italian Catholics (at the cost of the original Republic) – and now they’re just trying to up that SAME GAME by importing Aztecs and Congolese tribesmen.

      It’s a matter of degrees – not a matter of fundamental differences.

    • IMO. It’s religious. Communism was a perversion of Christianity. Anti white progressivism is a further perversion. The hard core SJWs are religious puritans and fanatics. In years gone by they’d be monks and nuns and other stereotypical zealots. But the Christian religion that underpinned all of that has been thoroughly discredited, so people with the underlying flaws of self hatred and overactive deference to authority find a new cult to form an identity.

      The disturbing puzzle is why so many white people have such self hatred and pathological deference to authority.

    • I was puzzled for a very long time on why most women have a leftist bias.

      A few posts ago, Zman said that this was normal because women have a biological urge to follow the social norms. Preserving the social norms means preserving the status quo, which means the peace and stability that is needed to raise children.

      Since the current social norms are determined by the left, the women will bias towards the left. That was truly a revelation, and it explains quite a lot.

      I think that not only women, but also many men think in the same way, that is they follow the social norms no matter what, and whatever they may be, for fear that otherwise the status quo might change.

      If we were living in the Mayan Empire, only a subtle suggestion that maybe the rituals of human sacrifices are not entirely moral would make all these people of the left call you an extremist and a racist, for challenging the well established social norms.

  17. “The Left is now defined by its emotional outbursts and demands to shut down anyone that dares question the tenets of their faith.”

    And how is this any different than the old, plain-Jane, Stalinism?
    It’s not.
    Leftism is leftism is tyranny and if permitted to attain power, genocide.

    There is nothing new at all about leftists.
    Some things never change.

    • Correct, and therefore see the world as it is, analyze it, make predictions about the future, and act accordingly. Most people won’t see the oncoming freight train until it is nearly on top of them. If you wait for the beginning of firearm confiscation as your trigger point, you likely won’t survive the first skirmish.

  18. Here’s a big problem: our society is producing more neurotic, agreeable, low-conscientiousness individuals by virtue of the material life we provide, the messages we are inundated with, and the complete denigration of authority figures (i.e. parents, especially fathers) who could offer a much-needed corrective.

    So we’re going to churn out more leftist Eloi by the day and be ever more subjected to stupid moral panics over matters wholly unrelated to our day to day lives.

    This isn’t just a practical problem about the gulf between left and right; it’s an existential threat to anyone who doesn’t want to be part of the Bonobo dystopia we’re careening toward.

  19. The root of this divide is a core essence which is either productive in nature or parasitic in nature. Productive people see reality clearly and set about to support themselves by interacting with reality is such a way as to produce what they need for survival (hunt, farm, build, etc). Conversely, parasitic people trade their independence for hive-minded conformity in order to get a place at the public trough and feed off the fruits of the labor of others. These two archetypes are incompatible. It’s as simple as that.

    • I don’t think that is what it is.

      I pretty much agree with your view on productivity and reality. As somebody who has restored cars, built my own home, built my own tools, knows carpentry, knows welding, knows how to do some computer coding…and has spent more than his fair share of time digging holes in the ground and pouring concrete – I think I have a pretty firm grasp of what “productivity” is and how things actually get built and created.

      I am a firm capitalist – because it was my back and my hands and my head that created any “capital” I may lay claim to. I do not believe there is ANYTHING in the world that is free – seeing as how I have not been given much that I didn’t have to work for.

      That’s is NOT what I see out of lefties that I know personally and have watched for many years, nor is it what I have seen in the beliefs expressed by lefties who have admitted to their world views.

      Lefties BELIEVE in free shit. Since it seems we’re casting leftism as some sort of religion these days – what they believe in is “God will provide” – and some of them use those exact words. It’s why they talk about “seizing the methods of production” – because to them that’s just some magical thing that produces shit. From what I’ve seen a lot of lefties are disconnected from their labor. They first don’t understand that laziness = no production ,and the hard working ones don’t feel entitled to keep the fruits of their labor because they’ve got to “help their fellow man”. Which they usually do by giving shit away to people who don’t deserve it. Like Congolese tribesmen and unwed mothers with 10 illegitimate children.

      Of course for a lot of people who ostensibly call themselves leftists – it’s actually about just getting free shit. But that fits neatly into the assessment that lefties in general don’t adhere to any firm principles except for that of expedience in getting what they want.

