The failures of conservatism are a popular topic on this side of the great divide, mostly because most on this side passed through conservatism. While it is true that an understanding of human nature leads to a traditionalist political outlook, it is also true that having a conservative inclination leads one to dissident politics. Russell Kirk was right that conservative politics is the end result that begins with a certain attitude, a perspective on society that naturally leads to right-wing politics.
This attitude begins with the understanding that all human societies have an identity, an instinctive answer to the question, “Who are you?” That is closely tied with the understanding that someone is always in charge. This is where modern conservatism goes off the rails. Modern conservatives are terrified to even think about identity, because they are terrified of being accused of having one. Identities are exclusive and that is the opposite of inclusive, the greatest thing ever.
This peaks through in this American Conservative post about the lack of diversity at the US State Department. The post is in response to this post in the far-left DC scandal sheet called Politico. The claim is that State has a systemic racism problem. The conservative response to that is always some form of the old internet meme, “Democrats are the Real Racists.” In this case, it is those well-bred white people popping out of elite colleges, who then go into the State Department.
The post is interesting in that it gives some insight into how the American foreign service operates, but it amplifies left-wing morality, because the writer comes at the topic from something other than a conservative attitude. A genuine man of the Right would say that the State Department is a vital ruling class institution. It represents to the world the interests of the American ruling class. The reason it is full of Jews and Protestants is that is who runs the country.
This attitudinal deficiency also leads to errors in tactics. When a left-wing site like Politico starts bellowing about the lack of diversity in the ruling class, it is intended to distract, not spawn a dialogue. Since thinking about who is really in charge of the country is anathema to the modern conservative mind, they are more than happy to chase the diversity stick tossed by the people in charge. The result is more mewing about the lack of diversity, as if anyone cares.
This is something that modern conservatives have never grasped about their role in this relationship with their alleged opponents. Their primary duty is to keep anyone from talking about who is in charge. This is a key part of the managerial state. From the outside it always looks like a committee composed of faceless bureaucrats. In a world where it is never clear who is in charge, it is near impossible for the people to pin the blame on the people who are actually responsible.
Further, when the question “who are we?” is only asked in secret, the answer is only uttered in secret. That AmCon post gently touches on this fact, but it should have been the focus of the post. Instead, it is only hinted at, while the writer does the old DR3 and championing diversity. It never seems to occur to him that the people running the State Department have an interest in running the system as they do. That maybe the people in charge know who they are and intend to remain in charge.
Note also the reliance on the fantasy of the meritocracy. There is the belief among conventional conservatives that the alternative to Progressive domination of the institutions is meritocracy. Like the market place, a meritocracy is a man made thing, which serves the interests of those who make it. It is not some magically occurring bit of nature that grows in the wild. A meritocracy is always a tool of the ruling class used to perpetuate their position at the top of the social hierarchy.
The elephant in the room, of course, is the question of diversity. Right after “who we are?” and “who is in charge?” comes the question, “What are the rules?” Those rules are inevitably aimed at maintaining the answer to the first two questions. The reason the ruling class is happy to see unlimited diversity outside their ranks, but no diversity inside their ranks, is they have to intention of stepping aside. The people outside the walls only matter when they cause a ruckus or make threatening noises.
In other words, the opportunity here was to point out that diversity is poison and serious people avoid it at all cost. The people running important institutions like the State Department, Wall Street or the media get this. The reason these institutions look the way they do at the top is the people in charge are serious. They know diversity of any kind, especially diversity of opinion, is bad for them, so they make sure to root out any diversity in their ranks. There is a lesson there for all of us.
20th century conservatism was a failure in large part because it either refused or was temperamentally unable to tackle the basic questions of human organization. That starts with understand who we are and what are our interests. Then it quickly moves to deciding what sort of people need to be in charge and what sort of rules must be in place in order to maintain the resulting society. Conservatism was always happy to leave the questions unasked, so they were always a leaf in the wind.
This is why any alternative to the current regime must first start with a sense of identity, a point around which people can rally. This is why communists focused so much attention of class identity. It is also why bourgeoise intellectuals were so enamored with communism, despite not being working class. The draw of identity is natural. People with no natural sense of identity envy those that have one. That is the power of group identity and why it must be the core of any political movement.
A new year brings new changes. The same is true for this site as we adjust to the reality of managerial authoritarianism. That means embracing crypto for when the inevitable happens and the traditional outlets are closed. Now more than ever it is important to support the voices that support you. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you prefer other ways of donating, look at the donate page. Thank you.
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
“The draw of identity is natural. People with no natural sense of identity envy those that have one.”
This hit home for me. Other people like me without the understand I have at this point won’t admit it but probably struggle from the same feeling.
It’s why people that are half black, a quarter black, an eighth black identify as black. There’s an established identity for them to jump on. It’s why people are turning gay and trans; all the other weird identities.
It’s why as a person who has no genetic identity, as someone who is a mix of two races and many ethnicities…I’ve always felt odd.
I grew up in NH amongst whites as a brown guy outsider. I identify as white, but know I’m not. Yeah, I’m part African…but not nuts…so I stay away from that identity.
Mixed people have a hard go of it in the identity dept. I can speak in confirmation to what you say.
Dude, you should write about this (anonymously, of course). You have something to say that’s worth hearing.
Actually this is not that hard. We are Americans, and we love the United States of America.
However, it is my belief that you cannot create an American Identity unless you unite all the people in the US to fight a war, physical or ideological. E.g., WWII, that united all the Jews and Italians and Irish and Poles to fight for America.
” E.g., WWII, that united all the Jews and Italians and Irish and Poles to fight for America.”
You’ve watched a lot of Hollywood movies about WWII. The reality may have been different.
Well, that and a massive conscript army of millions back when the draft was a real thing.
And if you read about the Military’s health checks back then, half of everyone the drafted was missing teeth, somewhat malnourished, slightly ill in a variety of ways and generally a mess. That’s why after the war the Government started pushing health, nutrition, and exercise a lot harder and Physical Education started being universal. Yes, we had millions of guys to draft but they were pretty much what you would expect from people who had no access to any kind of health care, dentistry, or healthy living conditions by modern standards.
When I think of my own grandpas who were both Marines in WWII… they died in their 60s, had false teeth they put in cups beside their beds at night, and barely ever bought anything other than canned food. In short, the real old school guys who actually fought hand to hand and with rifles back then were not the fluffers you meet nowadays at all and in reality they got almost nothing for their trouble either before or after the war.
Who else is getting tired of all this pointless content where everyone is talking talking talking while Communism literally sucks the life from this country. I feel bad that my grandpas were hurled into combat and this is how it turned out. I mean, their lives were flushed down the toilet by wealthy people who basically forced them to fight and they did it with honor and dignity and now here were are. Trannies, Feminists, Communists, Drug addled losers who couldn’t work a 12 hour shift of physical labor if you were whipping them. I mean really. Wow. My grandpas should not have fought for this country. It was a waste. I hate America for what it has become and I hate the fact that we have zero leaders who will fight back. I guess I lived long enough to truly mourn my grandpas.
“I don’t know how you reach those people. Many are so obnoxiously stupid you don’t want to help them. Others mean well, but they fear letting go of the GOP or the conservative life preserver. It’s sad, but how do you get these people to let go and swim over to the other side?”
You make the spokesman of the message a black lesbian. I wish this was a joke.
20th century conservatism was a failure in large part because…
But it wasn’t a failure.
It conserved what it set out to conserve. The American Dream (or delusion really) of getting rich and quick.
That fantasy is what animated most of the immigrants that came to the country from the very beginning through to today. They all left behind familiar locales, family and cultures in the search for wealth. That is the real American ideal. Those immigrants fought the Revolutionary War to keep that dream going. All the liberty and freedom talk were just specious arguments to justify their independence.
In the 20th century, communism was the great existential threat to private wealth. Conservatism fought that domestically and internationally. With success. The modern progressive left is called communist by the right and has its roots in cultural marxism – but is not an economically driven ideology and so is not a threat to wealth. As seen by it’s embrace by the establishment and private wealthy individuals.
“…not economically driven ideology…”
Not sure I can buy that. That there are gazillionnaires in the ranks is immaterial. Once the (bad) Whites are driven under—and their gazillionnaire supporters/members—then the mob will almost assuredly call for more class related blood (confiscation of wealth). Whether they get it, or are crushed when no longer needed remains to be seen.
No offense, but conservatives want to keep fighting the last war – in this case class conflict and communism.
The problem is that the left has completely replaced the concept of class consciousness with race consciousness. Under Marxist theory, all history was driven by economics, with the upper classes across all countries having shared interests that were opposed to those of the lower classes across all countries. With the further idea that warfare and international conflict were merely tools the upper classes used to distract and control the lower classes. Workers of the World Unite … was the rallying cry.
