Great Debate

Note: We have a cornucopia of new content this week. The Taki post is about our new moral imperative to love strangers over our friends and family. Then there is the Sunday podcast up behind the green door. There is a bonus post up this morning on the cult sci-fi move The Matrix. This has gone out to Buy Me A Beer patrons as well.

Almost twenty years ago, John Derbyshire reviewed Kevin MacDonald’s book Culture of Critique for American Conservative. It has one of the best headlines ever written for a right-wing publication. The review itself was not favorable to MacDonald’s theory on Jewish evolutionary strategy, so it has been condemned by anti-Semites, which is a shame because it offers an important insight. For some, the “Jew thing” is a debilitating neurosis that cripples the victim’s ability to reason.

An example of this was on display Saturday night when Jared Taylor debated E. Michael Jones on the question of race. Specifically, the topic was “is race real and does it matter?” Taylor was on the side of race realism and Jones was supposed to be on the side of race denialism. It did not quite work out that way as Jones quickly shifted the conversation away from race to his own theories about the Jews. E. Michael Jones has a very serious case of the Jew thing.

The format was for each man to give a 20-minute opening presentation and then they would take turns responding to one another. Taylor was in the affirmative, so he went first and put on a near perfect presentation explaining the biological reality of race and the societal implications of racial differences. Even for those very familiar with the human sciences, it was an entertaining and informative presentation. It is the sort of thing you can send around to people curious the topic.

Jones opened up with a strange story about daylight savings time in Indiana in order to establish what he calls categories of the mind. These are definitions we invent that have no relation to physical reality. It appears he was trying to reformulate the logical positivists tripartite classification of knowledge. There are things that are tautologically true, things that are true because of an agreed upon set of logical rules and then things that are cognitively meaningless.

Jones reformulates it to be things that are categories of the mind and things he thinks ought to be important. For example, race, regardless of the biological realty behind it, is a category of the mind. It matters only because we think about it, like daylight savings time or the time of day. Catholic dogma, on the other hand, matters whether we think of it or not, so we ought to think about it. Of course, anything that Jones does not like is declared a category of the mind and he dismisses it.

There is an argument that much of what gets put into the category of race is contextual, a result of history and culture. This is the basis of biological denialism on the Left, where they claim differences in the races and sexes are cultural artifacts. The problem with this is that it conflates two related, but cognitively different things. Biological race, in this case, is different from social concepts of race. By conflating the two, biology is made to disappear in the fog of social criticism regarding race.

This was the game Jones was playing. He made a lot of noise about how race is used to harm white societies, so he agued race must be ignored. Here he commits a second logical fallacy. Even if discussions of race are engineered to harm white interests, it does not logically follow that white people should deny the reality of race. This is where the Jew thing begins to pop. Jones asserts that Jews invented the concept of race to harm white people, so the Jew thing requires him to oppose race.

After the opening statements, the second hour was mostly Jones ranting and raving about Jews, even dropping some epithets along the way. Whenever the moderator would return the conversation to the topic, Jones would go off on a rant about how the Jews were the great enemy and we must pretend race is not real in order to defend the white race from Jews. Along the way he conceded everything Taylor said about the reality of race, but Jones kept insisting it should not matter.

In all the noise and distraction what became clear is that Jones knows very little about race or race realism. He also made bizarre claims about the subject. For example, he claimed race was introduced in America by Jews. He also claimed the ancients had no concept of race. This is left-wing nonsense that has no basis in fact. His comments about intelligence revealed he knows nothing about the topic. His claims were the sorts of things that work on stupid people who share his beliefs.

This is the tragedy of the Jew thing. Once the victim is afflicted with it, they can think of nothing other than the subject of their obsession. The debate was supposed to be about race, but Jones kept trying to make it about Jews. Not just about Jews in the racial context either. Like a dog returning to his vomit, Jones kept returning to his pet theory that Judaism is a conspiracy against the world. Not Jews, as according Jones race is not real, but Judaism, which is like a magic spell that he fights alone.

Of course, Jones has his fans. That is the other side of the Jew thing. People with it will overlook anything in those who supply them with content. His mad hatter act is lost on his fans, who only hear the J-word when he speaks. You get the sense that those with the Jew thing will become physically ill if they are not constantly hearing anti-Semitic material, so they need it constantly pipped into their brains. As a result a bellowing crackpot like Jones gets their full attention.

There are people who have reasoned critiques of Jews in Western societies. There are lots of Jews who have addressed the issue. It is a legitimate question, but one gets the sense that the mission of E. Michael Jones is to make it impossible to have a reasoned discussion on the topic. After all, who would want to be lumped in with a mad man who screams at the Passover display at the local grocery store? Jones manages to give bigotry a bad name, which is quite accomplishment.