      And this is why I firmly support minimalist government. You’re simply never going to win the game of trying to keep large government ‘honest’ enough to keep it from tax raping you and then feeding the results into the maw of the leftist army. It’s a battle you simply cannot EVER win.

      The only hope of winning – is to not play.

      I also firmly believe that minimalist government is a white man thing. Very few other people can build a successful society without some sort of boot on their neck. The WHITE MAN CAN.

      So those who argue for a government boot on everybody’s neck – are in actuality anti white.

      And that is EXACTLY how this has all playing over time – hasn’t it?

      • I know a fellow who lives the same lifestyle you do who is an ardent lefty. Even hunts and fishes.

  20. The West (or rather, parts of the West) has lost its ability to tell the difference between the need to adduce general principles and the need to recognize the unique particularities of reality.

    For instance: America is quite clearly a nation that is an iteration of the culture, religion, and unique abilities and ambitions of White, Christian, European man. This is quite obvious and it is a general principle. The existence of blacks and Jews, who do not meet these criteria, within the nation, does not alter the principle it just means that there are a few outlying particularities which arose due to errors made in the course of historical reality. It does not follow that, due to the existence of these outlying groups, we must abandon the original general principle and create a new principle stating that, surprise! America is now an iteration, and therefore the property of, various swarms of Muslims, Hindoos, Zulus, Guatemalans, Jurchen, Manchus, Filipinos, Nilotics, and the Dayak head-hunter people of Borneo.

    Yet that is exactly what we’ve done, by confusing principles with particulars. Or more precisely, that is what the Jews have accomplished, by successfully exploiting this bug in our code to ret-con the very Founding of America, in Philadelphia 1776, to the New Founding, which took place at Ellis Island circa 1890-1913, and featured Guess Who as the new stars of the show.

    • In keeping with this “Of Two Minds” theme, stated another way, our problem today is we do thesis and antithesis, but we don’t do synthesis. Examples:

      Old-fashioned proper resolution of right/left divide:

      RIGHT: Mumble mumble, muh free markets, muh property rights, muh supply and demand, muh private company.

      LEFT: Mumble mumble, muh labor theory of value, muh revolutionary vanguard, muh seize the means of production.

      THE CATHOLIC WORKER (aka Normal People): Actually, the labor theory of value makes no sense, however, labor is created by humans, and humans have intrinsic value. So, you Rightards can keep your capital if you institute living wages and humane working standards, and you Leftards can have your Dignity of the Masses if you organize labor unions with reasonable demands instead of blowing stuff up.

      RIGHT/LEFT: Okay, Mom.

      Contemporary left/right failure of resolution:

      SUN PEOPLE: We like nice stuff, but we can’t make nice stuff on our own because racism, so give us your nice stuff, racists.

      ICE PEOPLE: The reason you can’t make nice stuff is not because we’re racists, it’s because you’re too stupid to manage it. So here, have some free nice stuff, now leave us alone.

      SUN PEOPLE: Nuh-uh, no fair, slabery slabery racism colonialism. Now give us all your nice stuff.

      ICE PEOPLE: You guys… really don’t understand anything at all about history, do you.

      SUN PEOPLE: Nuh-uh, racism racism slabery. So we get to live in all your countries and take all your stuff.m Hey, where’s your daughter’s bedroom at?

      (Much musical comedy ensues)

    • A boomer-con friend of mine recently sent a short video clip from OAN Daily Ledger show where the host railed against Congress taking out the word “God” from oaths. He stated that this was against the JUDEO-Christian principles that founded this nation. Judeo? Perusing the youtube comments, the conservatives were outraged, but not at this guy’s interjection of his tribe into the nation’s founding. Not one mention.

    • Volcano, great insight. But what is a nation’s ethos except as that expressed by its people? You talk of our (White) abilities and ambitions and refer to those not adhering as “outliers”, but when the outliers are the majority of the data points…they are no longer the outliers. In short, inevitably the particulars (outliers) become the principles. And I guess this brings us back to past discussion of principles and the need to rethink (or abandon) them if we (Whites of the old ethos) hope to survive and prosper.

  21. This news item seems like a good illustration of where we’re heading as a civilization. Headline: “Passenger opens plane emergency exit thinking it was the toilet.”


    Every bad-thought you’re having right now from reading only the headline will be vindicated if you read the story.

    To me, the image conjured by that headline could be emblematic of the present-day West. It’s pathetic (and may soon be terrifying) that our civilization has placed its safety in the hands of (a) aliens who are completely ignorant of our way of life, and (b) a ruling class that will refuse to acknowledge the danger even in the face of utter ruin.