Modern Progressivism inverses that dynamic. The woke believe the races have common interests that transcend class lines. The Black Centi-millionaire has common interest with the Black hood rat that directly run counter to those of the White or Asian Centi-millionaire. Further, that whites of all economic classes benefit from white supremacy so that the poorest white trailer trash is an oppressor deserving retribution.
Progressivism isn’t really the final or the only layer of ideology. The underlying reality that we contend with is globalism, which, as a global phenomenon, manifests in varied ways from place to place (seemingly ironic for a “global” force). The ultimate goal of the globalists is to gather almost all power and wealth in the world into the hands of about 10,000 or 20,000 people, few of whose names are well known. These are the elites of global corporations, NGOs, and (some) governments. In a sense it’s the old capitalist game in that the expansion of global business is primary but the new global capitalist class is far more radical that people like Carnegie and Peabody.
The globalist (rightly) regards all non-transactional relationships as the enemy and his Omega point is almost literally the Matrix, with people living isolated from each other in a dream world. That movie is often attacked for its ridiculous physics (humans make terrible power sources). Metaphorically though, the slaves of the globalist matrix do provide power of a sort for the apparatus because of their inability to provide a single thing for themselves or each other without going through the global system.
Ideology, economic or otherwise, is just another product to the globalist and his understanding of market research tells him that the way to maximize markets is to tailor the product for the audience and then tailor the audience for the product through “market development” based on virtue and status signalling.
Most of us here are sort of upper-middle class white people so we perceive “wokism” as the main face of the enemy. That’s because other upper middle class whites are suckers for the wokist “product”. The people we don’t like in our families and at our jobs are woke white people with college degrees in fluff. They’ve also been the group that has been most profitably converted into an economic power source by being turned into a zillion specious “communities”. The gay community, the trans community, the people-who-put-on-pony-costumes-and-do-vaguely-sexual-stuff-in-them communities (the last one is unfortunately real), etc… OF COURSE their ideology is “diversity”. Every time you add a letter to the LGBTQYEESDWERCVB#$Z… acronym some new market is created.
Other groups are fed a more classical Marxism. This is the ideology of AOC and The Squad. It’s the visceral socialism of all these wretched migrants who pour across the border seeking gibs and low paying jobs. Why feed those masses on that stuff? Because the goal is to get them mobilized to become atomized and exploitable workers in agriculture or industry and to become new voters for the Uniparty. They don’t care about and are often offended by the buttsecks stuff so you wave the hammer and sickle flag for them.
None of this stuff needs to agree with any of the other stuff. It just needs to mobilize each group to become a useful tool in the hands of global capital. This is why you have violent collegiate “communists” burning buildings because they are angry that big business might not get enough cheap migrant labor. They think they really are communists or anarchists fighting for “the working class”. In reality they’re just another bunch of dumb kids addicted to a profitable product like skateboarders or potheads.
There is only one Z, as there is only one Higgs. We have to be our authentic selves in order to fit properly into that collective whole of the tribe. Be yourself and the tribe will flourish.
There’s nothing you can do about the crazy people, except leave them to their own devices, lest we be energetically pulled into their destructive wake.
Live your best life, and all will be well.
“Live your best life, and all will be well.”
Are you trying to quote Richard Spencer, who like to recite one of Nietzsche’s aphorisms: “Become who you are.”?
Another Nietzschean bit of wisdom is, “What is commonly called the worst in us may actually be the best in us.”
All will be well, sure thing.
Thomas Wictor is the last person I remember saying “All will be well.”
Not sure how the “Live your best life.” fed into my subconscious.
Alien hybrid?
For me, the bigger take away from Peter Van Buren’s piece is the impossibility of a conservative repair of federal institutions like the State Dept (or judiciary, DoJ, FBI, CIA etc). Article describes how current hiring and promotion practices in these institutions are stacked against reform.
For bottom up reform to happen, something like this is required:
1. Get an “our guy” into Yale or Georgetown or similar Ivey and them not have flip politically. BTW, our guys always flip once they are accepted into an Ivey and get upper class validation (see J.D Vance).
2. Get him/her hired into State Dept. Increasingly unlikely with nascent minority preference policies.
3. Have him/her survive for 30 years in the org as a deep undercover “yes man” for his superiors. Our guy, even if they maintain a dissident political mindset, will not be helpful during this time. The article lays out clearly that underlings have no latitude to implement heterodox policy and doing so jeopardizes promotion potential.
Assuming our guy does all that and gets some measure of real power circa 2050, what possible good can be done? The demographics are already wrecked and the country is gone to the dogs. Similarly, top down reform is frustrated by the inability of political managers to clean house and reform hiring practices to emphasize “identity” (Z-man’s article speaks well to this issue). A conservative will have to play ball with rotten institutions stacked with political enemies that he/she inherits following an election win (this was Trump’s situation).
Any outcome palatable to people with dissident political perspective requires more radical solutions than simply trying (and waiting) for a long conservative march through these institutions.
I’ve been inside that tent, and you are entirely correct. Those institutions cannot be reformed or taken over in a long march. As the Zman said, the guys at the top know exactly what they’re doing, and they select for it. Not only must the organizations be smashed and their members scattered, the people in charge need to be held accountable.
Moreover, regarding the CIA and FBI, abolition has always made more sense than reform. There really is no need for the CIA; whatever legitimate stuff it does could simply be folded into the armed forces intel wings. The same with the FBI, but even moreso given that it existed solely to spy on prominent citizens.
“diversity is poison“
The most concise kernel of wisdom in yet another fine post. Yet no one can speak that simple truth without the veil of anonymity. It’s an unspeakable blasphemy that our new godless theocracy will not permit.
“diversity is poison“
A three-word sword to cut the Gordian knot strangling what’s left of White culture. If only someone had the courage and power to swing the blade.
“This is why any alternative to the current regime must first start with a sense of identity, a point around which people can rally.”
This is where I disagree with you guys. It must first start with the question of why large scale institutions are necessary in the first place. It is generally recognized that technology, in particular, is enabling individuals and small organizations to accomplish feats that could formerly be only accomplished by large scale institutions. We are seeing this in SpaceX and Blue Origin (space colonization), the multiple start-ups in both advanced fission and fusion power, and the various private and DIY efforts to develop effective anti-aging life extension. On the other side, we have seen the failure of large scale institutions to accomplish any of the feats they were created to accomplish. NASA has done essentially nothing to open the solar system to mass scale human settlement. NIH has been utterly useless in developing effective anti-aging, and the ITER tokamak has absolutely zero chance of developing commercial fusion power.
I believe the reason for these examples is that all large scale human institutions degenerate into bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional. One of the reasons for this is Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy, which states that bureaucracy comes to exist only to perpetuate its own existence above all else. The other is bureaucratic groupthink. It is generally recognized that the worse decisions made by individuals are often better than any decision made by a committee.
Large scale institutions, by the above definition, are inherently dysfunctional. They cannot work. By logical extension, all ideologies and philosophies that are based on the efficacy of large scale institutions (which is essentially all non-libertarian ones) also cannot work. It is for this reason that, BY DEFAULT ALONE, I am even more of a libertarian today (in my 50’s) than I ever was in my 20’s.
I find it ironic that many people claim that libertarians are oblivious to realities of human nature when, in fact, it is these same critics who are completely oblivious to the connection of bureaucracy and human nature.
Large scale institutions are necessary because other people form large scale institutions for power. So, if British Petroleum buys up all the land around your house and starts dumping toxic waste all over it, your small property suffers and your quality of life goes down. Now, the problem with that for you is that individually, or even as part of a small community, you have absolutely no way of stopping British Petroleum from doing that. Even if you do an organized strike/protest to stop them from dumping, they can just hire twice as many thugs as you h ave friends and beat you up and keep dumping. Since these kinds of multinational corporations have gotten so big that they can effectively turn entire nations into toxic waste dumps, we have to have institutions big enough to match that power with power that functions for our benefit. This idea that we are going to go back to small ranches and farms or even small communities is not viable. The world beyond the realm of your control wishes to do you harm and take your stuff. You cannot defend yourself from that by yourself.
You know you guys are into the group identity thing, and that’s cool.
As for me, I’ve always had the Groucho Marx problem with group identity. The groups I wanted to join would have nothing to do with me, and I wanted nothing to do with the groups that would have me.
“The groups I wanted to join would have nothing to do with me, and I wanted nothing to do with the groups that would have me.” Pretty much the definition of the hostile J who everyone hates. This isn’t 1940. It’s not cute anymore.
Marx was a member of the Jewish Hillcrest Country in Los Angeles.
Time to put away childish things, Abelard.
