Mencken Day One

The Mencken Club is a different sort of affair than most of the dissident events you will attend, as it is older and more academic than most. The host, Paul Gottfried, a retired college professor and current editor of Chronicles, runs it like an academic conference you would have experienced a generation ago. That is, it is speeches and presentations around a topic, about which the speakers do not all agree. The idea is to give the attendees a range of opinions on the topic that is the theme of the event.

Of course, it is an older crowd. Most of the people involved in organizing are seniors, who were in the paleoconservative movement a generation ago. The event tends to focus on what went wrong with conservatism, as many of the people involved were purged by Buckley at some point. It is fair to say that they would like to see Conservative Inc. burn to the ground. As a result, there is a nostalgic quality to the event, as they tend to talk a lot about people and events from the past.

At dinner on Friday night. Paul Gottfried gave the opening talk and he was followed by someone calling himself Ed Martin. He is President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He is also something of a curator of the life and times Phyllis Schlafly. His talk was mostly about Schlafly, but he also got into current politics a bit and it was an interesting reminder of just how detached the old conservative movement is from current reality. The word delusional kept coming to mind.

He kept insisting that the way forward was to keep pressing the old conservative agenda and that would overcome demographic reality. He thinks there are lots of votes out there just waiting for someone pitching conservatism. During the Q&A I was tempted to “groyper” him with a tough question about demographic reality, but I thought better of it. I realized that those nodding along were never going to face up to reality, so there would be no point in pressing the guy on the issue.

Sitting there as he talked about the conservative message, I realized that where “our thing” is going is out there beyond where the conservatives ran out of road. Every day, more and more people are realizing that the future in this land is never going to be like the past, so it is time to find an approach that fits the times. Guys like Ed Martin are sincere people, who mean well, but they are yesterday men who prefer to think about the past so they don’t have to think about the future…

The way these things work is there is a registration and cocktail reception then the dinner around 7:00 PM. I got my name tag and was chatting with Paul, when a very lovely young woman walked past. These affairs tend to be almost all male and this one is all older males, so it was good to see an attractive young woman. This is true of the more dissident events as well. There are plenty of women on this side of the great divide, but they don’t turn up at these events for whatever reason.

Anyway, a few minutes later she came up to us and introduced herself as a reader. I’m always flattered when people tell me they are fan. She is a very smart and interesting, so we chatted for a while. One of the things she brought up was how people she knows have the one exception to biology in their life. These people would join our team, but they have that one exception to the rule that keeps them tethered to the normie side of the great divide. It’s the old NAXALT problem.

NAXALT stands for “Not All (X) Are Like That” with X being some natural demographic grouping of people. It is the mistaken belief that because you can find one exception to the rule, that the general rule is invalid. For example, not all immigrants vote Democrat, so the observation that immigrants overwhelmingly support Democrats is somehow not true, despite the data. This is, of course, most commonly found when talking about the complexion of crime statistics. Ben Carson is more powerful that Table 43.

One suggestion I made was to explain the NAXALT fallacy in a different context that does not have the same emotional baggage. Instead of taking the issue head on, approach it from the direction of other non-political stuff. Re-condition their minds to accepting that exceptions don’t change the general rule. More important, we tend to live by the general rule. Once your normie friend is used to accepting the general rule in all other issues, they will be more prepared to accept it in our issues…

The event is smaller this year. I suspect the actuarial tables are more to blame than anything else. There’s also the fact that the paleos never did a good job courting young people into their ideas. In the 1980’s, when the great schism on the Right became obvious, the Buckley side was the cool and hip side, which naturally attracted the young people, while the paleo side was for our parents. It is a lesson that dissidents need to accept when it comes to organizing ourselves. We have to be intergenerational.

In fact, I’m increasingly convinced that we have to make an effort to tamp down the generational politics. I like a good Boomer joke as much as the next guy, but generational squabbling is just another form of brother war. The young guys in this thing are the future, but they cannot have a future without older generations to offer up advice and honest appraisals of their own past efforts. My generation was never going to amount to much, but we can be a cautionary tale for the next generation…

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

224 thoughts on “Mencken Day One

  1. This has become the NAXALT battleground. Zman said the pretty girl he talked to named NAXALT as the biggest reason many of her contemporaries can’t join the DR. He explained to her how to defuse “the NAXALT fallacy” (i.e. the notion that exceptions to general rules invalidate general rules). But NAXALT has another meaning: We all know that statistical outliers don’t invalidate the reality of group differences, but we *also* know that NAXALT-exceptions do exist in every population cohort . And because at least some good people with good values do exist in all population groups, the emerging Dissident Right should confront and deal with that fact. Otherwise it will be much easier to marginalize and possibly destroy the dawning movement, as was done to the Alt-Right. John Smith noted above that, “When that exact question came up for the Alt-right, the NAXALT crowd were told to FOAD. The Alt Right is now deader than a door nail, but even though NAXALT didn’t kill them…it didn’t help either.” Or maybe—*pace* the reservations voiced by the girl Zman met—it DID kill the Alt-Right.

    Either way, acknowledging and dealing with the reality of outliers—the existence of at least some good people in every human subgroup—isn’t incompatible with underlying statistical truths: It is *part* of them. Nor is it a deal-killer for the DR: Acknowledging outliers doesn’t invalidate the understandable desire for ethnically, racially, religiously or ideologically coherent families, groups, neighborhoods and nations.

    Why is it so hard for all y’all to see that?

    • vxxc, that’s it, exactly. Exactly.

      Instruction manuals. We exel at teaching each other, spreading knowledge is our game.

  2. Reading a couple posts here critical of Paul Godfried.
    I would say that just as we should not get into a blame all the boomers game for some bad actors.
    Neither should we blame Jews as a group for some bad actors.
    Paul Godfried is not a bad actor and it was clear from the last speaker at the Menchen event that anyone on the traditional right is being attacked by a crazed left.
    Jew or non Jew.

    • Does Thomas Sowell mean we must live with blacks?
      Does Paul Godfried mean we must live with J3ws?

      Generally speaking: Blacks are criminal and dumb. J3ws see us as cattle and cannon fodder, who must be subdued.

    • I’ll agree that PG himself is not a bad guy, but Jews as a group have to go back because “some bad actors” comprise at least 90% of the Jewish elite with influence in their community and never face pushback from all the “good Jews,” whatever their silent numbers may be.

      Like the “peaceful Muslim majority,” they are nowhere to be found when “bad actors” pull some tricks. The only US media enterprise controlled by a “good Jew” is the Unz Review. Ron can stay, but he’s not allowed to vote (esp. on immigration policy). Aliyah for all but a few other NAJALT’s who have to accept apartheid restrictions – no ownership/control positions in business, finance, media, academia, law enforcement or politics, no vote. On the plus side, I’d legally forbid them to out-marry, so my apartheid state might have the only surviving Jewish population on Earth a hundred years from now.

      No one in Our Thing has a problem in principle with deporting Muslims & banning further Muslim immigration. The double-standard tolerance of their fellow Semites is a conservative prior we all need to work on expunging from our hearts as well as minds. Jewish genetics and culture are what they are, and history has generously given us 109 chances to learn this lesson.

    • Is Gottfried a gatekeeper, “keeping it respectable”?

      Pure NAXALT- as a tactic.
      Like a Horowitz, a Greenfield, a Pipes, a Levin.

      Either getting their enemies to fight- post-Bolshevik Russia and the US, a Cold War so the judeo administration of the Warsaw Pact wouldn’t get hurt, or worse:

      Conservatives are the ones who destroy and ruin their own, utterly, and the Left got them to build those tools for the Left’s use.

      The Left betray one another, but it’s only a redeployment. They never cast out, nor strip the accused as the Right does.

      • My example: she beats the kids daily, drinks and drops pills, well we need to work with her on these issues and heal that family, keep ’em together.
        Ohmygod he failed a drug test for pot residues, he’s violated the holy sanction for (((Bronfman))) boose and (((Merck))) pills, grab those kids now and give them to a pedofile farm!! Take his job, his house too!

        Larry Summers, out at Harvard endowment fund, now in at Treasury.
        He’s a victim, conservatives must support this brilliant man!

  3. The Menchen event was pleasant and as a first time attendee I learned some things.
    I do agree with the Z man that as far as traditional conservatism inc is concerned it is nearing its end for attaining worthwhile goals.
    It is hard for us older people to approach a future where it is becoming clearer that old methods may not work and we are unsure of what new methods to use for building or keeping a nation.

  4. There is both a lesser and greater Utopian error. The lesser one says it would requre work, sacrifice, and even bad things like exile. The greater one is that we can have Utopia next year if only X. For Libertarins, if they tranaslated Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and the STate into Arabic, the entire mid east would become Mises clones (have they tranlated it and dropped copies? Or translated to whatever the Somali in Minneapolis or Lewistown speak? – in audio as they are often illiterate in their own languate)

    That is the error of most CivNat conservatives. The Constitution is just so obviously correct?

    The hope is to defang Fenris government as much as practicible before our civil Rangnarok. In that the other side are those who wish to sicc Fenris upon their perceived enemies, not realizing after it is freed it will rip out the throats of its liberators.

  5. People who spend time attacking a particular generation (usually Boomers) should be treated with suspicion, as they are doing the enemy’s work of dividing us. I’m looking especially at Mr Dunning-Kruger himself, Vox Day.

  6. “ One suggestion I made was to explain the NAXALT fallacy in a different context that does not have the same emotional baggage. Instead of taking the issue head on, approach it from the direction of other non-political stuff.“

    I’ve had great success with this approach. On the male/female issue, use stature: men are taller on the average than women even though there are some tall women. This is non controversial and readily accepted by normies. Then you can move on to other group differences. Also try using “East Africans are the best long distance runners, specifically Kenyans.” The GoodWhites like that one.

    • This probably works but I do t think it’s because people don’t understand averages. If I say republicans voted for Trump everyone understands it’s a generalization. Nobody is confused because they know a a Republican that didn’t vote for a Trump.

      It’s only when they decide that understanding might cause them social harm. Cancel culture is all about making sure people pay a price for holding non-orthodox ideas.

      However people don’t like to feel stupid, and pretending to be stupid has a social consequence. if you can frame it in a way that isn’t combative makes them feel stupid for not understanding averages they will want to save face.

      I think the line has been moved quite a bit on things like demographics of voters and crime rates. I don’t see denials of this reality as much, just compensation.

  7. NAXALT is evidence that people draw conclusions, and then go around looking for evidence and examples to prove their point. A version of “don’t let the facts get in the way of my feelings”. I call the examples people bring up the “whaddabout”s.

    • Jon Haidt, “Righteous Mind.” Rationality evolved as a means to persuade others you were right about something you already felt or “knew,” not to find facts or truth. Those are secondary outcomes.

      Genetics, psychology and early childhood learning can only be successfully leveraged, not openly opposed. This means a lot of people are simply red-pill immune – skip those for recruiting. Like taking a tough test, skip the hardest questions and snag all the lower-hanging fruit first.