    • This is the canary in the coal mine of our Second World future, ala South Africa (which skipped Second and turbo-charged to Third World in a decade or so). Our social capital is overdrawn and free-falling toward bankruptcy. Time to declare Chapter 7 and remove that anvil from the viable (White) assets’ necks.

      • That’s been my position for decades now.

        Me to lefties: “You keep telling me that women and POC are all equal – isn’t that true ? ”

        Lefties: “Yes we’re all the same under the skin – we’re all equally talented! blah blah blah”

        Me: ” OK fine then – stop making me pay for all the equality. If they were really equal they’d be contributing not being subsidized”

        Leftie: “systemic discrimination! blah blah blah”

        Me: “Thanks – you just admitted we are NOT all equal – and as long as you keep FORCING me to pay for it – I am NEVER going to believe and you will NEVER convince me and sooner or later I’m going to come back looking for payback myself. The worm WILL turn. Have a nice fucking day”.

        You see that actually usually shut them up. You could just see the turd forming in their pants.

        It’s not about winning the argument. It’s about getting the opportunity to say shit to them that makes them fearful and that plays on their emotional retardation.

  22. When one side considers being racist the worst thing ever, and the other side views race differences as a foundational principle, well, that’s a problem.

    • The great irony of the Left is that, while they claim to abhor racism above all else, they are the most thoroughgoing racists of all. Their racism, however, is directed at YT, and they are almost never brought to book for it.

      • Exactly. It’s truly Orwellian.

        Don’t let the spoiled little shits get away with it. Call them out the next you’re talking to one, or the next time one of them starts beaking off at a family function, etc.

        They feel entitled to their sense of unearned moral superiority. When you call them out it brings out their rage, and exposes them for what they are.

        • Booby, I hear what you said quite often stated in this forum. But would not such behavior seem to go against a basic tenet of what unites us and makes us different from the Left—an ingroup, family preference, and desire for mutual support and solidarity? Not sure family get togethers are a good place to choose and establish sides. But everyone’s situation is different, I admit.

          • I think you hit on it, Compsci. It depends of the family.

            If you have a tight family, largely uncorrupted by the new religion, then it probably makes some sense to confront the few radicalized members when the time is right, or to just ignore them when a confrontation is counter productive.

            Breaking up families is not something any of us should want, but some families are for all points and purposes broken up already. For a great many the nanny state and Hollywood are the new family.

        • I do that frequently, and they never have even a feeble answer to my critique. But what is most telling, I’ve yet to encounter a Leftist who even denies the charge of anti-white racism. They’re either too stunned by the charge to respond, or they believe that their AWR is a good and socially just thing.

  23. We were separated by an emphasis on masculinity vs feminism. Now we are also separated by history, morality, mythos, and soon race. 2 separate peoples sharing the same territory can only end in war. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

  24. “The Left is now defined by its emotional outbursts and demands to shut down anyone that dares question the tenets of their faith. The waves of censorship are a direct result of these demands.”

    The Booby will take it a step further. It’s more than mere emotional outbursts, it’s a post-revolutionary reign of terror against all enemies of the revolution. The revolution unfolded in the 60s when the complete takeover of academia began.

    All revolutions spawn reigns of terror. Today it isn’t the guillotines of France or the firing squads of the USSR (yet). Instead, it’s public attacks, shaming, doxing, deplatforming, and ruined lives and ruined careers.

    Worst of all, once the USSR collapsed our revolutionaries were exposed as frauds. Their hysteria is a reflection of their own irrelevance and the perceived tenuousness of their hold on power.

    • Shaming, doxing, and deplatform are feminine methods of conflict resolution writ large and a testament to the nature of the Globalist Left. Serious organized violence is essentially masculine. We can beat them by drawing strength from unity.

      • Shaming, doxing, and deplatforming are not forms of feminine conflict resolution. They are methods of feminine conflict perpetuation, akin to “let’s you and him keep fighting”.

          • @TheLast Stand, I see two fundamental differences. One is that the passive aggressiveness baked into the strategy allows feminists and allies to orchestrate the fight without getting their own hands dirty. Two is that this is only conflict resolution in the sense of annihilating the rest of us. I don’t see that as a resolution, though I suppose it is. Resolution, to me, is figuring out how to live together, or some such thing. Any other “resolution” is war by another name, in which case we should call it what it is (and often do). The term “conflict resolution” is one of those two-faced, passive-aggressive SJW perversions of the language, that doesn’t really mean what many people think it does, but instead is used to mask what is really going on, on their side. That’s my point, and I think it is useful in understanding what we face, and how language is used against us.