Forget the various economic or institutional arguments of libertarianism (the non-aggression principle, really?), my beef with philosophy is that inhuman and destined to fail.
Its hyper-individualism rejects all but your closest family, if even that. It has no place for a people and what is an ethnicity but an extended family. A philosophy that puts the individual’s needs over the family, even the extended family, is cruel and short-sighted.
And it is that short-sightedness that dooms libertarianism to failure. An atomized group of individuals will always be defeated by a group of individuals who work together and sacrifice for their people.
Look at how Jews have managed to capture the commanding heights of the West while the rugged White individuals stood by and watched. Jews accomplished this by working together even while promoting libertarianism among gentile Whites.
In a tribal world, libertarianism is suicide.
Libertarians are somewhere on the autism spectrum.
They’re radical individualism isn’t just wrong – it’s unhuman. Our species is akin to a troop of baboons, we live in large social groups constantly jostling each other for position within the group. Libertarians want to be like big cats or bears – a leading solitary existence, incapable of navigating the dynamics of social exchange.
Allow me (or Nietzsche actually) to broaden the criticism. While it was not Nietzsche’s term, civilization has been called man’s rebellion against Nature. His criticism was directed against slave moralities, that upheld the weak or the “botched” against the power of the strong. His hero, the Übermensch, a good analogy to your big cat or bear, lives by his own code, not by the framework the sheep attempt to impose. Now going beyond Nietzsche, I observe that ultimately man’s whims (civilization) will run counter to what Nature demands. Life is ultimately survival of the fittest, and civilization tends to “select for” a lot of very unfit people. Of necessity, that leads to an unfit species. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of civilization. I’m probably closer to a sheep than a lion. Today’s Baboon troop (if they haven’t been hunted to extinction for bush meat) is probably a fair facsimile of what prehistoric Man’s existence was like. It’s also closer to the “optimum” that Nature did impose, and perhaps will again.
I was looking at the schools in the neighborhood in which I grew up earlier this week. The local public elementary school is down to 5% white. The catholic grade school I attended as a kid does not have a single white kid in 1st through 8th grade. I would like to move back to where I grew up but my kids are white and I am worried about them not having friends.
What libertarian solution can you offer them?
As Wolfe put it so succinctly, “You can’t go home again.” Remember, over time everything turns to shit -assuming it was ever anything else to begin with. I went back to the quiet neighborhood we lived in when I was in High School. November foxtrot whiskey I’d live there now. November foxtrot whiskey!
To even speak of space colonization marks you as a starry-eyed science fiction idealist. There are so many things wrong with the idea. Here are just a few. In the first place, it is tehcnologically impossible. Yes, you can have small groups of humans in space for limited periods of time. But long-term self-sufficiency? Good luck with that. Second, the enormous cost. Finally, and to me the most damning one is simply that you can’t run away from your own problems. It is human nature (indeed, the nature of life in general) to move to a new niche, to breed until equilibrium or (in humans’ case) more likely ruin occurs, and then (if possible), survivors move on to new areas to exploit. There is absolutely no reason to believe that humans will act any different, if given a new space station or even Eden-like world to populate. Given a few hundred or thousand years, we’d turn it into the same cesspool our current (and only!) home is/ is becoming. To argue otherwise requires a fundamental change of human nature. What was it that the famous Jewish carpenter said about getting the board out of your own eye before helping your neighbor with the splinter in his own?
Back in the 90’s, I was in one of the early diversity classes at a major corporation. It mostly consisted of people of diversity or with spouses of diversity relating anecdotes. At the end, we were asked to state how we identified. I said, “White, Southern, male.” After this, a formerly difficult co-worker of diversity became my friend. Maybe telling the truth sometimes works.
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Who Are We?
I actually followed the link to the article the ZMan referenced about the State Department, got about half way through it and aborted. I found myself questioning why I should dip into my dwindling store of f**ks to give over the lack of “diversity at the State Department. Ain’t a damned thing the likes of me can do about it. I, for one, choose to save my f**ks for things over which I might actually be able to exercise even the slightest bit of control. I was taught to pick my battles CAREFULLY. Please note that I am most definitely NOT doing an ostrich imitation here. I simply have lived long enough to be able to discern the difference between situations requiring strength/courage and situations requiring serenity. Sadly, I find myself increasingly wishing for serenity.
Not knocking your strategy or philosophy… but sometimes your battles will pick you. Or wars will… and it is never a good time for something like that. I have no proof of it, but I think the longer that these identity and purity spirals go on – the larger the body count will be when scores are settled, and the reckonings are done.
Although I think Vox Day is an utter faggot – one of the few things he got right with the old Alt Right is to actually formalize and define their goals and put them in writing. If I recall most of his 15~17 points were reasonable and valid. And of course, the Lefties ate him for lunch. Some of it he deserved… but the cucks looked on approvingly as they did so. America was not ready to listen to whites, never mind conservatives.
That is starting to change, slowly. The timing of the Dissident agenda is going to have to be flawless or it will never be anything more than a fringe movement.
At some point, the Dissidents are going to need a platform, with clearly outlined purposes and goals.
And when they DO/b> “pick me” that will be yet another “serenity” moment.
Vox has issues, but I give him a lot of credit for trying to create content and platforms. That’s a lot more than I’m doing for the cause.
His best content are probably his books on fighting back against SJWs.
He was one of the first to get vocal about not apologizing to the SJWs.
Check back with the State Department in five years. It will be suitably diverse, alright. Any institution in AINO that isn’t already diverse is only that way because it has flown beneath the AWR radar. Alas, the State Department has now been recognized by the AWR witch hunters. It no longer stands a Chinaman’s chance of maintaining its functional, rational structure. The State Department will be browbeaten into self-destruction, just as America was.
There is tremendous pressure in certain white collar organizations when employee demographics don’t match national demographics to fix this problem with new hires.
I have seen this in academic STEM fields. There isn’t much appetite to hire white or asian male professors in the last 10 years or so (given their over representation in the professoriate). Tenured university professors can’t be gotten rid of easily, so to making the representation numbers work biases hiring towards minorities and women for some number of years. This systematic bias can exist much longer than an academic candidate can remain on the job market. One weird trick to get hired as a white or asian male is to ride the coat tails of a wife that lands an academic position (wife gets the tenure track position, husband also gets an offer for a job as part of her hiring package) or to come to grips with the possibility of landing an academic job in which you overqualified (e.g., PhD credentialed high school teacher, junior college professor, low-R1 or non-R1 professor etc). Many of my grad school friends have also “learned to code” and switched to careers in data sciences or software.
Anyway, this bias in hiring will be coming to the fed government (if it isn’t there already). White guys and women that are hoping to land spots in the foreign service will discover that the next few years (and maybe forever) are going to be lean times for landing a job. Same is likely true for most government agencies outside DoD.
I recently completed a Doctoral Program at a prestigious west coast university, somewhat later in life than normal. Fortunately, I have retired from an earlier career and am not desperate for food, housing and health care. Not wealthy by any stretch, just sufficient to my modest requirements.
I applied for a dozen or so university teaching jobs that I am completely qualified for, both by credential and experience, mostly out of the desire to stay intellectually active and engaged with young people and share with them what I have learned in nearly a half century working in my field.
No calls for interviews yet – that’s not a big deal, no hurries or worries.
What has really impressed me are the job descriptions – generally three of four lines describing the job responsibilities – fairly generic teaching stuff in the field – followed by three or four PARAGRAPHS describing the institution’s commitment to diversity – especially and specifically bringing on more blacks – and a long description of exactly how I am expected to communicate my past, present, and future concrete actions towards and dedication to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, including a separate document detailing my commitment to same. Basically a political oath or religious pledge as a requirement for consideration.
I’ll probably try a bunch more – the interviews might be interesting if I ever get one (again, only because I have less at stake), but sometimes I imagine the meetings, trainings, and requirements and watching my language (though my field can be thoroughly discussed without any reference to race, sex, politics, etc.) and I think, who needs the trouble?
Good luck with your job search Charles! Let us know how it goes.
Charles, something that might be worth your time could be to team up with a number of fellow dissidents and start offering online classes that cater to young White Americans. I’m seeing a lot of stuff like MasterClass.com (and others like it) popping up and taking advantage of the lockdowns. Get established, grow your curriculum and eventually you could get guest teachers like Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow and others teaching classes.
Going outside the system and offering alternatives is something our people need to start doing. It may soon become vitally necessary as the unwinding continues.
This is an excellent idea, and is something to which I might be willing to contribute. My doctorate is in Russian history, but I am capable of teaching Western Civ, Roman History, Ancient Civ, Intellectual History and American History.
It might not offer you the money or prestige you seek, but why not consider teaching a private school? They should be more, not to say completely, resistant to Wokism dogma.