  8. Zman – clever man, to introduce the NAXALT problem via an attractive young woman, when really what you experienced at Mencken was exactly that issue, IMHO. No, I’m not a fan of Gottfried, but consider – in his own way he’s exactly that NAXALT. He claims only the poorer, Russian Jews were the problem in the West, as opposed to the wealthier, more educated German Jews (i.e. his ancestors), who caused no problems. Yet Emma Lazarus of muh poem fame was a wealthy Jew whose ancestors arrived many decades before all the Russians, and she was still an ardent Zionist. Gottfried doesn’t like the d-right’s emphasis on biology because of his own, and it’s much simpler to condemn Negro dysfunction than to examine his own group’s behavior (let alone attribute that behavior largely to biology). That extends to the rest of the Menckenites – Derbyshire included – who have various NAXALT friends and acquaintances and don’t want to hurt their feelings. All these terribly “intelligent” and “credentialed” Mencken attendees are still, in practice, making that same statistical fallacy and proclaiming HBD invalid.

    • Agree on PG. The only “based Jews” who seem to transcend ethnocentrism and don’t try to lawyer for exceptions are Shamir & Atzmon. Glow-in-the dark “based Jew” the Rebbe, for instance, lawyers for the good Torah Jews vs. evil Talmudic Jews distinction but somehow ends up arguing for “war with Iran now b/c muh Izrul, Muzzies Evil” anyway.

      Sidenote – Shamir’s RationalWiki entry says he “claims” to be Jewish. Look at the guy. I don’t need a 23 & Me, he looks like Notorious RBG’s grandson, for Yahweh’s sake.

  9. The generational pissing contests were never a smart thing by our side. To be blunt it is self-destructive as hell. Lets be clear the average joe or jane in this country has very little say in important issues. For most example Americans didn’t want NAFTA or a host of rigged free trade agreements that only benefited the top .5% of the population, but it became law anyway.

    Keeping our borders wide open was a bipartisan affair for some time since both parties are beholden to big business who is in love with cheap labor.

    We didn’t want endless war with Iraq but our elites did and manipulated us into supporting two costly and meaningless wars that cost trillions.

    We didn’t vote for a series of economic bubbles that have systematically impoverished the working and middle-class. This was all done behind our backs.

    Could we boomers have change these and others ass rapes done by our ruling class? Yes, but it would have been bloody, And to be honest few were up to confronting the Feds after OKC and Waco.

  10. Conservatives can’t accept race realism and cling to NAXALT because instinctive compassionate European morality dictates that you do not judge a person by a quality that the person did not choose, like race.

    Yet demographic reality overwhelms racial outliers. I recently persuaded my Mom. “When you import lots of black people, crime is going to rise dramatically, even if we wish it wasn’t true.” For whatever reason, my words finally reached her and she agreed.

      • Women have a greater need to respond emotionally, yes we all do, but women more so. So when a man attempts red pilling from his strength—an intellectual pragmatic, fact based argument, he often fails. Or is less persuasive.

        But emotion works on all of us. My father was anti-gun his whole life. After the war, he had “no use for them”. I was never able to really counter his feelings on the matter and as a son, deferred to him.

        Of course the result was that he lived in an anti-gun state/city, which because of residents like him, became more and more anti-gun as the years progressed. I was blessed by being taken by my mother to a free, western state where guns were not demonized—rather they were sold in department stores and the like.

        Well, one day he called me late at night. He had been mugged outside his apartment door. Knife held to his throat, pocket contents taken. In essence, violently robbed, in grave fear for his life, in his own “secure” apartment complex.

        What was the point of his call? He wanted me to purchase a gun for him, which was unavailable to him in his own community, whereas I could buy one down the street at the local sporting goods store.

        He now “had use for one”. The argument had been emotionally made and won. 🙁

        • Wonder if your dad will ever beg for forgiveness for all the people that were killed because of his vote to take away their right to defend themselves…I know it’s your dad but I would of asked him what about all those who don’t have people on the outside to help them…

  11. Darren Beattie was fired from Trump’s White House when it was discovered he had given a speech at Mencken.

  12. NAXALT is a Moral Argument.

    A highly emotional one. As Z has so insightfully pointed out.
    Well intentioned. Tied into the Need to be Better Than. Above. Activating all the brain chemicals that reward a ‘cherished belief’.
    You don’t change something that powerful with logic. Perhaps you can undermine its foundation with gentle humor. Poke light fun at the abstract.
    The Neurologist living in the Trailer Park doesn’t make his neighbors smarter. He’s the exception. He’s Exceptional. Probably the only Neurologist living in a Trailer Park in the entire country. What does that mean? His neighbors are more likely to rub off on him. Unless the Trailer Park becomes about 90% Neurologists. Perhaps then ‘they’ begin to influence their neighbors…

  13. I have often considered how changing voting ability would affect outcomes. Suppose we were to institute a system by which once you reach a certain age, say 62, you were no longer able to vote, or serve in political office. Thus forcing us to turn it over to the next generation.

    Of course assuming voting still means something.

    • Older generations have accumulated wisdom that only time and experience provide. True, not all people of older age are wise, nor are younger folk always unwise—but age alone is not a defining criteria to judge such ability as to run a country and its institutions via the political process. (Assuming a political process controlled by the masses.)

      No good answers here. Age certainly is important and may be used as one component in certain judgments wrt office holding. I don’t think Supreme Court justices should serve until they die of old age for example—but to disenfranchise 25% of the population because you think the “next” generation is automatically superior in determining society’s path?

      The idea needs a bit more thrashing out.

  14. As for Women not showing up. Women – excepting Jewish Women, Lesbians, and some other outlier ethnic groups – aren’t rebels. They’re conformists. And most of them, despite the constant Feminist propaganda, take only a half-heated interest in politics. I don’t imagine many young women would prefer a wonky Political discussion over a party or shopping. Further, the Left attracts more women because they attract the outliers, AND because they’re in effect bribing women with promises of special privilege, power and money.

    • Women – excepting Jewish Women, Lesbians, and some other outlier ethnic groups – aren’t rebels.

      Are those examples really rebels? They are promoting the establishment gospel. Even in the days before that was mainstream gospel, it was the message approved by their people.

    • I’ve always taken a single woman’s interest in politics as a big red flag Married women have kids to protect so it’s only a small red flag, but for single women it’s almost always a sign of feminism, even in Our Thing. A single woman is 95% likely to be interested in politics to leverage her own power & status, not that of her future man, family or existing clan.

      California provides me a jaded sample of femininity so take this with a grain of salt but our poison has infected all but the most based and outlying areas by now.

      Almost every long-term relationship I’ve had even as a normie has been with apolitical women. The few exceptions have been some of the more “interesting” relationships in the Chinese curse sense.

  15. There’s also the fact that the paleos never did a good job courting young people into their ideas. In the 1980’s, when the great schism on the Right became obvious, the Buckley side was the cool and hip side, which naturally attracted the young people, while the paleo side was for our parents.

    Conservatism (for lack of a better word) becomes appealing with maturity. Youth is a time of rebellion and exploration. Imagining that the world is malleable, pushing boundaries and chasing short term pleasure. It’s only with experience and maturity that people realize and accept that some things just are, that pleasure is ephemeral. A factor in that is the resilience of youth and the lack Theron as we age. Small mistakes when young are no big deal and easily overcome. The older you get the more long term risk they pose.

    I’ve been pointing out for a while that our culture is infantalizing. The average maturity level of the total population keeps receding. A second order effect of that is the leftward drift.

    • Wouldn’t that only make leftism the rebellious cause when it isn’t the dominant culture?

      I think the left works hard to curate this idea that they are rebels fighting against a dominant culture. Many even believe it.

  16. The problem with most of the Paleo’s is they didn’t want to fight. The Neo-Cons more or less took over without much of a struggle, and all the Paleo’s did was talk about how “Ungentlemanly” they were, and how the Paleo’s wouldn’t stoop to their level. Anyway, as Z man says, they’re too old to change, and are living in the past. Freud said “Anatomy is Destiny” and in politics “Demographics is Destiny”. If Hispanics vote 70-30 D, no matter what, and Blacks Vote 85-15 D , no matter what, and the other immigrants vote 60-40 D, then once you get enough of those groups, Conservatism and the R’s are dead. No matter what. CF: California and now Virginia.

      • Exactly. How do we fight? More importantly, how do we fight effectively? Even Conservative Inc. Buckley-types appeared to be fighting, but to no lasting difference.

        Paleos tried harder than Most, risked more, lost more and had even less impact.

        Recognizing there’s a problem is the first step of recovery. If there’s some kind of long term solution, it’s in hyper-local groups, not magazines, blogs, or political parties.

        Maybe Gen X-er’s role will be keepers of the flame (I remember living in safe neighborhoods in a monolithically single ethnic group town. It was not hell, there was no crime, we were not bigots nor full of hate, and we did not feel a lack of “strength” or want for exotic cuisine. No one asked for the changes thrust upon us)

        There’s no going back. The upcoming minority “heritage” (pre 1965) population’s progeny is going to need help, or it’s going to be a slow moving South Africa rerun. The question is, “how”?

        • There are a lot of ways to fight, some more effective than others, some we’re just learning or re-learning. Start with yourself – ditch bad habits, find like-minded friends, get in shape and get yourself well-grounded in history and culture. Unplug from the media/entertainment complex. As an older Xer myself I think you’re right about “keepers” – we still remember pre-Woke America and have the responsibility to pass that knowledge along. We’re part of the homeschooling and mentoring process that the younger generations never had. Not as sexy a role as I might like but very important.

      • Which tells you just how dishonest the media, the left (I repeat myself) and the phony conservatives are and always have been. I know it’s a bit “inside baseball” but I am enjoying the grift right being exposed for the charlatans (or Char-lay-tans) they are.

      • You mean Thomas Fleming of Chronicles? All he did was write columns about how “all was lost” and “we shouldn’t waste our time with politics”. His editorials are the reason I stopped subscribing to the magazine. If all was lost, why spend time reading about it. As for Derbyshire, he’s spend the last 12 years making sardonic remarks and drinking his tea. The English have always been good losers. In fact, when it comes to being classy losers they’re No. 1. When did he ever fight back at NR or get angry over getting fired?

        • In Derb’s defense, Britain didn’t stand a chance without Free Speech. There’s a bracing lesson in there for Americans.

    • I had a family member who was a staffer for Sen. Robert Taft (R-OH) so it’s possible I can’t be objective on this topic….but I will try. The Paleocons of the 1945-1975 era were fighters, but were were viewed as a problem to be eliminated by TPTB – esp. in the preparatory run up to the Cultural revolution of the 60s, where they would have served as a natural reactionary/counter-revolutionary force. Despite their sterling pedigree as anti-communists during the Cold War, their affinity for isolationism, judeo-skepticism, and distrust of the UN also placed them at odds with the CIA and the actual victors of WW2.

      Much as today’s dissident right is targeted by the SPLC/ADL, after Buckley’s NR purges (at the behest of our new rulers) there were highly-active, small far-right groups publishing broadsheets to warn the public of “the plan” as they understood it. This was a difficult project in the pre-internet era, and National Review remained highly-regarded as the institutions hadn’t been completely converged and discredited (consider how National Geographic was perceived in 1960 vs. today). The ADL spent large resources on identifying the authors, spying on them, and attempting to sic the FBI upon them. (For those interested, some of these documents can be found on the FBI’s online archive.)