All of that said, Jones has a point that he may not understand or simply not care to discuss and that is the reality of race is insufficient on its own. If being right about the facts of life mattered, this world would not exist. The radicals would have been routed a long time ago. Public discourse in all human society is about morality. Who are we and what defines us is what matters. Repeating the facts of biology can only matter if they have an impact on the morality of the people.

This has always been the failing of the Right. They have always assumed that once they proved their case, the other side would have no choice but to throw down their weapons and embrace them as brothers. This is not reality. Unless one can connect biological reality with morality, they exist in two separate domains. The race realists have yet to attempt this connection. This should be where the militant Christians step into the breech, but people like Jones make that difficult.

Finally, Jones made a big issue of Taylor’s unwillingness to address the question of Jews within the context of race realism. This is a fair point, but Jones then asserted it was because Taylor is part of the global Jewish conspiracy. This is where you cannot help but wonder if Jones does this to avoid defending his position. It is a distraction to deflect attention from his faulty logic to something else. This could have been an interesting gambit, but the Jew thing got the better of him.

The fact is, race realism makes a lot of sense when comparing Africans with all other human groups. Africans are the great outlier in the human family. It starts to break down when you compare other groups. East Asian are different from Europeans, but they bring none of the social pathology of Africans. What is the argument against mixing Asians with Europeans? What about West Asians and Europeans? This is a valid line off attack on the race realist position.

In the end, the debate is worth watching, if only for Taylor’s opening. It is a pity that Jones is not a more honest and balanced person, as it would be interesting to see someone approach this topic from traditional Christian ethics. If we are ever going to make the leap from facts to values, this is a debate that needs to be had. Otherwise, biological reality will remain ignored, even as we careen into the abyss. Maybe this debate will inspire someone to ponder the subject.

The crackdown by the oligarchs on dissidents has had the happy result of a proliferation of new ways to support your favorite creator. If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

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

282 thoughts on “Great Debate

  1. “Africans are the great outlier in the human family.”

    THIS!!! This is the central issue. This is what people must be made to understand. This is why it’s so terrifying that sub-Saharan Africans are out-breeding the rest of the world, and look to continue doing so for the foreseeable future, to the point where they are on a path to become an absolute majority. Everything else is secondary — this is what it is all about.

  2. For the better part of two millennia, Jews were consigned to live outside mainstream society. (That their religious scruples actually mandated this is, of course, a given.) At not infrequent intervals, they were persecuted and declared outlaw. See, e.g., their expulsions from Spain and England, as well as the pogroms conducted against them by Czarist Russia, not to mention the obvious Nazi extinction efforts between 1941 and 1945. (Yes, that really happened, as can be readily determined by reference to many historical resources. The Wansee Conference took place and set the mechanism in action. And yes, this also encompassed a number of other “undesirable” groups, but Jews are correct in the assertion that an organized program of extinction was implemented under the Third Reich.) Is it any wonder they developed an attitude of opposition to the “Christian” societies of Europe? This carried over to a certain degree when Europeans settled the American continent. Jewish oppositional thinking is thus an artifact of the reality in which they lived. It is not a difficult step to take to then develop a mindset of undermining the prevailing society. I believe this explains the singularly large number of ethnically Jewish communists, radicals, anarchists and assorted miscreants whose pernicious activities have caused so much societal discord. But let’s not forget it was nominally “Christian” peoples who brought African slavery to our shores, so thanks a lot for that, all you Cavaliers! It was mostly by virtue of the Jewish IQ surfeit and the African IQ deficit that we did not see a similar development of intellectual support for the radically subversive schemes arise among American blacks that we see arising among American Jews. Of course, the radical Jews saw the advantage of using the blacks as their foot soldiers in their war against the dominant society. A toxic brew developed, from which we in America may not escape unscathed. It is well to remember, regardless, that although Jews and blacks as a group are determined to overthrow the dominant society, there are individuals among those groups who do not share those radical goals, so judge accordingly. Stereotypes are useful as far as they go, but a more refined analysis is required on the individual level.

  3. EMJ isn’t well known for his debating skill or views on race, he’s popular because of his books on the history of the catholic church and culture wars magazine.

    Anyone who is familiar with EMJ could have told you exactly how this would turn out and it seemed like a waste of time to even attempt it. EMJ is clearly trying to maintain his ties with higher ups in the catholic church and probably other connections in his social circle, by avoiding endorsing the topic of scientific racial differences.