Years ago, during my MA in Spanish Lit (I did for “enrichment”) many of my fellow students were or were considering teaching — but only in private schools. I do not recall a single person who sought a public school position.
One of my old chums is department head at a large, well respected university. He told me many years ago that he thought he’d be the last straight white male to get on the tenure track. And now it’s come true. In your shoes, assuming you don’t have a moral objection to playing them at their own rotten game, I’d consider telling them you’re black and let them squirm.
Congratulations Charles!
Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, left his business career because at two different institutions he was told that they couldn’t promote him any higher because he was a white man.
Uh, the State Department is packed with alphabet soup people.
Granted, most of them are white dudes, but there is some mystery meat floating around as well.
The Hirono-Duckworth hissyfit bears this out. Their demands about non-White political appointees was the opening shot.
The irony is the AC cuck, based on personal knowledge, nailed the inner workings of State. It is a personal fiefdom for certain Puritans to enrich themselves and entrench their legacy. As Z pointed out, the last thing State wants is a meritocracy, but the legatees actually believe they are crocodile-proof.
And the kicker, and I’m quite serious, is this may be the sole institution Shanika and KaQuan could improve
“The State Department will be browbeaten into self-destruction …”
As if the US Sate Dept. has been doing much good.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the “Old Fighters” generation finally passes away. If we stipulate that we’re ruled by what are basically old Soviet apparatchiks – Djilas’s “New Class” — then we’re right now in the immediate post-Stalin stage where the New Class is the only class-aware group in the Empire. They’re as cynical as can be, but enough of the Old Guard — who has real experience in the hardest of hard schools of politics — is around that they can be kept in check (more or less).
But the end of that stage is rapidly approaching, and the New New Class is about to fully take over — that is, the ones who really truly believe their own bullshit. See e.g. Gorbachev, who really seemed to think that “communism” meant what the old school commies said it did — you know, perestroika and glastnost and all that, which destroyed the country within a decade. Trust me, you can’t come out of an “elite” college — or, indeed, ANY college — these days without having drunk deeply of the kool aid. You want to know what they’re like? Look at that Jen Psaki idiot, Zhou Bai-Den’s spokesbobblehead. She can’t grok that she’s being asked things that go contrary to the One True Faith, so she basically shuts down. That’s what the recently graduated whiz kids are like, and they’re maybe a decade away from complete dominance at places like State.
What school of hard knocks did our present day leaders come from Severian?
And yet, they have won it all.
Now what school of hard knocks did we come from?
PS 89?
What is in their way Severian closer than Putin? Who can’t help us if he wanted to, and why should he?
We have nothing to put in their way, and as you noted on your blog the 3 rules of the DR are;
1. Complain that no one does anything but talk about what should happen, and bemoan that no one organizes anything.
2. If anyone suggests anything positive about acting together or in concert shout him down as a Fed, or Provocateur.
3. Return to rule 1.
I may add rule 4; wait for the “inevitable” collapse ala 1989.
Because all that ever happened as far as Empire collapse was 1989. Ignoring that decades of work by the West and real dissidents who went to prison or died made 1989 happen. Ignore that the USSR was utterly dependent on Western banks and Reagan turned the money off. Ignore that everything that was directed against the USSR is now directed against us.
No, just bitch, buy canned food and BTC and wait for a miracle, and 1989 was no miracle.
Collapse ain’t coming, except ours. Raising the cost of occupation are costs we bear.
Suffer. We’ll talk to the survivors. Some of them.
The “hard school” of our Alter Kampfers is nothing like the Soviet, I agree, but at one point Pelosi et al knew how to play politics for real – when she was coming up California was a *conservative* state; politics in San Francisco was a serious contact sport (despite the hagiography Harvey Milk wasn’t killed for being gay; he got crossed up with some serious people).
The current generation has no idea how politics works, and while they don’t have to worry about winning “elections” anymore, they still have to win fights inside the Politburo. More importantly, they have to be able to grok that guys like Putin actually *have* interests. The Alter Kampfer can (though they often choose not to, or have lost it due to senility).
I taught a lot of very “smart” kids who couldn’t wait to get to DC and start playing the Great Game. They all thought it was just a matter of giving the bad guys a few lectures on privilege. They KNEW it, may God help us all.
“They all thought it was just a matter of giving the bad guys a few lectures on privilege.”
That brings up one of Z Man’s good points:
Conservatives err in thinking reason, logic, and fair play will persuade the bad guys to change their ways.
I’ve trained a few animals in my day, mostly dogs. The easiest way to get them to learn something quickly is a brief, intense infliction of pain immediately after bad behavior. It’s not an intellectually satisfying argument to make, but damn if it isn’t effective.
Well Z, as a former denizen of the State Department, I think the original article leaves much to be desired, and indirectly skews your commentary on it. The State Department WAS the home of bluebloods and old protestant families, but that began changing in the 1960s. It is now heavily, heavily Jevvish and has a very distinct POX and pederast component. The people who USED to run State never intended to hand it over to aliens, but that damned belief in ‘meritocracy’ lead to too many of them taking over the Ivy League colleges and taking and passing State’s test. So to say the people in charge “know who they are” and intend to remain in control failed already in the post WWII era. I do think those in charge now, a totally different cohort, will be more tenacious because they are very invested in their identity, both ethnic and as part of the cloud people’s purported meritocracy.
I honestly don’t know or recall the numbers on test takers/passers historically, but when I took it (and passed it on my first try) in the ’80s it was with a crowd of primarily White people, many of whom had already taken and failed it 4-6 times already. It required solid English grammar and good grasp of European history, as well as a certain amount of common sense (this was just the initial and very long multiple choice test; there were a number of other steps afterwards before you got on a list of potential hires). There were diversity questions scattered here and there (that’s how USIS officers were picked back then) but not so many that they harmed my score. Before my husband and I left the government, women had already won a lawsuit declaring the test biased against them, so I don’t know what precisely replaced it. It’s also worth noting that in England (at least back then) those who became consular officers were of a separate (and definitely lower educational and social) class than those who became actual diplomats and the two groups were chosen and hired by separate and distinct processes. I was a nanny for one, not particularly bright, who had A levels but no university degree, and whose family had an air of faded gentility (mother’s parents had had some money pre 1940s). His superiors were of a distinctly different intellectual quality. America lumps all of its actual diplomats and consular officers and admin officers together, so you get someone in charge of purchases who fancied himself the next Alger Hiss and tons of emotionally charged and diversity loving women, many of them cat ladies or coal burners, as consular officers.
The few non-Whites that were part of State back then were part of the famed talented tenth, but many of their spouses were vehemently anti-White (I specifically recall one fairy congenial guy who served with me in Jamaica and his militant wife). And a number of the Whites were socially awkward geeks who married foreign women who sought the prestige and/or a green card. One truly geeky Jevv married an Argentine who hung all over her meal ticket, and another guy’s German wife spoke with utter vitriol about Americans, but had full access to all sensitive locations in the Embassy.
In general, we have been a really stupid and naive people for over 100 years and will be truly fortunate if we end up with a remnant of militantly identitarian and separatist Whites in the future. A lot of Whites – a lot of family and friends of commenters here – are not going to make it and would be a detriment to a White future if they manage to survive.
3g, if I may ask, at what point in your government service did you become disillusioned with it all? Was there a single moment? Or perhaps just a series of incidents built up over time?
Great comment, by the way.
…nor all that surprising.
Orange Frog – I’ve debated answering you, because it’s a long and nuanced story. I’m not worried about doxing myself (I’m sure I’ve already done so) but I don’t want to bore you or anyone else. For the tl:dr version, let’s just say I was raised a shitlib although I always noticed race and behavioral patterns, I began to understand ethnicity and nationality when living overseas, and I developed a true sense of patriotism while overseas. I developed a distrust for reporters/media while with dealing with them when with State. I learned to hate immigration after returning to the US and finding it massively changed. I learned to question everything else after we got a home computer and the internet and I went to work clicking on lots of links in the late ’90s and I found the alt or dissident right before Obama’s anointing, so . . . long before a lot of folks here, but later than some others.
Thanks for the reply. The will to question is really what distinguish most of us here, and it is a shame that many others don’t do it. But then again, the fire hose of propaganda is so compleat and thorough it is hard for someone to break out of it.
Thank you for offering your perspective.
Great commentary!
Great and informative post.
Much obliged.
Similar story with science. Wasp were largely in control. Generally even-handed and sticklers for research integrity. At NIH they often had Jewish assistants. Smart as hell and hardworking. As Wasp died off in the 90s (few retire nowadays) the Jews moved into top positions and administration. Now the tons of imported indians and chinese are becoming heads of labs and admin. They appear to operate very cohesively and integrity is mostly absent, with of course notable exceptions.