      Much like Libertarians in the wake of Ron Paul’s failed 2008 campaign, Paleocons who refused to evolve after the movement was shoahed, did/do so out of ideological purity, vs. a desire for effectiveness. Taft’s loss to Metzenbaum in 1976 was Paleoconservatism’s death certificate IMHO.

      • I’ll be honest and say I don’t know if what you say is true or false. But I can say that Howard Metzenbaum was one of the WORST Senators in the history of the USA. Its a tragedy that Taft lost to him.

        • Agreed. The following day at elementary school I asked my oddly-masculine proto-cat lady social studies teacher if she had voted for Carter and Metzenbaum. She paused, studying me, and hesitantly replied in the affirmative. I remember rolling my eyes and shaking my head from side to side in disgust as I looked back down at my paper. She replied, “You are the grumpiest child I have ever met.”

          • “You are the grumpiest child I have ever met.”

            Hahaha! Bravo! I didn’t rise to being such a dreadful child until I was no longer quite a child, if that makes any sense. In high school I had a social studies teacher who had spent a few years in the Peace Corps in Shah-era Iran. Literally every day he’d gush about how wonderfully “spiritual and rooted” were the inhabitants of the remote rural village that had been afflicted with him, and how they led “authentic lives” in the manner of their ancestors “going back 3000 years”.

            After about a month of this I was completely fed up with his fawning xenophilia. When he got to the part about 3000 years I piped up, “and they still live in huts without running water or flush toilets, right?” It was fascinating to see the progression of the flush rising up from Peace Corps Boy’s shirt collar. Needless to say, I went on his List, but at least he shut up for a while.

      • As Republicans go, Taft was probably the best modern GOPer Ohio had to offer, kind of proto-Buchananite. I got schooled on him by an older dude after blanket-condemning my home-state GOP as America’s worst during Kasich-the-cuck’s campaign in 16. All downhill fast for the OH GOP ever since Taft. After Trump basically sealed the nomination the OH GOP head was one of the first calling for a rigged convention vote for Kasich or Lyin’ Ted. GOP delenda est.

    • Virginia, I think, might be interesting to watch. In fact, it should be a required lab for all on our side. I recently spent 10 months there in a remote county of the Piedmont edging up against the Blue Ridge. Traveled some and observed / talked to lots of folks “South of the James”, and along parts of the I-81 corridor.

      I don’t think they are on board with the program of the three suburban DC counties, or with Norfolk, Richmond, Charlottesville and the other college enclaves. As one traditional Virginian — younger, rural, busy running his family’s business — said while looking at me with a serious and unblinking gaze: “We don’t care what they say in Richmond.”

    • It has occurred to me that Trump won every single slicing of the White demographic except single White women, while running on the most America First immigration restrictionist platform in recent history.

      Pathological altruism is a uniquely White disease, but it is far from a universal infection. A lot of the population simply went along because it sounded nice and peace and prosperity made it largely painless. The Saxon is perfectly capable of hating when he understands the necessity.

      • The biggest flaw I see with the theory of path alt is its selective manifestation. Whites are much less “PA” with other Whites – it seems to be outgroup-only or at least outgroup-biased. KMac went over his book at Scandza Oslo but I had only one shot at a panel question, so I missed the chance to ask him about that wrinkle (he’s a tough guy to get time with one-on-one at these things).

        • Whites are much less “PA” with other Whites – it seems to be outgroup-only or at least outgroup-biased

          My guess would be that whites recognize that other whites are much more dangerous. Angry brown guys may stab you, but angry white guys will carpet your village with napalm, sow your fields with cluster bombs, blow your bridges to smithereens and rain shellfire on your roads.

          It’s akin to the British balance-of-power doctrine: never ally with the big boy in the school yard, because if you empower him, he might take your spot as top dog. You empower the weaker boys, play them against your most dangerous opponents.

          Also, there’s not much virtue to be had by empathizing with your strong and capable kinsmen, you need to empower a foreigner to be truly altruistic. I cringed every time I saw Christopher Hitchens with a Kurdish lapel flag: so obvious he needed brown pets to virtue signal about, now that he spoke up against Islam. So he chose the downtrodden Kurds – Saddam gassed them, and being gassed means you’re the good guy, right?

    • Dissident ideas were boring, middle of the road political beliefs for a thousand years up to about 50 years ago. We very well may be outliers today, but Normie whites’ current political attitudes are a mile wide and an inch deep.

      Our ((elite)) know this, which is why they’re desperate to replace us before the rest of us wake up.

      • Dissident ideas? Like 91% tax rate? Military conscription? Illegal to own gold? Or Prohibition a few years earlier? Ah, the good old days.

      • Yes, and it’s taken an enormous amount of propaganda to maintain the status quo. Mass media and the monopoly it had on information is really a phenomenon that started with newspapers and ended with the internet. Outside of that brief period the elites had no way to filter their message to every household without critique.

        I think the current status quo is unsustainable, and it’s currently failing.

    • Great provocative question. NAXALT when applied to racial qualities is hopeless. For example, blacks will be criminal and dumb compared to other races until evolution can improve them.

      Conversely, NAXALT, when applied to ideas in the minds of white people, is entirely different. Twenty years ago the person arguing for homo marriage was the outlier, yet that idea triumphed. We hope to do the same with our beliefs.

      • From what I’ve experienced, whites in general share the following traits, and most pocs don’t:

        1) Suicidal altruism. – caring more for others well being than for oneself

        2) Outgroup preference – Idealizing distant people and showing contempt for those closer.

        3) Extreme individuality

  17. I run into this stumbling block all the time. Recently I had a pretty lengthy Disqus thread with a CivNat.

    The penultimate comment was this:

    Well, as someone whose family tree includes mostly mongrel (including nonwhite), I don’t particularly care if the lilywhite purebreds who were here before 1870 liked things better before the swarthy folk came.

    (Though to be fair my family tree also includes Cherokee, who also feel their nation was better before the country club people came. And at least one card-carrying Daughter of the American Revolution – who betrayed her people* by marrying an Eastern European Jew.)

    For better or worse, America is a nation founded on values, not on ethnicity. The direction the nation has taken includes good and bad, and anyone who wants to make a better nation would do better to be specific about what policies to pursue, because simply bemoaning “The Wrong Sort Of People” coming and trashing the neighborhood is not going to undo history.

    This after several posts of mine trying to explain demographic reality to him. He never tried to actually deal with it. It’s just a wall around his thoughts that goes up when confronted with BadThink territory.

    And he very definitely doesn’t deal with my ultimate point: “They were lied to, betrayed, and now it’s pretty much too late. The American experiment is over and done with. The vision of the founders has failed.”

    I don’t know what kind of country he thinks he’s headed toward by continuing to promote “a nation founded on values” in the face of absolute demographic failure of that idea. He won’t think about it. It doesn’t matter what “policies to pursue,” because the coming majority population is absolutely uninterested in his CivNat values.

    *[Ed.: She certainly did]

    • It’s the hubris of many whites. They believe that they are the pinnacle of human development and that all the earth’s people will want to become just like them. The CivNat and the SJW start from the same spot.

      • Citizen: “The CivNat and the SJW start from the same spot.” Excellent point, and one Zman keeps manfully hammering away at. All those who reflexively return to the decent exceptions, muh liberty, etc. do not want to face this reality. Accept the SJW values (fairness, equality, liberty/license, etc.) and you end up at the same spot as they will, just a bit more slowly.

    • Gosh. 1) “Terrylan” must have been a troll. 2) I admire your restraint. (That used to be the point where Bill Wolf or Tango would enter quoting the immigration acts of 1790, et seq. ) I guess a lot of folks have been banned. It doesn’t seem anywhere near as lively over there as it used to be. Although the occasional post generates 100+ responses.

      • No, I don’t think he’s a troll — I’m the troll. He’s fairly regular and a very typical civnat.

        Bill Wolf and TangoMan are still around.

        I can on occasion manage to be extremely patient because I give zero shits about either “winning” the argument or convincing the moron that he’s wrong.

        Every post I do is just meant to plant a seed in someone else who happens by it, not just by what I say but through the responses to it. Narrative disruption.

        I look forward to the days when I get to troll (((Charles Glasser))), because he’s not only an enemy of all that’s good, he’s thin-skinned as hell.

        ETA: I think a lot of these discussion are hard for DR as well as civnats because it’s human nature to want to feel like you have a path forward where the final result is “we win.”

        I don’t assume anything like that. I assume we have to sail into “here be monsters” territory and be prepared to take advantage of opportunities that arise. I don’t think there is any straight-forward plan of action that inevitably leads to victory.

        • Strongly agree. We have no idea of how things are going to play out. Patiently planting seeds is a good tactic.

  18. I’m less forgiving because I think the second- biggest resistance factor the pre-Millenial Xers & Boomers have vs the red pill (after NAxALT) is their delusion that our extremism is the evil force holding back the Red Tide of natural minority conservatives.

    True-believer cons forsaken in Clown World are like the dejected believers amid the Black Death. Unable or unwilling to identify the pathogen (racial incompatibility and genetic limits) or its vectors (you know who), they either turn inward and flail their sinning selves or lash out at the sinners whose depraved TruthSpeak has angered Morgan Freeman on-high.

    For those who cannot or will not see, our “hate” is like the “miasma” theory for the Plague. There’s little to no room to appeal to reason in the face of this crap-flinging monkey-brain terror of cognitive dissonance.

    Hoping to somehow open the minds and quell the rage of the orcs, the weaker souls among these elders are all-too-willing to throw the young (and we few based elders) into The Daily Baal’s burning belly.

    Guys of our generation know why Old Yeller had to be put down despite the fond memories of his salad days. When we see a Paleo getting foamy, we have to do what’s necessary to protect the rest of the family & farm.

    • Notice that black people never have this NAxALT issue. As a matter of fact, it’s a white phenomenon. It likely comes from classes in logic and mathematics. White people mostly know the difference between a hypothesis and a theorem. White people are very hesitant to turn out new theorems because THE RULES say no. What white people need to learn is that where we’re going, there are no rules. We need to take a page from Shanequa who begins every sentence with “White people be like…”

      • One of the most civilized examples of sticking the shiv in on this issue comes from John Derbyshire:

        Here is a typical example of an extremely common response. (I took it from the comment thread on my April 12 TakiMag column, but there are dozens like it elsewhere — given the web-wide volume of commentary on this piece, quite likely hundreds.)

        Please tell this black woman who is a devoted mother, professional woman, cat lover, and gardener, and Ivy league graduate about her inherent nature and intelligence. Do tell!

        Now, it’s well known that I hate to give offense — ask anybody! — but the temptation to say the obvious thing here is so strong, I am just going to yield to it.

        Ma’am: If you cannot distinguish between a statistical statement about a population (“On average, men are taller than women”) and a statement about some one particular member of that population (“Sally’s real tall”), then … how intelligent do you expect me to believe you are, actually?

        And if a person who cannot make that elementary logical distinction truly does have an Ivy League degree, Affirmative Action is a greater evil than I thought.