          • That touches on an essential difference between men and women. Men resolve their differences with logical arguments or violence. A clash is bloody and decisive and allows for a hierarchy to be established

            Women are not as logical or as capable of violence. Gossip, subterfuge, ostracism and psychological manipulation are their weapons.

          • Men work together better than women do. That’s one of the distinguishing characteristics of maleness – and even women (who are being honest) – will admit to it.

            Jordan Peterson addresses the male way of doing things in a number of his videos – and points out that with men there is always the *potential* for a violent resolution to conflict. So men are also better at mediating and arguing – because the alternative is that somebody potentially gets seriously hurt or killed. This is a male characteristic that is prevalent across the animal kingdom as well.

            Women have to live in a world of men. They simply cannot compete against male’s physical strength and ability to solve conflict thru violence. Again – plenty of anthropologists and people who understand human behavior and how it got that way ( like Jordan Peterson) will point this out.

            So women as an evolutionary strategy have resorted to subterfuge and manipulation to get what they want. And – as the recent revelations about women’s dating preferences clearly illustrate: women will prefer try to go for the ‘top guy’ in their mating strategy. So women’s competition is other women. If they can get rid of the competition thru ostracism they will do it. The fact that women are much more herd animals than men are also factors in.

            This is why I think of large government and the resulting tyranny as “female” – and a relatively free society with minimal government oversight as “male”. Men will find a way to get along with each , cooperate – and build a society. Women will resort to infighting and personal vendettas. Many women secretly desire a strong whip hand.

            The porn world is chock full of evidence of this. As are the police logs.

    • “public attacks, shaming, doxing, deplatforming, and ruined lives and ruined careers.”

      This is McCarthyism on steroids. Racial McCarthyism. And in its profundity and comprehensiveness, it puts the picayune machinations of Uncle Joe to shame.

    • Cog-disso is the root of the hysteria. The true insiders of their faith understand, just like the top apparatchiks of the USSR, that if they relax the totalitarian mind-games even a bit, that chaotic emotional energy will tear their structure apart. The hardliners warned Gorby about glasnost back in the day, but by the time they tried to shut it down, too much of the underground chtonic flow had tainted the minds of Sov-Chads who still wanted to believe but simply couldn’t anymore.

  25. From WWII up until that last few years, the great political debate in the west was an economic one. On the one hand, you had the left demanding higher taxes, more public spending and more state direction of the economy and on the side you had the right demanding lower taxes, less spending and less state intervention. That was, roughly, the paradigm of politics. It made compromise possible with most politicians eagerly rushing to stand in what they called “the centre ground”.

    The truth is that the left got much of what they wanted but not all of it.

    Now compromise is no longer possible. It is existential. You are either pro-white or anti-white and those who try to stand in the centre will, in effect, be in the anti-white camp.

    • Compromise isn’t even discussed by the Left’s candidates. They are campaigning on thinly veiled fantasies of violence and pogroms.

      • I think there will be many people who will try to mark out some centre (center) ground out of a sense of sincere decency and goodwill. However, they will not be able to stay there. The gravitational pull of the two poles will catapult them into either our orbit or the SJW’s orbit.

        • Unfortunately, the SJW side has all the billionaires. Money will win every time when normies without strong convictions are forced to make a choice.

          • Indeed they do. In addition, they have every institution, every corporation and just about every politician to boot. But that does not necessarily mean that they win.

    • “You are either pro-white or anti-white and those who try to stand in the centre will, in effect, be in the anti-white camp.”

      I have felt this way for 40 years. We called these fools “moderates” back in the day.

      • Epaminondas, yep—there is no center ground. It has now become existential—and really has been for the last couple of decades. The current change we see is what inevitable happens when the Left achieves power. Once power is achieved it is used to crush the opposition, not to maintain the compromise previously reached. The goal post is always moved.

        There are myriad examples in my limited lifespan where such compromises have failed. They are nothing but a tactic allowing the Left to rest and regroup. Nothing but a sea change in our (traditional conservative civnat) thinking will save us—if not already too late.

  26. In the same visage, the Milo expose of Caolan Robertson today proves the intrinsic hostility of gay identity in a supposedly conservative movement. It also confirms that all along, Lauren Southern was living the Gloria Steinem lifestyle. Considering how tied in she was, this exposes untold numbers of “e-celebs” as complicit.