Were you at NIH?
You want me to dox myself bro?:) -No, but NIH adjacent.
https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Mervis_Glass%20ceiling%20Asian.pdf
see last paragraph.
I have some familiarity with NIH. Could tell stories but don’t want to dox myself either 🙂 I have sympathy for the people that work there. The lower level guys I knew were good people, hard working and low paid. Interesting to look at institute directors (see link below, at least one name that everyone is familiar with at this point). More black than I expected.
https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/directors-nih-institutes-centers
Acetone, Sidvic1atprotonmail.com
Hit me up if you want to reminisce. That goes for any of the regular commentators here, to a lesser or greater extent.
Who was raising your children while you were fulfilling your career dreams?
I was single when I was with State. After one dispute with my supervisor at my first posting (one of the consular cat ladies) she warned me I’d never become an Ambassador with my attitude and asked me what my future dreams were. Since I wanted to get married and have a family, I declined to answer the b&tch.
After marriage, I worked sundry part-time jobs in the Embassy (most spouses did, and they left their children with various local or international nannies, which I openly criticized even back then). I stopped working outside the home when my sons were born. They never had nannies or went to daycare.
Any more questions?
Do you read diplomad?
One point I’ll agree with your post: I think it’s a grave mistake to easily grant U.S. citizenship (and often, security clearance) to a foreigner just because he/she/xe marries a U.S. citizen. There is (was?) a security level saying “no foreign nationals”; apparently the security apparatus thinks a foreigner magically turns into a loyal citizen merely by marriage and getting a passport. I’ve seen more than one news account of a newly-minted “U.S. citizen” that did something horrible (e.g. spying). I wonder how many such stories we’ve NOT heard about?
The statement, “Those rules are inevitably aimed at maintaining the answer to the first two questions,” made me immediately think of the great line by Rousseau about the scam that is the Social Contract. Mind you – I am not proselytizing for Rousseau, but the quote is apt in light of this subject:
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society.” The initial distinction between have and have not is then codified in the system in order to maintain and expand the gulf between these two groups.
I wonder about lefties. Are they so stupid to believe that man didn’t establish ownership by killing anyone who tried to occupy his space? and that others didn’t recognize his ownership out of fear?
In other words, wasn’t Rousseau another grifter selling consent when he knew full well the social contract is signed in blood?
Never read too much of him, but when he talked about the general will and forcing people to be free, seemed to me that put the lie to the rest.
The competition for land and resources–alas, often horrifically violent–is the warp and weft of history. And this is the reason my eyes remain distinctly dry when I encounter jeremiads about imperialism, slavery, wealth and poverty.
No Rousseau lover here. I just meant the quote echoes the point made. Like all those Enlightenment thinkers, there are moments I nod at their points, and moments I guffaw. His larger point is that most society is corruptive based on its origin. Thus, educational programs as found in Emile were meant to counter the virtue tarnish that occurs with the evils of man. Much of his stuff pushes the back to savagery and disdain for civ angle. I am sure the college educated pseudo intellectual commies would love him – if they were literate enough to read him. But if you read his works, he makes many apt points. Though many of his angles seem progressive from our perspective, if you put them in a 1760s 70s light, he makes brilliant observations about the contemporaneous issues of his time. It is simply that taking his ideas and planting them in the now often makes it read like progressivism, instead of the reactionary nature that they really were to his time. All those old Enlighenment thinkers are fun to read – Hobbes for spite, Locke for idealism, and Samuel Johnson for wisdom (sorry – had to throw Johnson in, my favorite thinker of all time though not a social contract theorist)
Right on. Like I say, never read too much of him. He struck me as a very ‘French’ thinker, if that makes sense. Kind of slimy. Definitely not to my taste 🙂
Haven’t read much of the English philosophers. In one passage Nietzsche says “…that blockhead, John Stuart Mill…” so perhaps I shan’t be highly motivated to… 😀
On a practical level, the social contract only works when (ideally) it’s honored in the main, by the participants. Also at times needs an enforcement mechanism, whether a civil court or at worst, the torch and pitchfork brigade to run a wrong-doer out of town or worse. You will observe that both conditions have eroded badly over many decades.
Musings like Rousseau’s are completely preposterous. The framing imagines that a bunch of people just walked off Noah’s ark or out of the garden of eden and said ”Now what?.
The reality is that people evolved slowly, over millennia, in social groups with territories and chattel property in the form of tools. The social contract, or whatever, was just part of that gradual evolution with roots tracing back to monkey troops and beyond.
What persists in any habitat is what “works” in the sense that it enhances the group’s ability to survive and thrive. Civilization was an adaptation to the rise of agriculture and its attendant fixed settlements. Domicile “ownership” is just natural territoriality on a micro-scale. It happens in lots of species.
On the topic of diversity, it is important to understand that some of our distinctive behaviors are innate, meaning encoded in DNA and therefore cannot be overwritten by nurturing. At best, society can temporarily suppress these innate biases and proclivities through indoctrination & intimidation, but in times of great stress, these underlying traits will always reemerge & express themselves. As such, this biological reality almost always leads to conflict in diverse communities but everyone is programmed by evolution to regard “others” as a natural threat. And most importantly, it’s hard to be productive when you constantly need to be looking over your shoulder because you’re surrounded by potential threats.
TomA: Very well said and as good a description of “genetics matter” as I’ve seen. I’m not an absolute genetic determinist, but as you correctly note, underlying traits and proclivities can be suppressed and even changed, but it takes great effort and constant vigilance.
When I think of diversity and its adherents, I think of a cult. Like any cult, we’ve got to deprogram whites to eliminate this “non-racial” nonsense as we become a hated minority in our own lands.
It’s not going to be easy to convince the white masses to understand that if they don’t argue for their interests in a multi-racial, chaotic society, they’re going to marginalized at the least and possibly the victims of genocide at the worst.
The good thing is our enemies are no longer hiding behind clever rhetorical traps designed to imprison whites, who have been taught that the worst sin one can commit is racism. They’re telling us in plain language that our elimination is their number one goal. A lot of normie whites will be red pilled in the coming years. The question is will enough see reality to arrest this steep decline?
The question may be ‘when’ will enough see reality to arrest the steep decline. Everyone will see it – eventually – but will it be in time to do something about it.
That’s what troubles most if not everyone here most.
O/T; but on trannies beating young dykes and horning in on Title IX racket $$- not only do I not care, I think it’s hilarious. Golem devours masters, or mistresses. If your kids are even in public school you already assented to child abuse.
By all means let the weak and the venal be culled, and their offspring.
Suffer. You’re weak and venal and you deserve what they do to you, because you take it. Men wouldn’t ask the state for permission to defend their children.
A New Tomorrow (cont)
The lesson of locality.
In the era of civilization, religion has been the formal mechanism by which ancient wisdom is passed down through succeeding generations. And all ancient wisdom is locale specific. IOW, it is an encapsulation & repository of what has “worked” in a particular habitat. It also “fits” the unique traits of the local people who evolved via adaption in that particular area. Therefore, there is no “one size fits all” in ancient wisdom. What is “wise” in a fertile & temperate agricultural valley is not the same as what is “wise” trying to subsist in a harsh desert landscape. Most importantly, ancient wisdom is the hard-earned end product of a long evolutionary process. It is not arbitrary and cannot be invented in the moment just because it “feels” right.
Epigenetic inheritance is our reality, not the collective consciousness hologram generated by TV and social media.
“Who are your people?”
That simple question can stump the brightest gentile White minds. It can also make life and the choices we need to make so crystal clear.
I’ve joked that I’ve started asking that question to commenters at Steve Sailer. It’s fascinating that so many over there have a hard time – or no ability – to answer that question. Even at a site so sympathetic to the DR, gentile Whites remain abhorred by the idea of saying, “Whites or American Whites or Southern Whites” and instead cling to colorblind meritocracy.
The truth is that they have no people, only relationships and ideas. And this is why they’re being steamrolled by groups that do have a people.
You are not a conservative if have no people. American conservatism is attempting to conserve ideas (freedom of speech, meritocracy, etc.), not a people. But ideas are expressed in words, and words are malleable and open to endless debate – especially by a certain group. Trying to conserve ideas puts you permanently on the defensive. It’s also very vulnerable to propaganda.
But conserving and promoting a people is not open to such debates and gives you a simple, unassailable answer to almost any question.
Should we increase immigration? No, the immigrants aren’t my people and this land is for my people.
Is off-shoring jobs good or bad? It’s bad for my people, so it’s bad.
Is this organization diverse? Don’t care. I built this company for my family and my people. I hire my people.