  19. I’ve noticed lately that I’ve been way too hard on the boomers. We’re all products of our own age. They were a product of the post war era. Their recklessness was ensured by the events they lived. They received their impressions on life when the country was at its most stable. And they did do some great things for the country. Turning every day consumables into premium items, like coffee. Vaulted ceilings, upgraded kitchens and walk in closets as standard in tract homes. Another fantastic idea. Almost worth the downside of what they’ve done…

    • I only get nasty with my generation when they stoop to betrayal & cuckery. The guys who just want to grill frustrate me but I understand not everyone thrives on conflict and many of those guys owe duties to family & employees that make them fragile to dixxing & other internal exile measures.

    • I am frustrated with the Boomers’s unwillingness to confront reality. However, I ask myself, “If I had been born in the 1950s and subjected to the same conditioning as the Boomers, would I be much different from them?” Unlikely.

      • “If I had been born in the 1950s and subjected to the same conditioning as the Boomers, would I be much different from them?”

        Yes, where does the buck stop? Once you start blaming your parents, you can go all the way back to Adam and Eve.

        • That’s true. But you don’t know the conditioning unless you’ve experienced it, and if you’ve experienced it you’re a different person than one who didn’t. It certainly was a conditioning. Just as the WW2 generation was conditioned in their own era. Okay, I’m back on the anti-boomer bandwagon. That lasted five hours.

  20. “Every day, more and more people are realizing that the future in this land is never going to be like the past.” – That’s because we never lived it. It’s the ones who did live it that still have hope. We’ve only known decline, from the moment they wheeled the TV into the classroom to watch that teacher burn to death in orbit. It was all downhill from there. Our generation is unique in that we never really had heroes. Athletes for sure, but that’s not the same. I’m actually fine with that, heroes are overrated. You have to be hardened to face the future. It’s not a good one.

    • JR Wirth: “That’s because we never lived it.” That truth is a gut punch for me, and not a new one. Every day I look at my sons and realize they’ve never known the kind of world I grew up in, although we did everything we could to ameliorate the worst of this one (Christian schools, stay-at-home mom, etc.). But the elders need to accept this truth as well. The past was far from perfect and contained the seeds of the present. We must create a new and different future rather than yearn for what’s gone forever.

      • Yes, so many parents make this mistake. They raise their kids as if it’s 1980 and whatever crazy stuff the kids are doing is just a “youthful stage” – when in fact negro worship is for life not just a stage. They also are not careful enough about what their children are being taught in school.

        Look, their generation is only 50% white. It’s INEVITABLE that they will come into contact with 3rd worlders. I know for a FACT that dozens or hundreds or white, upper middle class boys are hanging out with Somali and Arab drug dealers. Remember these people achieve full maturity at age 14. So these people take in a bunch of white boys with either missing or weak fathers.

        Of course, the parents just think “oh, he’s just going out to smoke a little pot in Jimmy’s garage” – they are unwilling and unable to see the truth.

      • Every day I look at my sons and realize they’ve never known the kind of world I grew up in

        A friend told me this anecdote about his teenage daughter.

        “When I was a kid, we had no computers.”

        (Awed silence. Then:)

        “But how did you go on the internet?”

    • We have heroes, lots of them—but they are less and less heroes who set examples of overcoming obstacles of birth or education, succeeding against great adversity, or self sacrificing for the greater common good.

      No, today our heroes are victims. We are now a society that worships victimhood. And of course, the result is that we all more and more aspire to such status. Sigh.

      • Compsci: “No, today our heroes are victims.” This. My husband gets disgusted as every soldier who ever got shot down or wounded or sacrificed is paraded as a hero. No, they are generally victims. The hero is the one who, despite his safety, ensures more of the enemy are killed and/or demoralized. Saving one’s own is inherently good and should come naturally; there’s nothing automatically heroic about it.

        • 3g4me, I agree with you on the military as heroes thing. I’m military myself, have done numerous deployments, but have never seen combat or in any other way been “tested” to see just what my mettle is. I cringe when anyone refers to me as a hero just because I wear a uniform. I’ve met a few who I would regard as in that category, and I’m just not one of them. Like most, I’d like to think that when/if the time comes, I would rise up to the task, but it ain’t happened yet, and I’m okay with that. I have benefited greatly from my service, and I prefer to let it go with that.

          • Most older vets I know have a reflexive “I’m not a hero, the guys who died are” response to this. We still see a few guys around the bases in SoCal wearing their unis off-duty even though it’s prohibited unless going to-from, as I understand it, mostly Bush II era enlistees, FWIW. Even the Prog Marines I know (yes, that’s a thing, saints preserve us) will talk sh*t about their service but won’t “hero” themselves.

            My service girlfriends, sadly, have universally labeled themselves disabled veterans for washing out of boot camp, SSRI abuse, PTSD (without experiencing any TS), etc… Any time they got the chance they would status-signal their service and talk like Sgt. Rock. Cringe-worthy, and this is with a half-dozen GF sample size.

      • “today our heroes are victims. We are now a society that worships victimhood”

        Indeed. And in every domain. (Even Olympic athletes are depicted as poor victims who inevitably had to overcome some terrible handicap.) But while this omnipresent victimhood is sad, it is not at all surprising.

        After all, we have outsourced our contemporary mythology (i.e. Hollywood), our news media, and academia (excluding only a few rapidly shrinking islands of STEM) to those whose central existential mythos is one of victimhood.

        What’s worse is that victimhood (or rather the belief that one is a victim) breeds resentment, and resentment breeds viciousness, envy, and spite. With stupid, fundamentally slothful resentful people you get the knockout game. With intelligent, energetic, paranoid resentful people you get the mess we’re in.

      • If these people can’t see that orange blob for what he is, they’re useless. Biggest fraud of all time. The only good thing about him is that he’s helping to destabilize the current regime through his own incompetence and survival mechanisms, and the fact that he’s hated by the worst among the DCists.

    • Tits or gtfo 😉

      Sorry. That’s probably why they don’t show up.

      If it makes you feel any better, even the normiecon events have sausagefest ratios, and are full of thirsty guys.

      I would advise regular dating and just taqqiya about this if you’re involved, and introduce her to you “friends” – the DR guys are your friends, she doesn’t need to know about the rest.

  21. Coming as I do from the Before Times, when we were all still civil, and my family had not yet been infected by proggie ideology (we’re going waaaaaay back)…those men you despise were actually un-sung heroes. They recognized the difference between black people and niggers and made sure they knew it too. Black people that worked hard, were industrious and devout were accorded cordial and polite respect. Niggers were shamed and beat down. Often blacks did it and policed themselves. Do you remember the cry in those days? There were all these good, hard working, church going blacks that only wanted a fair shake and a fair chance. What were the Yesterday Men going to say to that, Z?

    That is the world they want to restore. And you dissidents will have to respect and accommodate NAXALT. No, NAXALT does not trump race realism, genetics or solid statistical analysis… but if you start victimizing people of worth and merit your movement will be as dead as the Paleocons are. It is a contentious issue that the dissidents dance around and cannot seem to confront. How DO you intend to deal with blacks that behave themselves and want better lives for themselves and have something to contribute to yours? Ditto for like minded Jews?

    At some point you will need to deal with these issues if your movement is to succeed.

    • Nobody thinks all X are like anything. But your desire to run with NAXALT has been a complete and total failure. The desire to not offend the one African American you know who is not like the stereotype has led to ridiculous outcomes, like murder being OK if the killer can convince a jury their victim used the N-word or how an argument between a random white and random black on a train becomes a worldwide story covered by major press outlets on multiple continents.
      Instead of kvetching about not offending that one person or (more realistically) people like you, reflect on how your generation failed in virtually every measurable way to conserve anything. You could not even conserve the lady’s room.

      • Dissidents in general have pretty much the same opinion of black people that Frederick Douglass did. Flattery is an amazingly destructive force.

      • Also sprach Tars_Tarkusz, “…reflect on how your generation failed in virtually every measurable way to conserve anything.”

        Tars might reflect on how his generation is working hard at making everything worse. Boomers started breaking down society, but succeeding cohorts are shredding anything that remains.

        • I was not referring to Boomers. I don’t even know if he is one. TBH, I think he is Silent.
          Gen-X is even worse than Boomers, but Gen-Xers don’t see themselves as a generational cohort and never had any delusions of grandeur about saving the world and other such nonsense.
          The Millennial children of Boomers are worse than the Millennial children of Gen-Xers.
          None of this changes the fact that they aren’t here saying we have to worry about him or that miraculous African American he loves so much. That is what is so grating about his kvetching.
          You would think the members of a movement that failed in every measurable way would just slink away and not lecture the current gen. His advice did not help him and it certainly would not help us!

          • Silencing the “opposition” is a sure tell your argument is weak. Perhaps an proposed outline for the future aim and growth of the movement would be more productive than blaming other generations for what you feel are their short comings. Internal squabbles produce nothing but distraction.

          • I’m not silencing anyone. I’m saying we need not take advice from people who failed in every conceivable way!

        • We Boomers did everything we were taught, all the generations do.

          That’s why it’s dangerous to allow unfiltered poison into the information stream.

    • Easy question: The answer is that you and the rest of us will accord all due respect and comity to individuals of other races, creeds and colors who deserve it. As Zman has said in the past, “noticing things” doesn’t equate to indiscriminately “hating” entire population cohorts. The existence of groups who prefer to live among and support their own people—as do many Blacks, Jews, Asians, Latinos, homosexuals, Mormons and so forth—doesn’t mean that all of them “hate” everyone else, or even want to obstruct or impede them (although that is observably often exactly the case, depending on the group). This is why it will be just and moral for Whites to begin to organize and act explicitly in their own group interests.

      At the same time, NAXALT is true. It is harmful to our movement to attempt to deny or belittle it. The correct reply is, “Yes, and so what?” Recognizing NAXALT doesn’t negate the statistical realities of group differences.

      Lastly, notice the words above: “who deserve it.”

        • Yes, but the Amish create their own communities within the local (larger) community. They have some autonomy—usually religious—with regard to their community, but in the end they must conform to general values/conditions of the larger community.

          Not sure this situation is a solution to the general problems/solutions the group here discusses as I don’t see it scaling up to encompass millions of Whites seeking homeland(s).

    • You’re strawmanning us here, John. Of course none of us are saying that all people in groups are the same. You’re deliberately misrepresenting us in the left-wing manner.

      You have to judge individuals as individuals and groups as groups. And public policies are usually about groups.

      I think most of our guys think of groups in terms of bell curves and similar statistical aggregations, which is the correct way to think about groups with respect to political action.

      • Sorry if you got that impression. I am not trying to strawman or accuse anyone of anything. I am a Yesterday Man myself. You younger ones know what you know of blacks, SJW’s, queers, etc – because men like me were the first to get mugged and sand bagged by them. Coming to this side from The Hive as I did – I know how those people think… perhaps even better than our esteemed blog host does.