    The idea the EMJ is publicly conspiring to embarrass anyone by talking about Judaism is a little far fetched. You don’t have to associate with him, if anyone can say something and you immediately feel it’s representing your own set of ideals you’re not going to have an easy time in a dissident circle.

    • GOod point. EMJ is just another conservative in the NO.

      Its a good questions as to what is more dangerous, EMJ’s view or JTs view?

  4. (too late to have answers, but whatever…)

    I can’t stand on antisemtism.

    On a way, I see every bad idea, in the orgin, very oftenly created by little hat people. I see them controlling 99% of MSM. And 1965 law. And french and swedish tendency to import african people. And promoting BBC on porn.

    On the other way, my own dad’s father was a jew. A real one, with the candlar, the bizarre bread, and a tendency to have a drama tone when he spoke. (and he was a war prisonner in a stalag, and was not deported to cartoon torture porn camp…).
    On the other way #2, my old dentitst and my tv-reparator are little hat. So is Dr Zelenko (go see his video on rumble), one of the head of anti-covysteria.

    I see I’m very close to case for NAXAB (I remember it was “NAXA” but not the last letters, sorry), but I can’t buy covid hysteria as a little hat thing. They have no superpower, and imagine them behind japanese/indian/chinese/iranian lockdowm or vaccine promote is just stupid.

    So I stay with my non-statement about little hat people. And I don’t like that. I would like to have a clear view about the JQ.

    • That’s great and all but someone insulting your Jewish Dad and the other guy talking about nepotism in politics and media concerning the entirety of the West are both being consigned with the same label.

  5. The Militant Christian casus belli for race realism is easy, if you fix your terms.

    To simply both too much and just enough, a Nation is Race + Religion. The story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is God taking credit for the creation of the nations, and so “Nation” is a divinely ordained category, whatever you think the category is suppose to differentiate.

    Rev 7:9 shows a vision of the end where each nation retains its distinct appearance and language, which requires a physical separation in order to sustain the cultural separation required for this vision. The category endures to the end.

    American Protestants are often taught that their primary task is to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19, etc.). Contrary to common understanding, discipleship of nations requires that you point out how each nation falls short of the glory of God so that they can be corrected and introduced to correct moral practices as God has defined them. Christians inherently fail to do the work of the “Great Commission” when they do not point out that Chicago represents a lawless and violent nation with completely corrupt politicians or that Los Angeles represents a nation of narcissistic hedonists who revel in degradation and moral depravity, for instance. This practice is backed by what the Apostle Paul writes in Titus 1.

    The moral framework of Racism is a direct counter to Christian evangelism, and so, all faithful Christians must reject it fully for a true Christian moral framework which inherently includes the “race realism” of the Nation category.

    The meta analysis of Christian doctrine reveals that one of God’s purposes for separate nations is to prove his ways are correct. Evolutionary processes will do their work on separate people each according to how they live, and with enough time, the differentiation will become blunt enough to do a proper analysis of the successes and failures of these nations and so a proper analysis of the moral weight of their practices. Success speaks for itself, and eventually, success can look like getting men to the moon and back while failure is still living amidst sewage. When the greatest success looks like a true nation after the Christian God, he will have proven his ways are true and just to all nations and the universe at large.

    The last three paragraphs have a good chance of breaking the mental firewall of blank slate-ism for those who can be salvaged. Once you break the moral foundation of racism, you can push the Nation category with or without acknowledging how strong a component biology must be for all this to actually work. Mass acceptance of the nation category and the moral and religious imperative to judge a nation is enough to generate a mass acceptance of race realism in time. The precise link, for those who need it, is that biology serves as a dragging anchor for religion. Humans are terraformers who modify their environment in accordance with religious beliefs. Biology adapts to the terraformed environment – which includes downstream cultural practices – and in doing so, reinforces and more fully expresses those religious beliefs across time. Faith infers practice, practice infers physical requirements, physical requirements are the rule biology adapts to, and so, generates a biologically instantiated expression of every religion that becomes more pure the longer the process runs. It is not truly that simple, but this is a critical slice of the full picture that gets overlooked.

    The convenience of this moral argument where proving out different religions and moral frameworks requires the separation of races along Nation lines and the acceptance of race realism for the analysis is that you do not need the Christian aspects to accept the truth of it. We simply need to figure out the best one for the sake of the children and the future of all humanity.

    Quite frankly, “race” is a terrible category to do any real analytical work on. It is too broad and ill-defined to be accurate or truly useful in most cases. That sloppiness is often the point of using it when it comes to the revolutionaries, akin to how they use “capitalist”. RRs give Sub-Sahara Africa its own special carveout for a reason.