When talking with my CivNat family and friends, I tell them that the difference between me and you is that I have a people and you don’t. The statement bothers them, which tells you that it’s hitting its mark.
Great comments.
Gonna print it out and post it.
Excellent comment, a more eloquent and positive form of my stock response to the do-gooders going off about the starving children of Africa: “Not my tribe, not my problem.”
I think the idea of a meritocracy still has a place out in the hinterlands – at least it used to. As for our ruling class, it’s pretty much always been more of a nepotocracy – not necessarily familial, but class(ial) – who you know, where you live, schooling etc. Insular and incestuous – no wonder they’re largely a bunch of freaks and degenerates…
Meritocracy is incompatible with ethnicity. At some point, people need to start caring for their group’s idiots rather than tossing them aside like trash.
Which may have been the original motivation for demanding colorblind meritocracy: a rejection of responsibilities towards the less fortunate of society. Which in turn, helps explain why successful, inner-circle white people are eager to import even catastrophic levels of diversity.
It’s easier to pretend to care than actually care.
If Whites ever again have their own society, it will need a social safety net. For their own kind. Just as the Jews do. No more of this so-called Conservative crap spouted on talk radio pushing that Ayn Rand crap of survival of the fittest and f**k everyone else.
This is how Whites ended up a despised and rather hapless minority in their own country. We were fed a line of toxic bullshit by corporate and political elites for well on 70 years that “rugged individualism” was the American way. As a result, we stood silently as the blue collars were decimated by Free Trade.We stood by silently as the STEM fields were filled by hostile foreigners. and so on. But hey I got my wad and that’s all that matters.
BTW Carroll Quigley’s last lecture on the “state of the individual” should be required reading for DR,. Because he saw this happening back in the early 70’s.
“If Whites ever again have their own society, it will need a social safety net.”
There used to be “poorhouses”. If a man ended up with nowhere to go then the local poorhouse would take him in. Three hots and a cot, then he’d be put to fieldwork or something for the day so nobody could say he was accepting charity.
You touch on some very important, but touchy issues. In purely evolutionary terms, far from caring for one’s “idiots,” the coldly rational thing to do would be exterminate them. Anything less is favoring the survival of the less-fit and that lessens the odds of a group’s (species) survival. Yes, this is ghastly to most human sensibility, but at bottom, that is what Evolution demands. Nietzsche puts it well: “The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.” He writes extensively on the problems that religions and by extension, civilizations create when they shelter “the weak and the botched”.
I’d argue that your observation of meritocray’s fault is this: it’s civilized man “punting.” His ethics/religion almost certainly says the unfortuante should be helped, yet he knows that aiding the losers is bad policy long-term for his tribe, but he doesn’t have the heart to leave the weak to suffer and die, or worse, dispatch them himself.
It’s a brutal world we live in, but hiding in our philosophies apparently won’t make it go away. In fact, argue men like Nietzsche, our good intentions ultimately make matters worse. I think he’s correct. 🙁
Evolution cannot explain why kindness to one’s weaker peers is a good thing. That is why atheist societies devolve into hellscapes.
All of us need a crutch at times.
My inclination or maybe my hunch here is that any identity we dissidents have about us should be kept a secret. We look normal on the outside. Everyday people going about their business. Or Tom A could be his gray man.
A secret society in other words. When amongst ourselves we have a clear set of rules and objectives.
But if that is not meant to be given our geographic disparity, we should take on a certain attitude. The quiet disrupters. This way we know, when we read about someone somewhere throwing a wrench into the gears of the system that we know immediately that he is one of us. And the quiet dropouts. When we see the 2022 midterms and no one shows up.
The more me preach the “disrupt and dropout” credo and code, the more we promote it, the wider the message spreads. And we will know it’s effectiveness when the results start coming in. And doesn’t it sound like a lot of fun!
I tend to agree with this assessment and I know Z and others have written extensively on using the Irish model, from IRA back to the Ribbonmen, the Khmer Rouge, and other nascent dissident groups as models for how to organize and grow. We need to take on the nature of a cancer, starting with small cells that grow until such time as conditions allow us to metastasize and take over the host. Grim analogy perhaps, but apt, to my way of thinking.
I have reservations, as that tends to keep us atomized to an extent, and events on the ground are overtaking us.
“We need to take on the nature of a cancer, starting with small cells that grow until such time as conditions allow us to metastasize and take over the host.”
i find collapse better than any organized resistance.
during communism people were allocated to work in a region different from where they were born in, after communism fell many people returned to their birthplace. If globalism collapsed, brown welfare tourists would leave on their own accord. The turmoil alone should force the roaches to disperse. (except for africans who need whites cause they are useless without them, they have to to be driven out)
Agree with the “collapse.” The events of this week in Boulder, CO show plainly that America is sliding down the razor blade of societal collapse. The train is out of control approaching Dead Man’s Curve, and the White conductor is an incompetent degenerate busy texting his gay lover .
In my more civ-nat days a few years ago, I believed that the key to repatriating the millions of wetbacks and Squatamalans was to deny them any and all service and assistance. It wouldn’t be necessary to physically round them up and bus them back across the Rio Grande, it would just require the will to deny them completely our largesse. That would also require a heavy government hand to comb job sites and make sure the Chamber of Commerce types weren’t employing them. With no free medical, no free food, no rent and heat, no money to remit to the familia back home, why would they stay here? Pie in the sky, I know…
Stalin’s purges targeted ordinary people on the most trivial of offending pretexts because the goal was mass intimidation, and public examples were needed as a demonstration of power. A similar pattern is now evolving here in the USA and the only practical defense in obscurity & remoteness; hence, the necessity of camouflage as a survival mechanism. And it also helps to wear appropriate camouflage when hunting in the woods.
There really is no other option at this point. To resort to cliche, the only way out is through. Survival is the end game. People going Bladerunner is not a solution and we have to accept this will be a multi-generational struggle barring some highly unlikely deus ex machina.
Sand can be thrown into the gears without putting life, property and limb at risk, though, and if it is beneficial to our people and not for the sugar rush it should be done.
So what is to be done with an enemy that refuses to build anything, yet is an expert at infiltrating, co-opting and destroying institutions?
If you build it, the left will destroy it.
Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, every public corporation, every public university…
I have a small group in my leafy, liberal, suburban paradise. But it is SMALL.
The US was a pretty cool place, for a really long time, with cool BIG things: non-diverse McDonald’s (Grimace doesn’t count), space craft, big seminaries, shopping malls, main streets, interstate highways.
Things CAN scale up. But I’ll be darned if I build something just to watch it be co-opted and defiled.
Well, you have to be wise in defending it. “Nice” is not a virtue, while wisdom is. The Christian origin story is simply that, having been granted a walled garden, our ancestor failed to keep it safe from seditious snakes.
A very useful read is the history of Oak Park, a section of Chicago, that implemented many successful rules to preserve their neighborhood while other neighborhoods around them were falling to the hordes of joggers.
“Reconsidering the Oak Park Strategy: The Conundrums of Integration,” by McKenzie and Ruby. It’s quite long, but explains in great detail how that community organized in the face of hostile government opposition. Of course, their overriding claim was that they were attempting to preserve diversity, and the way you preserve diversity is by making sure not too many blacks move in because that will cause whites to move out. Audacious, but it seems to have worked because they implemented several clever rules.
Interesting thought re: Oak Park.
I don’t know what it’s like today, but years ago when the Austin neighborhood (just across Austin Blvd. inside Chicago city limits) started to deteriorate – Oak Park managed to remain a decidedly non-diverse island.
As a teenager, had an aunt I frequently visited who lived on Chicago Av. in Austin – could walk up and down the street with no trepidation. Nowdays – I doubt I’d make it more the 50 paces either direction.
Ironically, the Catholic church was right about Galileo and Luther. You simply cannot tolerate dissidents who are more committed to their complaint than their hierarchy (and place within it). There’s nothing wrong with dissent, particularly legitimate complaints, but if a complainer can’t resume his place in silence after making his case, it’s best to expel him. Thus, you prevent subversion by expelling people who demonstrate an inability to submit to hierarchical authority, because if you don’t make them submit to you, they will make you submit to them and make things worse in the process.
“if a complainer can’t resume his place in silence after making his case, it’s best to expel him”
That means the Republicans are the success story that we should be following. They complained about Democrat evil, while carefully avoiding the word ‘evil’ and avoiding any actual victories against the Democrats their rightful rulers, and when a real threat to the status quo such as Trump came along, they were loyal to the Democrats.
The very last thing you should wish for these days is a tyrant that you can blindly trust.