        Speaking from the trash can of history as I do – NAXALT is a valid argument to the people you need to convince. It’s a shiv or a wedge that Leftie is making great use of – and the dissidents need to be able to counter it. When you dither about the JQ, for example – the bad guys are going to jump on that. There ARE rabid anti-semites within the movement and right now, in the real world – that’s a deal breaker for a lot of normies… even though they are absolutely correct about some of their views. Our esteemed blog host says the dissidents must police themselves… well… there you go. Have it it!

        It’s not so easy, is it?

        For the record I see things as you do. But Normie and most women think with their emotions, and don’t have the attention spans for careful analysis, bell curves, charts, critical thinking or reasoned study. That is why NAXALT works – because to them, perception is reality.

        Us Yesterday Men are of questionable value to you dissidents. On one hand, you are in this pickle largely because of us. We hesitated. We copped out. Or we went off half-cocked. Shit – we did everything wrong even though we had the best of intentions. We didn’t have a chance.

        All I am saying is that NAXALT is a *perceived* weakness in the dissident position – through no fault of your own… but it is still a weakness that has to be intelligently and publicly addressed. As it stands right now, you are setting yourselves up to be dismissed as eeeeeeeeeevil racists and nazis the same way the Alt Right was. I am seeing Leftie lay the ground work for that already. Leftie and his gov’t ARE aware of you – and you will have to be smarter than falling for the same crap they got us with. From where I sit… you boys are doing well. Keep at it and don’t get depressed.

        Best of luck to you all.

        • “You younger ones know what you know of blacks, SJW’s, queers, etc – because men like me were the first to get mugged …”

          Well said. There seems to be thought prevalent today with some here that the “Boomers” got all of the pie, leaving the future generations in want. Also, that the Boomers were directly responsible for the state we are in. Both are arguable.

          There were 77M Boomers in the US. Dying off fast, maybe not fast enough for some. 😉 None-the-less that represents 25-30% of the population. 80% of the wealth in this country is held by the top ten percent of the population. There are a lot of “poorish” Boomers out there. Perhaps even exceeding the same proportions of some of the follow on generations.

          Pivotal laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Immigration Reform Act were enacted under LBJ. The oldest Boomers were at that time barely able to vote and had no meaningful part in the politics of this change.

          Yeah, we went along with the flow—assured by our “betters” of the wisdom in these changes. Good times produce optimistic and generous people. Knowledge of certain principles and biological science, limited. Can any of you of the newer generation(s) who comment here claim you’d be any different in absence of your current experience and knowledge? I don’t think so.

    • I don’t think the onus is on dissidents to make a case for anything at this point. Reality is going to intercede quite soon in the lives of the NAXALTS and others.

      Blacks and Jews need to deal with their own problems of demonizing anyone in their crowd who expresses the slightest affinity for out-group ideas. Except they never do. Instead, it’s our problem to adapt our message to them. Why? It wasn’t the dissident right that moved us from the Before Times you speak of to today. We didn’t destroy the traditional black family. We didn’t insert porn and addiction into every crevice of society. We didn’t victimize people of worth. Those traits are still valued and admired by people on this site who recognize virtues when they encounter them in real life.

      No ground has ever been conceded by any of the various grievance groups that have been blasting their misery and complaints into our ears for decades now. Ever. It’s always someone else’s fault. And now we have to find a Shakespeare who’ll craft the right words to entice them out of the jail cell they’ve chosen for themselves and seem determined to defend at all costs as “liberation?”

      On our side: not our problem. We’d like to be left alone. I’m not interested in converting anyone, or proving that I’m a “good person” to them before they’ll listen to empirical data. The price of admission to this game is too high, and further, I’m not interested in playing it. If reality doesn’t teach them, words certainly won’t. When a 99-mph fastball is coming at your head, you shouldn’t need a batting coach to tell you to get out of the way. It’s your head.

      Again: if they leave us alone, there’s no problem. Of course, they won’t, and hence, we will have to defend ourselves. But we’re not driving this. Living a normal human life with one’s children, one’s faith, one’s land, off the fruits of one’s own labor shouldn’t require having a public relations department to justify it, or to attract others to it. It speaks for itself — because it’s nature itself. If that’s not enough, then language won’t do it.

      • I think that a lot of good-natured normies wrongly project their own good-naturedness on others, and think they will just leave us alone, just as we would be happy to leave them alone.

        But right now members of another tribe (no bonus points for guessing which one) are pouring over lists of the demographics of western cities, looking for mostly white cities into which they can unleash packs of young men from third-world countries.

        The harsh truth is that sooner or later we’ll probably have to make them leave us alone.

      • Reality already has, in my case AR. I sent a beautiful, intelligent daughter off to university 11 or 12 years ago, and got back an angry, petulant lesbian SJW. At the time I had no idea what she had become, and more importantly – why. Nobody knew what an SJW was or how they worked. You are right that it is not fair that you should be the ones trying to convince people of obvious things that should be common sense. But it is what it is: the vast herds of Normies out there have a choice. They can hoist the black flag and join the dissidents, or cuck out. When I was given that choice I signed on with the Dissidents as an untrustworthy advisor – and will be incensed if I don’t get a choice spot amongst the cannon fodder once this culture war goes hot. I want to be the first on the line when the time comes to confront these assholes. 😉

        You are wrong in assuming this is not your problem. When fun loving vibrants invite you for a friendly round of The Knock Out Game… it very much IS your problem. When vibrant hordes start culturally enriching YOUR neighbourhood… it is very much your problem. It’s all OUR problem. It will be men like you that fix it too.

        Don’t be frightened by this or shy away from it. You are not alone, and your biggest enemies are mostly paper tigers at this point. Everyone knows the mass media lies and not even Leftie trusts them anymore. Everyone is seeing the virtue signalling SJW’s go over the rainbow to far off lands to spread their message – and end up getting raped and beheaded. You won’t see it in the media… but I think we are winning on a huge scale. The Donks are in shambles. Already lefty is publishing hysterical and alarming articles about shadowy, evil dissident types and their red pills that promote racism and hateyness – and their screeds are met with derisive laughter from the public. The cucks are getting creamed as they struggle to keep their place at the front of Conservative Inc’s parade.

        Keep doing what you’re doing, guys. It may or may not be YOUR problem… but it is well within your means to solve.

        • I get it. And I appreciate the answer.

          I know that it’s coming for me. I’ve tried to discuss this with others in my life. They don’t want to hear it. I’m the most mild-mannered, philosophical type imaginable. When I speak from that position, I’m shouted over and mocked. When I adopt a more aggressive tone, I’m called “violent” or “threatening.” When I try to sail between them, people get bored. I’ve tried wearing about a dozen different hats in my day, and none ever seemed to get through to the half-dozen or so close friends in my life, nor more casual acquaintances I’ve met along the way. They just don’t want to hear it.

          So, I figure I’m on my own at this point. I’m no Edward Bernays and I can’t figure out a better way to deliver this message in a way that’s palatable to the many. And from what I can see, most others can’t do it, either. That indicates to me more of a cultural and/or systemic problem — namely, normal Americans are either inured to what’s occurring around them, or indifferent, or they approve of it. I don’t know which. But they’re not reacting, and I can’t wait around forever if I want to survive.

        • “their screeds are met with derisive laughter from the public” There is a big divide. The right side of the aisle is waking up to the farce of conservative Inc and the lying press. The left side of the aisle is doubling down and becoming more strict in their beliefs. For them politics is a religion now.

      • I bet that’s what the Kulaks thought as well and look what happened to them…If we truly want Liberty we have to have the power to make that happen which comes from banding together and enforcing our will…

      • You make a lot of good points. The right keeps wanting to appeal to people based on reason and people make emotional decisions especially in our modern feminine centric world where even men are starting to think and act like women. The majority of whites are not going to become race realists until they have no choice and that may never happen. I can imagine that there are plenty of university educated whites living in gated communities and high security condosin South Africa who hate race realism. All we can do is lead a sane life and be a honest as we can be able what we see going on.

    • John Smith: “At some point you will need to deal with these issues if your movement is to succeed.”

      Why must Whites “deal” with the rare exceptions in other racial or ethnic groups? Is there some inherent obligation engraved upon the White European soul that he must uplift and accommodate the ‘other’ of purported good will? No one here, I would argue, would disagree that those exceptions exist. Most understand, however, that accommodating the exceptions negates the entire political and moral philosophy that underpins the dissident right. Your Negro friend may well be a decent and upright man – does that then require you to share your home with him, or marry your daughter to him? That’s what you are really demanding when you insist Whites ‘deal’ with him.

      Just like the questioner the other day who plaintively wailed “What about mixed-race dissident families?” Well, what about them? Why can they not band together and build their magikal multikultural Wakanda and prove us all wrong, or provide an example for others of their sort? We have no inherent obligation to the other, other than the courtesy and respect we owe any stranger. Whether they came on their own post ’65 or their ancestors were brought against their will centuries before any of us were born is irrelevant. They are not us, and they are not our responsibility, and we are not their keepers.

      • 1. “No one here, I would argue, would disagree that those exceptions exist. Most understand, however, that accommodating the exceptions negates the entire political and moral philosophy that underpins the dissident right.” WRONG.

        2. “Your Negro friend may well be a decent and upright man – does that then require you to share your home with him, or marry your daughter to him?” ABSOLUTELY NOT.

        3. “That’s what you are really demanding when you insist Whites ‘deal’ with him.” FALSE CONCLUSION.

        4. “We have no inherent obligation to the other, other than the courtesy and respect we owe any stranger.” TRUE.

        5. “Whether they came on their own post ’65 or their ancestors were brought against their will centuries before any of us were born is irrelevant. They are not us, and they are not our responsibility, and we are not their keepers.” ALSO TRUE.

        Query: Can errors of the conclusions in #1, #2 and #3 above—explicit and implicit—coexist with the undeniable truths of #4 and #5?

        • Jim Smith:

          1. The basic premise of the dissident right is that reality matters, and regarding people, biology is reality. DNA>culture>politics. A large majority of the d-right wants separate nations for separate peoples – i.e. ethnostates. You are arguing that within those ethnostates, accommodation must be made for the NAXALTS . . . those whose apparent beliefs and/or behavior contradicts their genetic predilections. You are ignoring their friends, relatives, future marriage partners, and most importantly reversion to the mean. You are the one wrong here.

          2. One’s nation is one’s home. Inviting into the ethnostate those whose entire genome and innumerable previous generations are inherently alien is akin to inviting the utterly unvetted stranger into one’s home and to marry into one’s family – because race is family writ large – unless you are also proposing to continue importing such purported NAXALTS as future marriage partners for your special exceptions. You are again wrong.

          I’m unwilling to waste more time regarding your failure of logic and reversion to emotion.

          • “You are arguing that within those ethnostates, accommodation must be made for the NAXALTS.” I never said that, nor did I imply it, and here I explicitly deny it. Any conclusion to the contrary is unwarranted. Let’s not let emotional reactions interfere with rational calculation and judgment.

      • I do not disagree with you.

        The other day our blog host did a bit on outreach, establishing communities and increasing numbers. To me that’s critical. I think – as he does – the movement is in serious danger of growing far too large and far too fast. Red pills are raining from the heavens and pelting the pozzed and Normie alike! The leaders of the movement are in perilous times – There is serious danger of nutters and fags like Vox Day and Milo co-opting the movement and sinking it the same way they did with the Alt Right. You will need to be smarter than that. When that exact question came up for the Alt-right, the NAXALT crowd were told to FOAD. The Alt Right is now deader than a door nail, but even though NAXALT didn’t kill them… it didn’t help either.