    The “J Thing” looks most like two conditions. People can become obsessed with traumatic or dangerous circumstances when they do not fully understand them. That obsession does not go away until some magic wiring in the back of the mind is satisfied that understanding has been achieved. The conscious self does not get a say here – a person can think they understand something but not actually understand it enough to satisfy the subconscious obsession that is remarkably accurate in its assessment of understanding. Do not ask me how that works. It just does. The answer these people are searching for is narcissism.

    The second condition is monomania-style obsession which appears to be a lack of resources and stability, all encompassing, that limits a person to a single angle of attack to make all the bad things go away.

    A third and final aside is that Catholicism is the GOP of Christianity – grandiose claims with no substance, made to enrich a hierarchy that becomes increasingly corrupt and self-serving the higher up you go. Both bend knee to the powers of the earth for a place at the table, but the flaw in Catholicism that matters most to dissidents is the core principle of the faith which says that the people of a nation must bend knee to the Pope, who necessarily can not and will not respect your nation, or race if you prefer, for to do so undermines the supremacy of the Catholic hierarchy over all such boundaries. Pope Francis makes this danger plain and immediate.

    Your Militant Christianity will rise from the ashes of Protestant America as something very different than what you see today.

  6. If all blacks were traddie Catholics, we wouldn’t have to be race realists. They are not, and never will be, so we have to be race realists.

    • Also, look into Integralism on theJosias website. It would be a hoot to have an Integralist debate Jared. Those guys can provide the Catholic theological point of view, though I doubt they would agree to a debate. Still, I think many Dissident Rightwingers would like would the Integralists have to say, Catholic or no.

  7. EMJ is singularly focused on the tribe but that is understandable given his beat: Christianity, Catholic Church and general morality.

    When I first encountered the saying Every. Single. Time. I thought it was simplistic. Then the more I learned about the impact of Jews on White societies, I began to realized it was more right than wrong.

    Feminism and all the weirdo destructive moral decay things we discuss – trannies, gender fluidity, white privilege, toxic masculinity, etc – were first pushed by the tribe. Now the nascent let’s normalize pedophilia is being pushed by Jewish females. The same playbook is being used by the same people now that was used in the Weimar Republic.

    So it is easy to see how EMJ would come across as being overly obsessed by the tribe.

    Then when you get to the Catholic Church it is a similar story. Vatican 2 was a major step downward for the catholic church and it was led by 3 Jewish “converts” to Catholicism. The Jews are proud of this.

    Regarding race, the only reason we talk about it so much is once again mainly because of the Jews. Jews coined the terms racism, melting pot, nation of immigrants, toxic masculinity, white privilege. A jew wrote the poem added to the base of the statue of liberty that now supercedes the constitution. Jewish press started pushing all the race hoaxes that inflame race relations just like Jewish judges in the 70s were the spark for leniency for violent black criminals. For the most part we wouldn’t have our current situation of whites becoming a minority and BLM and antifa running wild in the streets if it wasn’t for the Jews. Sure there are good whites fully on board but they want status and the tribe gives status not us

    • PS. It was a Jewish anthropologist, Boas who came up with the woke idea that all cultures are equal and we should not view ours as superior to any other.

      It was also Jews in Weimar that started pushing race mixing featuring black men and white women

    • All true. But Z rightly points out that there is something in the goyim that WANTS the Jew and his influence. Its a mess

      • The goyim who also deny Christ team up with the highly capable people whose core identity is now, alas, bound up in the same denial. They do so because they want things that normie Christendom will not let them have.

        In terms of intractable problems to address, the first group is the more urgent.

  8. Wait a minute. Where did all those bloody Pakis in Rotherham come from?

    Why, isn’t Pakistan an artificial state, the former British Raj controlled by a certain David Sassoon?

    Why would Clement Atlee carve off a huge piece of India, the source of the river water of Kashmir, and give it to the Muslims supposedly so admired by Hitler? The source of the opium to China?

    There was no Pakistani people. The name itself is an amalgam of its tribes- Pashtun/Punjabi, Afghan, Kurd, Irabian.

    Then weirdly, another Muslim piece was carved off and called Bangladesh, flanking India. None of this was done peaceably.

    Now, Pakistani ISI controls everything in Af’stan, from their puppet Mullah Omar, to the three Afghan ruling councils. “Not a bullet in Afghanistan is fired that the Pakistani ISI doesn’t know about,” as the local saying goes. Pakistan, with one of Central Asia’s largest standing armies and nuclear weapons, courtesy of the Clinton cabal and China.

    So, where did all those bloody Pakis come from? And why were skinhead yobbos more hated and detested by the British government? Because of race realism?

    • Where did all those bloody Pakis in Rotherham come from?