Gunner Q: Whether intended or not, what I take from Drew’s comment is a point that I agree with, i.e. if a dissenter cannot quell his dissent and respect the ultimate resolution of an issue, he must be expelled. If there is to be a White ethnostate in the future, or even a small White community, there must be some generally agreed upon ethos and policies. And if, for example, one family (usually someone’s wife, which is why women need to be kept utterly out of all leadership) wants to be ‘nice’ and let in that one hard-working family of ‘x’ origin, once that insanely suicidal policy is decided against by the town fathers, that women must thereafter keep her mouth shut about said decision, or she and her cucked husband must be expelled from the community.
Not blindly trusting tyrants, but patriarchal and authoritarian rule by one’s own people is going to be the rule, not the exception, if we are to have a future. Democracy does not work, and a people who constantly make exceptions to rules because ‘nice’ or ‘fair’ or ‘majority’ will soon be a conquered and ultimately destroyed people.
I think dissidents tend to get hung up on making sure their leaders (particularly the political ones) don’t make mistakes that might inconvenience people or lead to trouble. While negative consequences are obviously unpleasant, and I don’t enjoy them either, sometimes the best thing to do is to obey those who are in charge so that they can be hoist on their own petard. Again, this isn’t a pleasant process to deal with, but oftentimes the most memorable lessons are the most painful ones, and so it is the case that, having said your piece, you do what your told and let the buck stop with your superior. Make sure to have contingency plans, though.
The immune system in the human body expels disease pathogens.
If you notice the rot began back in the 60’s. As to who were the drivers behind it was the usual suspects. Leftist intellectuals and Jews who monkey wrenched our society into the ditch. They were helped by so-called “conservatives” who promoted a suicidal blend of “rugged individualism”, mindless consumerism and Civ Nat racial blindness that left Whites defenseless against organized political and ethnic groups like Jews, leftists, etc.
Even worse “conservatives” demonized all White attempts at organizing our people and had no issue using the FBI to suppress whites who tried.
It’s obvious that diversity is a poison in that, when asked, no one can actually relate WHY diversity “is our strength”.
Uhhh helloOo! Don’t you like all those diverse options when restauranting? What in the world would we do without Chinese food, Mexican food etc.?!?!?!?!
Same thing I did before: Not go. I guess I could also get a cookbook.
The diverse food argument is literally the only argument I ever hear when asking exactly why diversity is inherently a good thing for a nation. As if a homogeneous nation couldn’t just import these foods, or exist with a much smaller group of foreigners etc.
It is all these people know. They of course have diverse friends, and don’t have the jacobs to ever call them out on any anti-white stuff they say. They simply must double down on diversity; seeing that they are always out and about and snapping pictures of their grub, it is yet another pro-diversity weapon to be deployed. Look at this new Ethiopian place! Look at this new Lebanese place! Look at this new Turkish place!
Yes. You read right. Despite boasting a people with the same profile as a stick insect, the Ethiopians have a ‘cuisine’.
Yes, like all the Mexicans mowing lawns and painting houses are crucial to the authenticity of a Mexican restaurant’s dishes. Even if you cede the food argument, it still doesn’t justify the scale of immigration.
Food, and occasionally music.
I love to cook, and trying world cuisine. I make Jamaican food, Mexican food, curry, Italian food, southern USA food, BBQ, British food (so good in the winter), etc. It’s really not that hard, you can find all kinds of traditional recipes online.
Frankly mine tastes better than the store, is much cheaper, and I don’t risk having a bunch of surly blacks or mexicans spitting in my food, using poor sanitation.
Muh food is one of the biggest copes, unless you’re a lazy dipsh!t (which most libs are) there’s really no reason to ever need an Afghan restaurant and whatever shady business is going on behind the scenes. It’s also part of whites’ lack of confidence, who think they can’t dance, can’t cook, are bad at sports, etc.
I don’t know what the score is in Canada, but over here Chinese and Indian restaurants are known to be utterly disgusting (as in dirty). If one is a food hygiene inspector you’ll have plenty of great stories to tell. Like you, I just don’t want to be surrounded surly ethnics; my wife also finds Indians repulsive once commenting that they ‘look like poo’. I also understand that the habits of even the ‘high caste’ Indian are off putting to many others. They love to eat with their mouths open.
Furthermore, an old Indian acquaintance with whom I used to work told me that most things that call themselves ‘Indian’ are in fact ‘Bangladeshi’. But brown is brown to me. And I need not a further reminder of diversity. So no ethnic restaurants for me… well, maybe sushi.
“just don’t want to be surrounded surly ethnics; my wife also finds Indians repulsive once commenting that they ‘look like poo’. ”
poo is an indian trademark
Well to be honest, unless you’re at a very high end place, most sushi restaurants are run by Chinese. I’ve also been told never tip at Chinese sushi restaurants, the money goes to the owner and not to the slave/waitress. Don’t trust anything.
I’ve bought cookbooks and saved recipes from every country I’ve lived in (other than Jamaica; I don’t like jerked anything and while I enjoy ackee, it is poisonous if not prepared properly and not available in the US). One can dine on almost any sort of cuisine in Japan, but the Japanese don’t import millions of aliens – they send chefs abroad to be trained and they return home with their knowledge of the new cuisine. Rocket science, I know, but something most never catch on to.
Destroy my nation because I’m too lazy to cook.
It makes one’s head hurt, but that’s the argument. What a bunch of slobs!
In the Chicago area, we’re known for hot dogs and Italian beef sandwiches. For a long time there have been small hot dog places all over the city and suburbs. Now there aren’t as many, but the Mexican taco places have multiplied at a rapid clip. Within a three mile radius of my home there are now 12 places to get tacos compared to 3 hot dog restaurants, and one is a Portillo’s which is now a national chain. Just like we don’t need that many Mexicans, we don’t need that many taco restaurants.
Indeed. For years, I have always thought this. It became quite clear that if we all had common goals and shared common opinions, there would be no friction. Therefore the greater number of diverse opinions the greater the friction. Such a simple proof, lost on so many.
It is not incidental that the root of diverse and divide is the same.
That’s a good one. I’ll be deploying that in the future.
On my many trips in Mexico, I would follow the advice of the tourist guides: If you’re in an area (e.g. the city market) where there are several vendors or restaurants, eat in the place where most of the locals patronize. I sometimes felt sorry for those vendors with not a single customer, but I figured there were probably good reasons why the locals were frequenting one restaurant over the others. This advice might well apply even in the USA.
I could not think of why “diversity is our strength”, but your comment got me thinking. The ‘our’ is not everyone, but the elites. They use diversity as a way to fracture the plebs so they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to put up a fight against what the elites are doing. Since they’ve wrecked everything else, it’s one of the few weapons they have left.
True. Our diversity is indeed their strength.
How can it be a strength when you can’t even say a word without offending someone who is different. When you can’t even organize because someone is going to feel excluded.
So I guess being completely mute and dumb and in a constant state of disarray is a sign of strength?
Because those are the real world results and effects of diversity. That’s how it’s all playing out.
At this point it should be plain as day that there is a very good reason to keep us in such a state of disarray. Doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
Everyone focuses on how diversity results in more dining options, but the REAL benefit of diversity is the impact is has on our Olympic team. The US would not be competitive in ping pong, badminton, long and short distance running, etc., were it not for the incomparable menagerie of human types from which we now can choose our heroes. You will know the glories of diversity this summer when our human zoo team piles up the (fake) gold, silver and bronze medals in Beijjjjjjjjjjing this summer…
People need to stop watching the Olympics as well as sportsball. International anything, these days, pushes ‘diversity’ and the individual affletes’ personal ‘stories,’ so find something, ANYTHING better to do. And cut the cord.
Does anybody watch the Olympics anymore? It’s been waning among everybody I know.
Wish I could say it was nationalist fervor but in truth, I suspect that few of my peers get enough exercise to even relate to the Olympics anymore. “Wrestling? Yeah… I remember doing that as a kid thirty years ago… well, back to the cubicle.”
I believe it declined once participants moved from “amateurs” to “professionals.” (Also when they eliminated dueling and tug-of-war. jk)
I don’t know anyone who watches it. Truth be told, it just doesn’t make for interesting television in the way that other (American) sports do. I don’t know if it’s more interesting in person, but it’s dreadfully boring on television, with the exception of swimming and sprinting.
I used to love the Winter Olympics, in no small part, because they were so white and aesthetically appealing. Alas, the coverage of these games has become so schmaltzy and feminized that they are now unwatchable. Yet another marvelous ornament of white civilization annihilated by the AWRs.
“In your cage at the human zoo,
They all stop to look at you.
Next year, what will you do,
when you have been forgotten?”
— Styx, “Miss America”
Regarding diversity, this is the article I was reading right before I checked out today’s offering from The Zman:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/austin-car-clubs-gentrification/#comments
Of course, the reporter is cartoonishly biased toward the vibrant locals, but the real problem here is diversity — shoving two very different types of people together without regard for the traditions or culture of either. Diversity + Proximity = War.