        Were I in charge, when the NAXALT goes “What about me?”… I would turn it around and answer them with the exact same question: “Well… what, exactly, about you? What do you have to offer us? Can you bring anything to the table of our community? Sorry – we have no need of diversity and vibrancy, and if that is all you have, there are others out there for whom that is important. If you want a spot here, are you willing to adopt our values?”

        And I think that could be a great avenue of attack for the dissidents. We do have values and they are good ones. We need to expand on those and nail them down – because Leftie has no values of his own except vibrancy and diversity… and it is quite clearly killing him. It will kill us too if we let it continue.

        • Were I in charge, when the NAXALT goes “What about me?”… I would turn it around and answer them with the exact same question: “Well… what, exactly, about you? What do you have to offer us? Can you bring anything to the table of our community? Sorry – we have no need of diversity and vibrancy, and if that is all you have, there are others out there for whom that is important. If you want a spot here, are you willing to adopt our values?”

          See that’s what we are saying John we don’t need them at all no matter what they have to offer…If they have a bunch of great qualities then they can be a great leader of their own people and we can have a good trade relationship with them…Why do we have to accommodate anyone when others would never offer that courtesy to us…

          • Civnat or natal nat, both need to contend with rejection of national values and norms.

            Nationalism can’t exist in any context without some form of expulsion. The nation decides who belongs, not the member.

    • So, that level of nuance only applies to how white people see the world right? I mean in all the other races it’s okay if they see white people as just some monolith? They’re not expected to see nuance. That makes NAXALT kind of racist. You don’t want to be a racist do you?

    • We are individuals in only a very limited sense.We are born communal creatures always dependent upon others within our social milieu.  Our personal standards and behaviors gravitate to the social norm built upon millennia after millennia of social evolution.  As a group we would exhibit this behavior in a normal distribution (a symbiotic relationship between the elements within the group).

      The well mannered or accomplished Black is also tied to his bio-cultural group no matter where he was born and grew up.  He has a natural affinity and desire to mingle with at least some Blacks. If he is the first black to join your circle he becomes the “Seed Negro”. You approve of him and see him as one of you.  Very noble.  A few years down the road you now have 4 Seed Negros in your group.  They begin to exhibit group preferences for each other and start making demands about how your group functions and adds new members. Your group dynamic no longer has a normal distribution, it’s begun to bifurcate. You are beginning to develop two gravitational centers about which your group organizes itself. A bit of tension but it still functions. As this trend continues the tension also grows until your group has become so volatile it is ready to implode. 

      A couple of weeks ago Z did a podcast or posted an article where from his observations in Baltimore the culture could be reduced to some lowest common denominator of functioning with 20% Black (for me 5% is 4% too many).  There are a lot of switchbacks and ox-bows in how this develops…but this is exactly how it ends up each and every time.  No exceptions, no matter how noble and exceptional and well intentioned your “See Negro may be.  During the past 50 years every university has experienced this. Outside of a few departments most of the university is clown world central.  The Suburbs have begun to become enriched in this way: I’ll bet Ferguson, MO. was a pretty nice little burg 2 or 3 decades ago. Large and Med sized corps are well down this wonderland rabbit hole. At the outset I’m sure everyone involved was very very very well intentioned. Even a seemingly innocent and well intentioned bit of diversity – on the part of all involved – if not rigidly controlled – destroys all it touches.

        • Not so fast. Yves said, “If he is the first black to join your circle he becomes the ‘Seed Negro’. You approve of him and see him as one of you. Very noble. A few years down the road you now have 4 Seed Negros in your group.” First, no one in any group has any obligation to accept into their group a “Seed Anyone.” So don’t. And the first sentence above doesn’t automatically mandate what is described in the last. So if you have a “Seed” and don’t want to add any more Seeds, don’t. Perfectly legitimate.There are truths stated here that are worth repeating, so I think I will. “We have no inherent obligation to the other, other than the courtesy and respect we owe any stranger….They are not us, and they are not our responsibility, and we are not their keepers.”

      • Damned good description of the process. Clan-tribe-race affinity (in that order) will on average overcome any weaker bond. As Felix Krull noted about Copenhagen Blacks, they’re tractable because they don’t have critical mass numbers for a sub-culture. In smaller numbers they generally keep their heads down, try to blend in and behave because resident Danes, Arabs & Turks don’t care for them & will push back. As Rasmus Paludan notes, the Arabs and Turks have those numbers, so unfortunate Danes feel pushback from them.

        Z’s Spencer post + your comment are really making me re-think how I depict White identity. I’m big on the 14 words but I haven’t done a good job of describing it as an umbrella, downstream concept. Your primary identity center-of-gravity (as you aptly put it) is clan, next tribe/ethnicity and only then comes race. It’s why Z’s right in speaking about ethno-states not race-states. I’ve implicitly believed this but need to do a better job expressing it.

      • Drove through Ferguson some months after the late excitement. I was surprised at how un-ghetto-like was the part I crossed. Did some back and forth on the streets; looked like it had once been one of those now lost, originally comfortable American locations.

    • “How DO you intend to deal with blacks that behave themselves and want better lives for themselves and have something to contribute to yours? Ditto for like minded Jews?”

      Simple. They aren’t my people. I have no obligation to any black – good or bad – because they aren’t my people.

      Our job is to sow the seeds for a new community of our people, a home for our extended family and our extended family alone, just as my house is for my family alone.

      What some individual from another people is like doesn’t matter to me. He has his community, I have mine. Indeed, it’s exactly because we have our homelands that I can treat him as an individual. I know that he will return to his community and I to mine so I have no fear of what he or his children or extended family will do to my community, my people.

      If Joe Normie finds this idea repulsive because it would mean excluding his nice black friend, than Joe Normie can go live in his multi-culti paradise, where he will quickly learn what the terms “on average” and “regression to mean” mean.

      Reality will convert Joe Normie better than any slogan or rhetorical sleight of hand. Reality is our greatest propaganda tool. What we need to do is to show Joe Normie an alternative to his ever-degrading world.

      • I’d suggest apartheid. Strictly-segregated White ethnic core areas, a mixed fringe where those who chose to NAxALT could NAxALT and the degenerate urban free cities for those who prefer multi-culti. Let those who flaunt the rule of averages Bear the consequences, let those who respect the rule reap the benefits.

        • The apartheid you speak of needs to be de facto, not legislated. This means old school thinking and tactics. Build a tight ethno- and cultural community around you, very tight. Which means that the “seed” whoever, is going to be very uncomfortable to actually be in that community. So innocent and accidental seeds don’t happen. If an outsider simply forces his way in, because of “muh rights”, then offense has been given, and offense is quickly and violently given back, from the violated and offended community. Isn’t this how every other ethno- and cultural community operates? It all comes back to bottom-up tight communities with cultural standards, and the strong-as-it-takes enforcement of community boundaries and norms of all sorts.

          • That’s how it has to start. 100 years from now I’d like to see it legislated. I said much the same in my normie-Con anti-Muzzie phase – my racism was expressing itself in the only approved category.

            Make them feel unwelcome & be overtly hostile when necessary. “You are not part of this community, don’t belong and never will.” It wouldn’t take long for self-deportations to ramp up under Jim Crow levels of social pressure.

            Violence would be less necessary over time as well, once the hardcore “muh rights” crowd (and their Talmudic agitators) were encouraged to make their respective ethnic aliyahs.

        • Freedom of association would accomplish a lot of that. But that’s the last thing libertarian conservatives will actually argue for…

      • Just keep in mind that you will not be allowed to keep your non multicultural community. Members of the tribe openly talk about how they are working to diversify white dominate areas. This includes indoctrination, forced settling of immigrants, Section 8 housing and lawsuits. There will be no white safe places eventually except for the truly wealthy neighborhoods away from Asian communities and very poor rural areas.

        • This is a standard response to any constructive White pushback. I’m doing a full post on it for my own site rollout – the “argument from impracticality.”

          Abridged version – this argument is a variation of Z’s “Magic Jew Theory.” Assuming Jews & their orcish footsoldiers will win every future confrontation b/c Clown World laws, Empire army, cops, ad nauseum serves no purpose but to demoralize Whites into giving up. Being realistic and being demoralized are two different things.

          At some point, our willingness and ability to fight or move on outweighs their willingness and ability to repress us, at first in tiny backwater communities they don’t inhabit or care about, perhaps, but those communities will multiply, expand, and even unite over time.

          Our communities will also learn to physically relocate like a diaspora if necessary. Wandering German laager-volk were a much bigger threat to Rome than wandering Jews later became in their post-temple diaspora.

          Other dissidents can take in “lawfare refugees.” If need be, we also have a lot of guys who can build houses and infrastructure ala Amish barn-raisings. Modern RV’s, trailers & trucks are much more comfy than our ancestors’ wagons to live in during the process.

          I see a revival of the trades, skilled labor & re-unionization as part of this strategy. A good contractor, mechanic, metal-worker or maintenance guy & his equipment & tools are useful and welcome in most small normie communities, and of great use to Our People first and foremost.

          More on this in the future.

      • “I have no obligation to any black – good or bad – because they aren’t my people.” Not quite. I repeat—“We have no inherent obligation to the other, other than the courtesy and respect we owe any stranger….They are not us, and they are not our responsibility, and we are not their keepers.” Note the “inherent obligation” in there? I argue that’s the answer to the NAXALT conundrum. It’s common sensical, easily understandable, acceptable to normies, and neither harms nor marginalizes the DR in the eyes of rational people.

    • I must agree, we can’t walk that cat back.
      So many, many damm cats.

      Neanderthals, I’m sure, dreamed of a sabertooth-free country.

    • Thank you! My family has both white and black members, but we are all worried about the future of the US, and none of us vote democrat. Kids are all being homeschooled and they are really good kids. But there is enough racial animosity on some of these boards to make us wonder where do WE go if the SHTF? Being in the belly of the beast (California) we are also friends with many conservative Patriots who don’t fit the northern European model.

        • With all due respect, they aren’t African, they are American because that’s how they were raised and how they identify. While my cousin who is a whiter shade of pale is a virulent socialist who hates our guts because we voted for Trump. Who is the bigger danger in that context, people who just want to be left the hell alone, or someone who would love to see dissidents dumped into camps? Personally think it’s foolish in the extreme to exclude like minded people because they don’t fit the Aryan ideal, as Franklin said “we must indeed hang together, or we will assuredly hang seperately. But I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind on this, so will just plan accordingly.

          • yes, you’ve foiled me evil plan, so here it is straight up. After reading here for awhile, there are a couple of things you’ve gotten right, like the impacts of mass migration and cultural dilution. However, think you’re setting yourself up for failure because you’re whittling your core constiuency down to a very small group. Not my circus, not my monkeys though.

          • This is civic nationalism. See Yves Vannes comment above for how mixing plays out over time.