      From the House of Rothschild spreading the rumor that Wellington had lost at Waterloo, causing the London stock markets to crash, and allowing the House of Rothschild to purchase all the best stocks at pennies on the dollar, immediately prior to the arrival of the good news of Wellington’s victory.

      All brought to you courtesy of Oliver Cromwell’s catastrophically disastrous decisions about a century and a half earlier than that.

  9. Well I was waiting for this one. E Michael Jones hasn’t budged a bit in his position in years and years. Jared Taylor already articulated his position years and years ago too.

    To a certain extent E Michael Jones is right in that black people and white people both really wouldn’t think of themselves in those terms if it wasn’t for the context of Atlantic slave trading, the Caribbean plantations and the construction of “whiteness”. We can actually abandon “whiteness”. It was an idea imposed on us that doesn’t really work and just creates a lot of hostility.

    • We would only not think of ourselves in that way if we were not in contact with one another. The underlying biological reality would still remain, however. It doesn’t disappear just because you don’t believe in it. Just like our day/night cycle and other physical realities, it is here to stay regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

      And no, we can’t abandon it. Malicious people want us to abandon it and mix ourselves into a universal world-mongrel who can be easily ruled over. No thank you.

  10. “What is the argument against mixing Asians with Europeans? What about West Asians and Europeans? This is a valid line off attack on the race realist position.”

    I don’t see how this is a valid line of attack, except as a critique of “IQ Nationalists” (Jared Taylor’s side, disproportionately). Mixed race children will not identify with the European group in the overwhelming majority of cases and will work against our collective European interests upon maturity. The starkest example of this is Barack Obama, a half-European who identifies as “black” (spent his childhood reading Malcolm X) and devoted much of this presidency legitimizing racial animus against Europeans — “you didn’t build that”, “bitter clinger”, etc. This is perhaps the best argument against miscegenation, especially with blacks. All you’re doing is giving intelligence genes to progeny who will one day hate our group and work to undermine our interests. That one fact alone outweighs any potential benefit such as superior disease resistance or IQ gains.

    Much of America’s black population is admixed with European, for example. They are slightly smarter than the average Sub-Saharan black African but still vote 90% democrat while being extremely racist against Europeans. We would have been better off if no mixing had ever occurred with that group.

    Only in rare European–East Asian cases is this not true. I personally know a half Asian/Caucasian girl, extremely religious Christian, from Europe who does not speak any Asian language. Married a White Male and is happy. But this is rare in the United States where Whites are on the verge of not being the majority. In Europe, flight to White is still a thing, so in rare cases intermarriage can work. But my experience is that this almost never works in the United States anymore, especially in any blue state or when the couple is not religious.

    Having a mixed race child is now a huge risk. They may not identify with our group and, perhaps worse, may come to openly reject Europeans, as Barack did by hating on his White grandparents who raised him and disrespecting his White mother who supported him while lionizing his failed African father who ran out on him at an early age.

    • You restated Z’s question of “What is the argument against mixing Asians with Europeans” and then used Barack Obama as an example and talked the majority of the time about black/white mixing.

      Dutton has had some great videos on the topic, but essentially you’re right that blacks don’t mix well with other races. There’s some evidence of increased psychological issues with black interracial mixes, and as you mentioned, they almost invariably identify black. Amren has a good article on it as well.

      However, those issues don’t exist with white/Asian mixes for example. As far as the child identifying with what race, it depends. I know some very conservative race realist Asians. In fact, I know more race realist Asians than whites IRL. From surveys, hispanic/white mixes also often identify white.

    • Obamas real father was Frank Marshal Davis.
      Watch “dreams from my real father”
      I do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist. Oswald acted alone, 9-11 building collapse is easily understood when explained useing structural engineering basics etc.. kicker for me is when Obamas face is superimposed over Davises, the resemblance is uncanny. Also convincing
      Obamas mudshark mothers nude photos were taken in Davises living room.

  11. The Jew-baiting racket seems like it will never end. I do admire the fact that certain Jewish groups stay true to their families and culture. They help each other out. I wish my white race could do that, a little bit.

    • It will never end because there are legitimately a huge number of Jews who have acted terribly and against our interests. Do you see a similar racket against Indians or Asians? Both groups are highly successful, and although there is the occasional racist comment against “pajeets” on the right, you will often also hear males tell you how attractive they think upper caste Indian women are.

      Rarely do these groups get even a small fraction of the hate Jews get because these groups do not openly hurt our interests in the same way the Jennifer Rubins and Bill Kristols of the world do. Tulsi Gabbard isn’t claiming we should stay in Afghanistan forever, for instance. Ro Khanna isn’t trying to start WWIII with Iran. Andrew Yang, astonishingly, once openly talked about “white” interests. None of that applies to Ben Shapiro who is out claiming White Males of Christian descent should stay and die in Afghanistan forever.