A majority black city in my wife’s home state had the main north/south interstate completely blocked with joggers doing burnouts in their hoopties surrounded by crowds. These folks got together using social media and were out there for an hour.
The local police said they couldn’t respond because the crowd would’ve dispersed by the time they got there and the traffic blocked all routes. The state troopers said even though the blockage occurred in front of their headquarters, it wasn’t in their jurisdiction since state law puts urban interstates as a responsibility of the local police departments.
When basic law and order breaks down, we’re left with barbarism. We wouldn’t have this barbarism if we didn’t have the diversity. We’re the Eloi surrounded by Morlocks now. It’s suicide.
The real reasons the police didn’t respond are probably:
1) They didn’t want to deal with race riots and lawsuits.
2) They’re cowards.
Why are we giving these people tax dollars again?
“Why are we giving these people tax dollars again?”
to fine white people, to suppress white people, to shield joggers from the consequences of their actions etc
What was interesting about that piece was the singling out of a white woman and then only vague references to who was behind a lot of the gentrification (and thus, complaints): Indian tech workers.
Ha. Gotta love the person who downvoted me for this comment under that article:
“‘Kilo’ probably got his nickname because he’s just a big fan of the metric system”
I can practically hear the hamster wheel spinning.
This post dovetails nicely with yesterday’s piece on the rentier state. The prorogation of rootlessness and lack of identity endemic in such a society is the best tool the homogenous group that is our rulers possess, and they wield it mercilessly and effectively. The quest for regaining a sense on self and group identity is one you cannot hammer home enough.
Bravo. When we see writing of this clarity appear in a mainstream organ (or else sites like this become mainstream), we’ll know the tide has turned.
What is the identity around which a true resistance can coalesce? If we assume that at present an expressly white identity won’t be palatable to enough bug people and unwitting victims of the pozz, what common interest can we use as a Trojan horse? What can we co-opt to serve white purposes? I’m not sure there’s a better option right now than the 2A people. As Z-man’s pointed out, they have the existing organizational skills to actually fight back with some success. If we had a fairly manageable end game in mind, the DR could likely infiltrate the gun scene and steer it toward more race-aware purposes.
Or is there another avenue? Suggestions?
I think it has to wait until the last Boomers finally, unwillingly, are dragged off the political stage, as they are so deeply shaped by the racial delusions of their youth.
I would tend to agree with this. When I was growing up, we didn’t think in terms of White, black, yellow, red etc. It was more just identifying as American. Whites were the vast majority back then and didn’t really need to think any other way. Has that ever change 50-60 years later – and now it’s near impossible to champion a White identity. Not only were we steeped in multi-culti BS back in the day, now it’s damn near a crime to think in such a way.
We can’t champion a “white” identity, and we shouldn’t anyway. It’s got more baggage than LAX
Rather, we should champion more specific identities of European origin that seem far less threatening and more innocuous. If you’re Scottish, go that route. Italian, the same. Irish, throw your celebration of your Irish-ness and heritage into overdrive. Southern? Team up
Whatever it is and whatever actually grabs you emotionally. Find it and champion it. Feel the rush of being part of something bigger.
And the elites will be stretched thin trying to keep tabs on such disparate groups, and that is assuming they even think these groups are anything but hobbyists with an ethnic theme.
Yet the end goal should be ultimately our merging into one. Trying to organize 10 groups of 1,000 each is far far easier than trying to organize 10,000 individuals under some vague, far less unifying and inspiring concept such as “whiteness”
Exactly, Falcone. As close to ‘white’ as possible, but no closer.
At least not yet. Appealing to national heritage is an excellent start.
Thanks for this, it still continues to amaze me how many DR / bad thinkers use the word ‘white’ unironically to suggest some kind of actual movement that would gain anything other than alphabet agency infiltrators.
The word has been poisoned thoroughly and normie it too stupid to critically think. The (((people in charge))) used creative language to get the bird brained normies to chase whatever shiny objects they were displaying. Be smart like they were.
European Descendants Rights. Word salads like this are required in this pussified feminized landscape we live in. Use maximally obfuscating language, just as your enemy did, to achieve your true goal. None of this is rocket science, we aren’t launching spacecraft but this simple idea seems completely out of the grasp of most in /ourthing/.
Standing O. Bloody brilliant.
People LOVE this. You can feel it. And it’s far easier, safer, and palatable.
I grew up in a 99% white neighborhood and my school was 90% whites, 5% small hats and 5% Asian.
Being racist was unthinkable. Only silly backwards whites would be racist… Plus it’s 2003, can’t we just put that all behind us??? Of course the teachers always told us how great diversity was, how immigrants love Canada and want to become Canadians, etc.
When I got into the real world I was in for quite a shock. I know a sucker when I see one and it was immediately clear that all ethnic groups except whites were very tribal and racially aware. WE are the suckers. Unfortunately 99% of my peers growing up still buy into the diversity delusion (alot of them never moved out of the neighborhood, so they can be peacefully deluded).
Indeed, sadly. We can expect the apocalypse to start subsiding in the latter part of this decade. What comes next, I don’t know. Millennials have grown up comfortable with diversity. Will that continue, or will the fever pitch of AWR cause them to reconsider?
I’m borderline millennial by year of birth and bought into the idea that a black president would put race behind us, but the night of the election my Puerto Rican neighbor was on the street shouting that we’d have a Puerto Rican president someday. That was the moment I became race conscious.
I’m not sure the gun types are very receptive. A big meme in 2A circles is “Gun control is racist! Bad racists invented gun control to keep guns away from blacks!” Responding with “that sounds like a sensible goal” doesn’t go over very well!
I’ve also noticed in the NRA magazine column where they highlight recent crimes where a gun owner successfully defended themselves, there is NEVER a mention of the physical “characteristics” of the perp. So yeah, they’re just as scared of calling a spade a spade as is everyone else.
Idk I think in the 2A case, it’s a case where alot of people are hiding their power level. The NRA at the top might be pushing out race blind stuff. But at the range, many rank and file are racially aware. At least of the black/white divide. They just don’t talk about it much. Everybody knows what they mean when they say “CC protects us against criminals”.
This. It’s blindingly stupid to invite extra attention to your organization over a tertiary matter that has nothing to do with the original purpose of your club.
How bout white 2A people.
As Z pointed out, there have to be rules. If a white person balks at an organization because it’s not diverse enough, doesn’t that help in the vetting process?
I think joining 2nd amendment orgs is a good in it’s own right with the added benefit of recruiting opportunities for other organizations with different goals. As pointed out, the secret to the success of these orgs has been the single minded focus “is this good for gun rights” so I would not want to be working against the strength of them by trying to steer their focus elsewhere. They are a great model for something new and I’m sure a fruitful ground for recruiting though. I would guess various ethnic solidarity groups would be too, Italian/Irish/Polish/French/German clubs. Join and create liaisons with the others.
Now “join 2A” is thinking like our successful enemies.
They wanted Js in power and unscrupulous Prot profits- so they glommed onto camouflage causes with the real goal ever in mind, but unspoken.
And, well, self-defense is kinda the whole point. That’s why white men invented the darn things. Talk about practical!
I don’t know, KGB. A LOT of the 2nd amendment people are proudly color blind and think it’s just terrific when Tyrone buys a gun. It’s the same twisted mindset that thought giving homes to blacks and mestizos would instill pride of ownership and the virtues of middle class Whites (delaying gratification, working towards a goal, thinking of one’s children). These 2A geezers and cucks think that merely buying a gun legally (most blacks have stolen weapons, obviously) automatically makes Shitavious their ally. It’s more magical numinous noggers. I’m extremely wary of the public gun crowd for this reason
I hear you. I’m just spit-balling. After all, the left didn’t conquer all by coming right out and advocating on explicitly leftist terms. They took over all the institutions and consumed them like a flesh eating virus.
Maybe in 2021 that’s no longer the only route to success, perhaps we can just out ourselves, but I think that’s a bit like the neocons who expected the freedom-loving Iraqis to rally to their U.S. liberators. Not to mention that our cultural overlords will squeeze us hard. Unless the initial wave of cannon fodder is overwhelming in numbers, we’ll be hard pressed to win a frontal attack.
A lot of those guys are acutely aware of optics. They know plenty of people are looking for any reason to infringe. But where the rubber meets the road, different story.
Great. Another group that talks like MLK but lives like the KKK. That’s won us so many victories.
It’s human nature. Not unlike gentle giants. You don’t want to freak people out.
The MLK:KKK strategy has indeed won many victories- for them.
They shelter behind a protected barricade.