            Race is necessary (if not sufficient) for ethnic identity. Non-Whites and mixed races are going to have to accept actual separation, otherwise we’re just repeating the Second Founding mistakes. Peace through separation – they can have their own community and we can respect each other, even cooperate, but only as separate polities.

            Those Whites who favor their NAxALTs over their co-ethnics are going to have to live in the mixed community, if it will have them.

            Core ethnic areas should be White, with mixing in separate zones on their periphery, basically like apartheid, which worked pretty well contra the usual suspects’ gaslighting.

          • Apartheid worked.
            As one Colored (dot-Indian) in SA said,
            “Before, we complained because some were less safe. Now… none of us are safe.”

          • So you didn’t answer my question like I figured but I will just say this not for you because your delusion is to entrenched but for others that might be on the fence…Why is it that those who have that NAXALT mentality always and I mean always want to live amongst white folk…They never ever get on blacks about wanting to live amongst them and that they have to accommodate white folk…We all know the answer to that question…

          • Did you ever think it’s not race but values based? Maybe you aren’t used to this, but I personally share more trad American values with my mixed race compadres then I do with the majority of my lily white family members who have defaulted to the progressive side. Not saying race/ethnicity is a complete non factor, but it is often less important then you think.

          • See that’s the mistake you make you base everything on what’s going on in your little world never realizing that the big picture matters…It’s all about percentage and if there is more than a certain percentage then your place starts looking third world…

          • Didn’t say that race/ethnicity is a complete non factor. However, there’s a happy medium out there, where people with similar values and different backgrounds can live together peacefully.
            And I’m quite well aware of demographic change and the impacts thereof, especially given where I live. Have watched as my state has become illegal alien central with the corresponding decline in quality of life. It affects me and my family right up close and personal every day. For example, son held up in broad daylight by an illegal. Husband’s office locked down because two 15 year old cgangbangers attacked an LEO in his parking lot. Lots of local kids have died because of drugs crossing our border or being dropped off by panga boats on the coast. However, not willing to drop fellow Americans who agree with me.on the invasion because their last name is Rodriguez or they have African ancestry. The white progressives in this state like our beloved Governor Newsome are the problem, not the local black business owner who’s also a Trump voter.

          • However, there’s a happy medium out there, where people with similar values and different backgrounds can live together peacefully.
            Ohh boy see this is why you shouldn’t be allowed to vote because you think with your emotions…You believe in Majic Dirt Theory instead of genetics…The only way your way of thinking works is when you have a majority white country…Have you seen what’s going on in SA…I don’t know why I’m even taking the time to make you see reason because obviously you just don’t get it and don’t want too until it’s killed off every thing you hold dear and I doubt you will even get it then…Oh and I feel for your husband…

          • I don’t have to “understand’ what’s going on in South Africa. I see the results of open borders policy every day in my own back yard. It is a hugely, hugely destructive force. And i.most definitely do not support it, or vote for it. But I also know that there’s a demographic reality in states like California that requires looking outside individual ethnic cliques for political support. Especially given the high rate of heritage American progressivism. Maybe that’s what you can’t see or understand unless you’ve lived here. And making personal cracks doesn’t change the reality on the ground, though it may make you feel better in the short term.

          • Veth I think you are making the same mistake that John Smith is making: namely that one can afford civic nationalism because one can simply pick and choose the finest people of each race to be in ones little club. Theoretically civic nationalsm works if one theoretically eliminates the undesirables from society. But how is that supposed to work? How does one exclude undesirable immigrants, or their undesirable children who are not yet born? How does one exclude thugs and parasites from the neighborhood and the schools? The answer is that it is very difficult for one tribe to police another, it is much more effective when tribes police themselves. Multi-cultural, multi-racial nations and neighborhoods are frequently a disaster. Nations must have a common denominator that the vast majority of citizens share. Ethnicity, tribe, and religion being the best, perhaps only denominators up to the task. Unity-the basic agreement of the vast majority of folks on the big questions-is priceless. Before Sweden invited the other they argued about whether pregnant women should recieve 6 weeks of maternity leave, or 8 weeks. Now they argue whether Islamic terrorism is justified by Swedish bigotry or not. Even neighborhoods function better when nearly everyone agrees on basic issues like how many cars can be parked on the grass, how much garbage strewn about, how late the teenagers get to run the roads blaring their music, and at what age is it appropriate for girls to start droppin panty.

            Diversity has costs, and has frequently been a cancer. One does not get unity in a civnat society, one gets squabbling tribes attempting to occupy the same space and impose their values on their neighbor. It turns out that ethnicity, tribe, and religion trump your constitution, your patriotism, your devotion to free speech. Most of the time.

            What i think this means is that nations and neighborhoods are best when heterogenous. I suspect that a multiracial America which limited immigration and respected freedom of association could have been a pretty sucessful example of diversity; i think allowing segregated neighborhoods and schools would have been a multi racial country which a very large majority of gringos would tolerate. Segregation, like good fences, makes good neighbors.

          • We don’t necessarily disagree that given human nature there should be a solid ethnic/cultural majority to ensure a.more peaceful existence in a given country. But that particular ship has sailed here in the US based on past political decisions. So, triage. There are people out there who do not look exactly like me who are friends and allies on things like border security, and I think it’s downright dumb to freeze those folks out.

          • Freezing folks out is dumb politics. It doesn’t mean that they are tribe, it just means they are (often temporary) political allies. One way of thinking about this is to realize that 1) we are all members of a team, whether we like it or not. 2)Teams compete for resources, and the stakes are real. 3) You are not strong enough to succeed on your own. 4) Only your team cares about you, although individual members of competimg teams may care for you. 5) Ultimately the survival and prosperity of your progeny depend upon the success of your tribe.

            It used to be easy to understand all that when death, starvation and conquest were constant companions.

            You have friends, even relatives and in-laws who are on different teams. You treasure some of these people because they are decent people. But does that mean you put the interests of thier team above the intersts of your team, which means you put the interests of thier team’s children above the interests of your team’s children? Since only your team cares about you, and the stakes are high that is fatally stupid. It seems to me that this is all a no brainer and the only thing to argue about is whether we can choose teams, as you and JS seem to be suggesting, on the basis of ideas rather than ethicity, tribe, religion. It also seems to me that the history of the US has already given us a definitive conclusion; the experiment of civnattery has been a collosal failure and the tribe which adopted it has now lost control of thier nation. So my answer to you and JS regarding NAXALT is; you love your non tribal freinds, in- laws etc. Me too. But i dont love thier tribe more than i love mine, and that has unpleasant, but necassary consequences. My kids come first.

          • I’m curious as to where you draw the line as to tribe. For example, half white/black homeschooled kids? Part German/Iranian/Hispanic? Part French/Hispanic? Scotch Irish Latter Day Saint? Chinese/Portuguese/German? Korean /English kids? Polish/Sioux? Long term American Hispanic? These are all the types folks I interact with/am friends with and we share a common culture/values. What percentage of “other” makes someone unacceptable/a threat to you and your kids?

          • But the people I’m talking about do vote their tribe, American conservative, as opposed to a racial/ethnic grouping. I’m
            really interested in which of the individuals I’ve mentioned wouldn’t make it under your rules. Because given what you’re saying in the previous post, I’m guessing none, except maybe Scotch Irish LDS. But I could be wrong and I’m really wondering how this would play out on a larger scale. The old one drop rule? The 1/8th rule for Indian tribes? Or has that not been thought out?

          • Since 90% of black votes, 70% of hispanic votes, 80-90% of Jewish votes and some similarly lopsided number of asians votes go to the Democrats it really, really should be clear to you that tribe matters in really important ways. Your civic nationalist society is being outvoted and demolished by Democrats. What is replacing it is the Identity Politics society you oppose. I dont welcome it. I just observe it. Your side has been losing for 50 years. The defeat of civnattery is so far advanced that no civnat can now be nominated for President in the Democrat Party. Republicans are, as always, a few years behind. Are you sure that its my side that hasn’t thought this through?

          • Given that I live in California I’m pretty much exposed to the limits of Civ Nat every day. I don’t really need to explore that any more as I live it constantly. What I’m trying to figure out is where those of us, who are not “pure” by virtue of race or belief but who are American in culture and values, are going to fit when the experiment finally ends. We are the people who see the limits of Civ Nat under hostile mass migration, but who also support our fellow Americans who may not match us in ethnicity, but who match us in spirit.
            I notice that you keep avoiding my question about specific standards for entry into your desired new country, I hope you’ll take the time to answer because I’m really interested. After all, us double dissidents have plans to make too.

          • Whatever happens will have nothing to do with my desires. That horse is out of the barn as you said yourself. Once the vast majority of surviving gringos abandon civ nat cucking the whites, like all other tribes everywhere, will determine thier membership. Some, like the orthodox Jews very strictly. Others, like the blacks less so. Its not up to you. Or me. I think you waste your time playing the guilt card on whitey. The triumph of Identity Politics means the guilt card no longer plays.

          • Believe me, you are way overthinking this. I asked for factual clarification on a specific topic (who would YOU accept into your ethnostate), and it appears that you aren’t comfortable with it. No worries. Could care less about guilt or race cards or any of that baloney. Just gathering info that will be useful to protect MY family during the coming Great Tribulation.

          • Wherever I move to we/I will not be able to control who else moves there. We can flee tyranny and hope that those who depend on it stay behind. Ultimately they will follow us; that is a consequence of promises not possible to keep. Before I pass on I want to have in place a well stocked property for my offspring. They will need it more than I do and there is time for me to make it ready. If it is an ethnostate, so be it. My white in-laws and a sibling have been warned to take heed but they have mocked me for my intense scrutiny of politics and war, unaware that those things are interested in them as they choose to be uninterested. I won’t have room for them, but I tried to warn them.

  22. So are you talking? I bet just giving them the standard “Zman medley” would give them some new perspectives and shake them up a little.

    And I bet a lot of those guys, though the “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” effect, are still connected to the larger conservative network. You could plant some of those “redseeds” we’ve been talking about the last few days.

    • No, I’m not a credentialed academic, so I would not be asked to speak at something like this. I’m more of the union hall type, than the faculty lounge type of speaker.

      • Well, given what a great job they did at preserving the university, I can understand their reluctance to let in the riffraff.

      • You’re not a credentialed academic? Well you sure as hell fooled me, what with your ten “Essential Knowledge” essays.

        • Ed Dutton talks about this in one of his books or lectures (I forget). He too is not really credentialed in the area of genetic science, but rather is “self taught”. His explanation and defense of his current interest and teaching is useful here. In short, everyone can be said to be self taught—if they are worth a damn—and one should not confuse credentials for knowledge, insight, or wisdom.

          So too Z-man should get in there and join the fray. Of course, respect for the audience/organization would dictate that perhaps you attend a meeting or two as a spectator and get a feel for what you have to contribute—but the next step would seem to me that you make yourself known at a public presentation level. I’d attend that! 😉

        • Speaking as an academic (but one in a particularly evidence-based medical speciality) the Essential Knowledge essays were the dead giveaway that Z’s not in the official academic racket. Clarity of thought and expression, plus reference to the Classics, are entirely contrary to modern academics.