      Until Jews face this uncomfortable fact and work to undermine certain negative members of their group, legitimate anti-Semitism will always be a thing. Some have done so, Stephen Miller is an example, but there should be others. That’s the best way to end the cycle. Until then, you should expect infinite autistic analysis.

      Berating Kevin MacDonald won’t get you anywhere when you’re playing into every negative Jewish stereotype with reckless abandon, when the ADL is censoring the internet and pushing blood libels against Europeans, when Ben Shapiro wants infinite Afghan refugees while demanding “we” fight his ethnostate’s wars.

  12. All,

    Tomorrow I leave for a month on vacation and will not be posting. I don’t want anyone thinking I disappeared or that something happened to me.

    It has been a trying and mentally taxing year so far at the homestead with so many things going on, both good and bad. Hoping to come back refreshed.

    Be good, see ya’ll soon !!!

    • Thanks for letting us know, would hate to think you were ‘party vanned’, that ain’t no kinda fun. I would know. 😉

      Relax and enjoy.

      • I second Apex on that. I find the frank faith of Falcone, B125, and Painterstorms to be quite refreshing.

        Plus, Ma’s best friend was our Aunt Tata, straight from Mussolini’s Italy, so the news from Naples is much enjoyed.

    • a month on vacation

      Dude, is this your Appalachia trip you were talking about?!?!?

      It’s gonna be Redneck P00ntag Heaven this month, with college sportsball starting back up – from Clemson through Boone to Knoxville & Blacksburg & Morgantown & Lexington [both KY & VA] – more quality White redneck p00ntang than your fertile mind can hope to imagine.

      And if you feel like dropping the big bucks, then you can spend a few days in the resorts, like the Grove Park or the Biltmore [Asheville NC], the Homestead [Hot Springs VA], the Greenbriar [White Sulphur Springs, WV] etc.

      I don’t know your age or your marital status, but it’s never the wrong time to be hitting on teh White P00nt@ng with the objective of putting MOAR WHITE BUNZ -> WHITE OVENZ.

      So throw a nice bottle of champagne into a cooler filled with ice, walk up into the hills, open on random strange chicks you encounter on the Appalachian Trail, get ’em nice & tipsy, and phuck ’em right there in the great outdoors [although you might wanna bring some mosquito spray, and also a large caliber f!re@rm, just in case any male black bears sniff the scent of female heat on ya’].

      MUH BRUTHA!!!

      PS: I know you were dissing on the town of Roanoke, but the old Hotel Roanoke used to have one of the very best breakfast buffets in the known universe. I haven’t been back since VaTech seized control of it, but hopefully they’re trying to maintain the old culinary standards.

      And in Roanoke, there’s gonna be moar s1utty White granola-chick p00nt@ng than you can shake a stick at [although you’re gonna hafta grill the hell outta them Roanoke chicks to make absolutely certain they’re Pro-Life before you dip it in ’em].

      PPS: I also haven’t been back to the Southern Inn in Lexington, VA, since the fire, but before the fire, it was on the short list of the very best restaurants in the entire world: I’m talking melt-in-your mouth delicious redneck recipes.

      I’m getting hungry just sitting here thinking about my memories of it.

    • Falcone – Have a wonderful time. Hope you find the right property to buy – and then invite us all to visit!

  13. First, a seminal feature of science is the classification of things; be they rocks or living organisms. Homo sapiens is one such classification, and within that species are many sub classifications, which includes race. In biological & medical science, race classification has many useful benefits (for example, it can enhance the accurate diagnosis of hereditary illnesses).

    Second, in the war of words, any conceptual idea can be made into a weapon if it influences others. The concept of race in a societal context is now being used by the Left as a weapon to persuade potential voters and grow the Democrat base. In particular, race-based fear and grievance mongering are rallying the bottom of the social pyramid vote D and you’ll get more government gravy.

    Last, the reason that Homo sapiens has sub classifications is substantially due to the wide diversity of environments on Earth. Africans have dark skin because that is what “works” on the African continent. Ditto for every morphological difference to be found among all the various sub species. Each was a local adaptation for what “works” in that particular environment. There is no morality-based right or wrong in these distinctions. What “exists” is what “works” to enhance the survive & thrive success of the local branch of Homo sapiens at any particular place on the planet.