    With regards to our traditions, they appear so meaningless and commodified that it is risible to think they can be revived. The tendency is for strivers to assimilate. When Christianity was made declasse, most people left.

    • Any man who takes Lauren Southern or any of the other tradthots seriously is either a thirsty beta or a boomercon who thinks Dems are the real sexists.

      The only women on the Right I can take seriously are Saga and Lana Lokteff. They both had white kids. They are not just doing it for money or attention but for their own genetic future.

    • Lauren Southern is not just attractive, but *really* attractive. It should be no surprise that an unmarried, childless woman traded on her looks. Ideologically, she probably does have *some* attachment to the cause, but come on, it was almost inevitable that revelations like this would come out. Of course, Heartiste was correct in warning those on the Right not to take these women too seriously.

      • The one possible exception would be Ann Coulter. Based on the interviews I have seen, she is good at holding her own while outnumbered and under pressure and is pretty funny too.

        A woman with that personality though would only be satisfied with a man possessing the authoritative attitude of a first sergeant and the self-assurance of a MARSOC operator. Extreme alpha types like that are few and far between.

      • Milo is claiming that she behaved exactly like Zoe Quinn, trading sex for influence.

        The amazing part is how Ezra Levant, eternal gatekeeper and foe of Kmgvictoria, comes out looking the best.

      • @Max. A lack of overtly preaching feminism while living it privately should never be mistaken for alliegence to the Dissident Right.

        Out of all the vocal feminists I have known, only 2 were more attractive than average. 1 at least had severe daddy issues. The rest were fat, lesbians, or had resting bitch face.

        Keep in mind of course that 2nd wave feminism is the default setting for the average Western man and woman.

        • I certainly don’t disagree with you that feminists tend to be very unattractive. Feminism in some sense is a temper tantrum of pampered upper middle class girls who don’t get the male attention their more attractive cohorts get. What I think about Lauren Southern is that she probably has some right of center political leanings, but she fully exploits her looks, and is about as trustworthy as most modern women. She should neither be celebrated or demonized — she is what she is. On net, she may have been useful to the cause, but certainly you’d never want to share delicate information with her.

          • I suspect her right of center political leanings come from this realization. The influx of Mohammedans and Latinos makes her feminist lifestyle based on exploiting her looks for her own personal gain more dangerous and less feasible.

            What did she really gain for the cause though? I would not have my youngest sister watch her videos knowing what we know about her lifestyle. She has no white children and is a career woman. Lana Lokteff has had children and has posted an excellent video directed towards women in their teens and 20’s.

            At best Lauren separated many dollars from thirsty betas who watch her videos and think that makes them dissidents. As competition for white women increases, we will have no problem recruiting thirsty betas. The trick will be to mold them into an unstoppable force, something a woman is inherently unsuited to teach.

          • I don’t know anything about Lauren Southern. But I Google imaged her. Man, that is one untrusworthy visage. And her name is equally suspect. Lauren Cherie Southern? Her mom must be just as fake. “Let’s see. What rhymes with Southern. Ah, Lauren! Isn’t that ELEGANT. Now let’s toss in a little zest. Cherie. Perfect.” If you had to imagine what a Lauren Cherie Southern looks like, it would look just like her.

  27. Off Topic, but relevant to host’s posts and commenter responses:

    Article in — Tablet — by PhD candidate Zach Goldberg titled: America’s White Saviors. Lays out origins, motivation and views of liberal whites, focusing on in/out group bias.

    Shows recent development wherein liberal whites now demonstrate strong out-group bias relative to other racial groups in their coalition, which all have strong in-group bias. Additionally, they are only group of whites across ideological spectrum to now clearly show this characteristic.

    He ends with comment on something they are calling “… multicultural millenarianism: the belief that the demise of a white majority will pave the way for a more racially progressive and just society.”


    • Addendum: Actually, though Posted prior to reading host’s offering, it is probably directly relevant …

    • There is no such thing as out-group bias. It is an internal strategy to outmaneuver an internal rival by using an out-group to weaken your internal rival.

      It achieves a short term gain for the subgroup pursuing this strategy at the expense of long term group viability.

      “Racial progressivism’ and ‘just society’ are made up sanctimonious drivel to justify in-group competition that is destructive to the group as a whole … and it is used to justify an out-group’s invasion of a stronger in-group’s territory.