          Oh, and as to Maus’ comment, I often refer to my doctorate as “the union card”. It really does serve a similar role.

      • Truly, a union card is as exclusionary a credential as a doctoral dissertation. Every human organization acquires gatekeepers as it expands (Dunbar’s number) and us versus them is the inevitable result. The question thus becomes whether it is better to be inside or out. The answer begs another question: Where does the truth lie? The wise man seeks that answer above all others. The fool, like Pontius Pilate, asks “What is truth?”

  23. Pretty sad when the first thing I think of when I read an attractive woman in a dissident event is Fed.

    • Fed is a safe guess. I usually assume she a grifter. Very few good looking women want to be active thought criminals. Hot babes tend to be attracted to causes that give them status or make them feel good.

    • It’s a good instinct to be skeptical at first glance.

      Which brings up a valid question: HOW do we balance “trust but verify” (at the micro level) with trusting those who are in our movement as a general rule.

      I think the only way forward is what Z-man has said: let the process happen organically OVER TIME: like, 1-2 years’ time, as with his example of the biker dudes’ vetting process.

  24. People have trouble with probabilistic thinking–so they substitute NAXALT as a heuristic that has the side benefit of making them feel better on an uncomfortable topic. I work in a world of probabilities and return periods–so have a more hard bitten mindset than most.

    • I suspect the primary benefit is the feel good. I’ve noticed how whites will light up when talking about their black friend, who is really nice and smart. There’s some itch being scratched there. Whites are the only missionary people, so there must be something biological at work.

      • I noticed this last night, actually, while out for dinner with some normie friends. One ziocon, the rest moderates.

        Anyways, the waiter comes up and he is a tall, very muscular black man. He’s chatty and he speaks good English, not ebonics. Immediately the way the normie friends act completely changes. They enter into a state of submission. Suddenly one starts saying awkward things and laughing nervously. Another changes his speech pattern and starts saying “man” after each sentence. “I’ll get the wings, man”.

        It’s quite embarrassing and pathetic to see this kind of behavior. Obviously they have been taught to be like this. I’m also curious about how the negro felt about this: does he enjoy seeing white people bow down to the magic negro or does it make him feel funny?

        Anyways, the absolute state of the self hating white race. Wake up! Hopefully I led by example, by not bowing down and being internally emotionally submissive to him, at least.

        • Something in the wiring.
          I think blacks produce more testosterone, so possibly we react to their bearing, or to slightly to pheronomes.

          I think it’s more what they call a person’s “flow”- his bearing, the way they interact and carry themselves.

          Whites often hide themselves. With a black, they are who they are, what you see is what you get. Most males have in their palms- the wiring diagram- what I call the Negro line, based on the cervical cortex.

          It shows a rock-solid certainty of self, that “I ain’t always right, but I’m never wrong” attitude. Whites instinctively like blacks, whereas latinos immediately distance themselves. We respond to that certainty.

          If I’m going to joke around, a 98% probability, I often look for a black face, because they get it, while so many whites have that corncob inserted firmly up their a**, and latinos just look confused.

          • I’m severely put off by cocksure swaggering and swanning about. It is simply vulgar behavior. There is a huge difference between quiet, justified self confidence and “certainty of self” built on a foundation of being too ignorant (or stupid) to know your own limitations and your place in the universe.

            Humility is a core Christian (and Western) virtue. There is good reason for that. And even if one fails at humility, there is the distinction between arrogance and conceit (to use Mike Williamson’s terminology). The arrogant man may be an asshole, but one who has the goods to back up his attitude, whereas the conceited man is merely someone who has attitude quite unjustified by his abilities and capabilities. In my experience, most people with an “I ain’t always right, but I’m never wrong” attitude are merely conceited.

            “Whites often hide themselves.” Maybe so. But in general I view this as a positive thing called decorum. I think I understand what you mean about “what you see is what you get” but honestly, I am repulsed by persons who laugh uproariously, hoot, and holler; or carry on wailing and shouting while among the general public. To me, any strong emotion is a private thing, that you show only to those to whom you are truly close.

        • I’ve experienced some variation on this theme so many times over the past 40 years that I’ve lost count. I will say that upper middle class whites are the worst offenders.
          Working class whites either don’t do this, or it’s more sublimated.
          Of course, there are working class whites that don’t like black people at all and don’t try to hide it. That’s always interesting to watch.

        • One interpretation of mine is that the weird white reactions come from the realization that this particular black person is not going to rip your face off—it’s a relieved “thank you” of sorts, coming from those hyper-race-sensitive normies and Proggies. Many others have gotten over the whole race thing, partly by staying away from the wrong places at the wrong times (getting to be a greater proportion of everything, all the time), and simply assuming that the black waiter is just a normal guy, which it sounds like he was.

        • Go to the symphony. For one, you’ll be in an extremely comfortable lack of diversity, in a crowd of well-above body temperature IQ. Squint and it’s 1947, peaceful segregation.

          But go to a performance with a black soloist, whether singer or instrumentalist. Half the program will be devoted to today’s mascot. The way they treat him, they might as well put him on a chain, pat his head, and give him a bone. Nice doggie.

      • You’re on to something. I’ve seen this myself. Normies I know in the family are inherently decent, loyal people. That extends to all—whether White or POC. Hence when one speaks of inherent racial/cultural/ethnic differences, NAXALT fallacy appears—even when such folk may agree upon the group differences you point out to them.

        I have always assumed this less of a fallacy of reason, than a failure to adequately explain/outline what place such POC would assume in a new reorganization of the present culture of “diversity”. I admit to being somewhat confused myself at times.

        Many here have an in-built hierarchy of racial loyalty and consciousness, so this question seems moot, but it is not to the Normies I interact with. Their fence sitting (or outright rejection of separation) seems to depend upon what happens to the “good ones” they know and interact with.

        True, some here will say they are a lost cause and to forget them. However, they are a sizable number in my circle and are not Leftists in the main. I am stymied in my progress with them over this point above all others.

        • A pattern of behavior that I’ve observed to be common among white people, and honestly I’ve had to fight the instinct myself, that is mostly absent from pocs is reflexively defending people they don’t know over people that they do know.

          I used to think that it was an internalization of some Christian precepts – casting the beam from your own eye – and -seeing Christ in the downtrodden. But the weird thing is that I’ve seen such behavior from people with no Christian education or history, who in fact in practice are anti-Christians.

      • Regarding the “It’s okay to be White” dustup at WCSU, I saw multiple comments on multiple threads along the lines of

        “Wouldn’t it be great if the person who put up the signs was Black?”

        “We should get some Black conservatives to put up these signs!”

        Or with regard to the Virginia election

        “Its not safe for blacks or Hispanics in Virginia. Taking away your guns is necessary before the Klan loving Governor begins lynching people of color and killing their babies.”

        I am actually surprised how little pushback I’ve gotten for saying things like “Stop hoping the magic Negro will come save you” or with regard to the Virginia comment:

        Pfft. No one’s buying that shtick anymore. It is White people who are unsafe in leftist-controlled states.

        Republicans have been preaching “but we love you more” to Black people since before 1860 and it has gotten them bupkis. How did Blacks vote in Virginia? Right. Give it up. They are just not into you.

      • I also think that it’s something biological, which is why I suspect that there will be a serious culling of the white herd. There are plenty of us without that sickening gene.

        That unforgiving bitch Nature doesn’t take too kindly to people who treat other people’s families (and that’s what ethnicity is) better than their own. She’s not going to put up that nonsense long.

        • Possibly…

          It’s also crossed my mind that this is just an inherent flaw in white people which didn’t get exploited before. Somehow it was “exposed” by various enemies in the 20th century and is now weaponized against us. Us on the DR are the 0.01% that doesn’t have this defect…

          Boeing didn’t know about the MCAS flaw before the crash…

        • Dunno ’bout that culling.
          As Z notes, we are the only missionary race- and the only far explorers, too.

          • “The only missionary race”.

            Why missionize?

            Win God’s favor and grow the tribe.

            What happens when God dies?

            No God to please, no tribe to grow.

            What to do?

            Find another God, join another tribe. The State and The family of man. Big brother and sublunary utopian humanism. The world is our tribe. If we can’t have a heaven in the sky, then by golly, we’ll have one here!

        • The corrupt state is the main problem all the rest are just symptoms of it…Do you really think all the parasites could exist without the state forcing people to feed them… Until we figure out the numbers game we are going to continue to get fleeced and killed…

      • Being the most empathetic race has its downside. The initial critique bites deep. Our gut instinct is to first ask ourselves “is he right” rather than thinking “Other-enemy- F that guy.”. The price of having a uniquely self-aware consciousness is a unique vulnerability. The abyss can stare back at us through that window no one else seems to have.

        The upside is an aesthetic, spiritual and philosophical insight no one else can match. But first we have to learn how to to survive the unique vulnerabilities that ride shotgun.

      • conservatives fawning over the blacks is repulsive. I will admit however that meeting a black not totally pozzed despite all the garbage that has been pumped into their community does illicit some amount of admiration from me. They usually swing very hard away from all the ghetto s***.

    • I find that agreeing with people and then taking their logic to its absurd conclusion is quite effective in getting them let their guard down at first and then make them think.

      Here’s my NAXALT comeback: “Yeah, absolutely, blah, blah blah agreement. It’s like my sister. She’s 5’11” and yet I hear people say all the time that men on average are taller than women. I’ve even seen people say that to my sister. The proof that they’re wrong is literally staring them in the face.”

    • Women (#NotAll) can only reason by their personal experience:

      – “On average, men are better at heuristics than women”

      – “That’s not true, because I’m really good at noticing patterns.”

  25. I’m just waiting for the fighting to start. Otherwise life is pretty good, plenty of food, comfortable home, nice garden , lots to read, and I’m in a weird position where I can literally buy anything I want. I’m not particularly extravagant so that’s probably part of it but I haven’t had to say no to myself in a long time.

    And congratulations on reaching the young attractive women stage of your career. I’m sure it’s intoxicating

    • Ha! Well, I’m not going to lie. It beats having cranky old white guys telling you they are fans.

        • The correlation between “smug butthole” and “wrong” is very weak.

          As a famous fictional character (Hey! They do have their uses!) once said, “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another.” — Malcolm Reynolds

        • Quite true. But he’s right about a lot of things. He’s also doing things instead of talking about doing things. We can learn a lot from Vox even if don’t like him personally or agree about religion.

          Besides, he has the best line that I’ve ever seen for explaining our world: They hate you and want you dead.

          I throw that line out every once in a while over at Steve Sailer when they’re debating endlessly about why the Left is doing something. I can feel the discomfort.

          • Vox is all tweaked because his dad is a psychopathic criminal, in prison. Kind of hard to see yourself as superior with that taint on your forehead. Comes out as intense America hatred; to the point he is effectively a traitor. Weak males are attracted to him, while the rest of us enjoy his geek show for what it is.

          • That was Sam Hyde, and he said, “Do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny.”

      • There’s a lot of internecine hatred going around. The New Right is a marching army and quarrels when garrisoned in Camp. I always say Attack, ATTACK The Left because otherwise there’s infighting.

        Same happens with combat units BTW.

Comments are closed.