    • It seems to me that humans are so numerous and diverse that, if we keep all within one species, homo sapiens, we should have several taxonomic levels between species and populations. Normally, w non-human species, there is only one level between species and population, subspecies. IOW we need several levels of subspecies or races. Perhaps this is easiest to explain with an example, using our own case. Whites are members of the Caucasian race or perhaps ‘primary race’, of which there are at least three, and probably more, main branches. One such branch is the one of the Ancient Egyptians (name escapes me), the Semites (Jews, Arabs and others) is another and whites belong w Iranians and North Indians in the Indoeuropean division. Below this ‘branch race’ are then further divisions and whites are the European subraces or ethnicities of the Indoeuropean branch race of the Caucasian main race. Similar trees could be erected for Mongoloids whereas w Negroids it is probably far more complicated. This ‘model’ is similar to ideas of about 100 yrs ago and could presumably be verified or falsified using DNA.

    • According to the late great patent-attorney-turned-anthropologist, Fuerle opined that Homo erectus was close enough to mate with Homo Sapiens Sapiens, although he probably wouldn’t have recommended the union. 😀

  14. “Who are we and what defines us is what matters. Repeating the facts of biology can only matter if they have an impact on the morality of the people.”

    That’s an interesting point. Here’s a possible take on it; ppl are motivated to elevate their status b/c status is the central social currency. It is (largely, not entirely of course) what gets you in the door, gets the girl, gets you invited to the cool parties.

    High morality, in the views of others, elevates your status. This is universally true although what is considered high morality is not. Facts, on the other hand, does not connect to either status or emotions. Genius mathematicians often ‘feel’ their way through complex or, perhaps especially, abstract math problems. IOW they turn math into emotions, of sorts. And human brains emote with far higher speed than they ‘think’ in words or even images. W a possibly bad analogy, emotions are sort of the machine code of the mind. And this conversion of math into emotions, or that it evokes deep emotions, may be why mathematicians enjoy math while most non-mathematicians do not. Same w facts, geeks like facts. Most ppl don’t, except if the facts are of immediate consequence to their well-being.

    Ppl on the right, we think facts evoke emotions, and they don’t, for most ppl. Therefore we must learn to make arguments that elevate the status of ppl who agree w the arguments. And, b/c status is more governed by emotions than by facts, we must learn to make arguments that elevate the status, not of us, but of everyone who agrees with us. This being literally the foundation of seduction, we must learn to seduce ppl into saving their heritage. We must learn to ‘program’ the emotions of ppl.The left is very good at this whereas they are very bad w facts b/c the facts are against them. But facts do not evoke emotions, hence are irrelevant to convincing ppl.

    • Feelings should be regarded as an aid to the good life — a fuller expansion of the experiences we undergo — but used sparingly underneath reason as the linchpin for problem-solving. The True Romantic, for instance, lives his life for the natural “highs” he gets. But he is sparing with his company, lest others steal away his mojo.

      • Thanks, I think I said the same thing in two sentences one right after the other but these comments are not exactly papers for peer review lol

  15. The argument I would have liked Taylor to make is how the differences, physical and otherwise, between groups came about. Groups who evolved in cold, harsh climates that required storing of food and building of shelters developed the ability to delay gratification and cooperate, and a keen sense of possible future scenarios. While groups who evolved (or were created for, doesn’t matter) in mild climates where food was always available and shelter unimportant thrived on competitiveness, had no need to develop a sense of the future (i.e., imagination), and delaying gratification was a good way to starve to death. It’s why we feel more kindred spirits with Japanese than Hutus despite the fact we don’t look much like either group. Our hardwiring is much more compatible because of our shared evolutionary environments. And it is hardwired. No amount of Catholic dogma or shared language is getting past hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation. Our physical differences are not why we will never be able to live peacefully together. Neither way of living is “right” or “wrong” they’re just diametrically opposed to each other. That’s the irrefutable argument to me.
    That said, is calling Jones a crackpot really necessary? I get his argument about weaponizing the term “White” even if I strongly disagree that we can all get along if we organize around Catholicism. We would all get along if we could organize around anything. But we can’t and won’t because of the above differences. We can barely get along with our blood brothers! The evolution argument probably won’t work on Jones but creation would (of course God would create our minds differently to fit our environments), and Taylor needs to be more honest about the people pulling the strings. Look no further than almost every member of both the Trump and Biden administration, Hollywood (the work of Devon Stack is exceptional on this topic), publishing, banking, blah, blah, blah. People that won’t talk about this remind me of David Icke and his shapeshifting reptile jinn archons. We can’t fight an entity we can’t see, and in this case, won’t name. It’s debilitating, and I believe it’s meant to be.

  16. If the jew thing is simply an acknowledgement that Jews have been disproportionate in promoting degeneracy, immigration, and the current anti-white theology, I am happy to have the jew thing. And people who do not recognize this have the blindness thing.