      • Or if a certain out-group just so happens to kinda-sorta LOOK like a prosperous in-group, and can mimic some of that in-group’s cultural mores, it can successfully infiltrate and infest the in-group while masquerading as Fellow In-Groupers, then use ostensible out-group bias as leverage to overcome both of the in-group rivals, and take all their stuff.

        It’s such a useful model, it’s almost like somebody should write some Protocols about this sort of thing…

        • Kind of shocked – been watching Colony on Netflix and it is pretty blatant about the expected behavior of one of the characters (((Schneider))). He follows that stereotypical model. What shocks me is how this character got past the censors.

          • Snyder or Schneider? The actor, Peter Jacobson, is Jewish and looks it.

            Predominately Jewish regimes ruled post-war Communist Poland and Hungary. They were eventually pushed out of power and gentiles regained nominal control.

        • Tikkun Olan is that group’s moral preening and justification for the behaviors you’ve describe. It is the ‘manifest destiny’ of the weakling who encroaches upon the territory of a stronger neighbor.

      • I can’t agree. I’m fully convinced that anti-white racism is the New Left’s cynosure and has been since the enunciation of the Port Huron Statement. This does not mean, of course, that white Leftists actually love non-whites, but compared to their hatred of whites, their feelings toward non-whites constitute preference.

        • If it was a true preference they would relocate to a squatemalen village or something similar. They are imported as a bio-weapon against those they hate and war against. The out-group isn’t here to build a squatemalen village, it’s here to destroy the enemy and through magic adopt to our civilization.

          The anti-white hywhyte doesn’t want to live like a squat anymore than you do. Any affinity they have for the squat is for the role they play in our demise.

          • Their hypocrisy doesn’t prove their lack of preference for non-whites. At the abstract level, they hate whites and Western civilization, and rail against them at every opportunity. When, on the other hand, have you heard them condemn “blackness,” “black privilege” and “black civilization?” Do they ever complain “Oscars too black”? “NBA too black”? And while it’s true that Leftists import non-whites for nefarious purposes, it is equally true that those purposes are designed to harm whites. I don’t see how you draw any other conclusion than that they hate their own people.

          • ” I don’t see how you draw any other conclusion than that they hate their own people.”

            That’s my whole point. The the love of the other is a bio-weapon and nothing more.

    • Goldberg confirms what I have known for a long time: white Leftists are the only race traitors on the planet. Their suicidal hatred for their own people is a pathology, a psychological disorder.

      • It’s seriously the most unbelievable thing I have ever seen. Melinda Gates said today she would discriminate against white men. That means she is discriminating against her own son! How have all these people been brainwashed to care for the stranger more than they do their own children. This is got to be brainwashing. Genetic programming would not tell you to help the stranger first when it turns your children into a hated minority in their own country.

        • Sounds like Gates is just being honest. Leftists have been discriminating against YT since the advent of affirmative action. She just feels comfortable enough to voice what is already social policy throughout the US. Still, it’s totally disgusting. Nothing’s worse than a traitor.

    • This multicultural millenarianism comes from one truth: complexity breeds hierarchy.

      It’s long been a staple of progressive apocalyptic science fiction that in the irradiated ashes of western civilization the Progs will create an equal society. They will “get it right this time”.

      What they fail to realize is that something resembling equality can only exist in basic hunter gatherer societies. The ProgHAS to destroy civilization to accomplish its goals.

    • Will the future white minority be equal participants in the “more racially progressive and just society” or will they just be given the South African farmer treatment.

    • Ms. Saini’s real problem: her family is pressuring her to marry upcaste. NYT and the Guardian are dating sites for lonely NYU professors.

      One other problem: the ancient Cult of Bride Stealers have done their work too well.

      Their weapon- demoralization narratives, religious symbolism to uplift them and downcast their Aryan conquerors since early Mesopotamia- now has millions of Shiksa Goddesses in the streets displaying their goods on their heads, screaming, “Come and take it already!!”

      The competition just got a lot tougher for you, Ms. Saini. This is the dissonance in the narrative: replacement means you will lose the very prize you seek, the most desired genes in the world.

      The Bride Stealers, as slavetraders, harvested enough white traits to pass; they have white skin, but they aren’t from the Caucasus. They still are not the highest prize.

      • Addendum: the Shiksas may be fat, tatooed, and blue-haired, but they are temporary vessels. The genes live forever.

        A nonwhite guy will take one for the team, and accept an ugly wife. It’s all about the children, his obligation to grow his tribe.

Comments are closed.