  17. Jones reminds me of a certain sort of dogmatic Catholic who tries to ingratiate himself with the mainstream culture by being more Marxist than Marx. Activists like Dorothy Day (Catholic Workers Movement), or writers like J. F. Powers (Morte d’Urban) and Flannery O’Conner.

    They like to talk about the Church’s “seamless garment” doctrine on the sanctity of life, so as to focus on being anti-war or anti-capital punishment, like good little Leftists, and divert attention from being anti-abortion (the only thing they really care about and can do anything about).

    Powers and O’Conner distinguish themselves from the White Others around them (Upper Midwest, The South) by taking a Leftist stance on capitalism, VietNam war, suburban life, Jim Crow, etc. and attributing all these problems to “those Protestants”. It’s a kind of early form of virtue signaling, and possibly related to how Curtis Yarvin wants you to believe our problems come from “Neo-Puritans” at Harvard, rather than, say, Jews.

    Jones isn’t “one of us” in any way; he’s not really interested in race, or America (a Protestant land, after all), but he parrots Leftist talking points about race to agitate us and curry favor with Them, so as to divert attention from his literally Mediaeval worldview. The obsession with anti-Semitism is part of the traditional Catholic worldview as well, as is the idea that all they have to do is be baptized.

    • On the non-fiction side, Thomas Merton falls into that camp as well. He dipped his toes in the Marxist pond during the 30s, before his conversion to Catholicism. He was quickly turned off but was ultimately looking for a version of Marxism with the imprimatur and of a higher power.

    • Well, to be fair to Flannery O’Connor, she died in 1964, way before any of the current madness. Yes, she was a devout Catholic, but she had traditional views as a Southerner about race. Don’t know about her views on any of the other subjects mentioned.

  18. I remember JD saying he didn’t pick the review title, which is normally done by editorial staff independently of the contributor (unless it is a VIP or someone w/ a lot of suck w/ the publisher) for every site/paper/magazine. But I agree, it is a great one.

    Judging from the awkward people who want to grab my lapels about it I’d alternatively call MacDonald the Gandhi Of The Anti-Semites — except I’m pretty sure ol’ Mo wasn’t so wild about them already, going back to his Afrikaaner stint

  19. Family is a linkage between morality and biology. That which harms my family is bad. That which supports my family is good. Altruism correlates with genetic similarity. There is strength in numbers.
    Our region dominated by people who have a common cause is good. Co-regional’s children and my children being similar enough to share a mutual benefit of mutual defense is good. People who are loyal to a competitive group are bad.

    Boarders increase at the first power; Area at the second power. Borders require defense. Area is what captures the Sun and provides resources. Therefore it is good to have a sufficiently large region. Region may also be conceived metaphorically, for example profitability is proportional to market share.

    When Minorities show up, local libraries divide the budget among different languages. This is bad.

    • Yes, agreed, and when local trust is undermined by the presence of literal foreigners this is doubleplusungood.

      The lack of trust is what’s been killing civic society in the West. It’s a testament to civic society’s incredible strength that no strongman has emerged to solve this problem of a bureaucracy that imports racial undesireables by the bucketload.

  20. On the actually topic here, I agree w the take on the JQ taken here. I also think it is important to say that the JQ is legitimate. The West is dying; we cannot afford to have taboos in our search for the cause of our dying out. I simply do not think the evidence supports the conjecture, to some conviction, that Jews are the root cause.

    One of the most important, and verifiable, pieces of evidence that we are not being killed by ‘the Jews’ but are committing demographic suicide, is the short essay by Glubb, The Fate of Empires. Here he claims that the patterns of ancient ’empires’, i.e. civilizations, go through the same phases we are also seeing in the West today. This pattern was true of the Roman Empire, the Arab Golden Age around year 1000 and many other empires. Including, not described in his essay, ancient Indian and Chinese empires. It is a no-starter to argue that there were little sneaky Jews who caused the fall of all of these ancient civilizations. And yet they experienced, in surprising detail (read the essay!!) the same symptoms in their decadent phase, that we see today, specifically including the massive influx of foreigners and a bizarre obsession with ‘the universal equality of man.’ Is that the Jews wondering around through history, making ppl from the Yellow River to the Tigris to Tiber River, collectively nuts?? It seems more likely that it is extraterrestial aliens doing this. In reality it is the sad effect of affluence and the easy life. It makes humans soft, first in body, later soft in the head.

    But I do not say that to disparage ppl who have read the opposite conclusion on the JQ. It is my experience that a good fraction of many of those who can see that we are spiralling towards a demographic catastrophy, think that the JQ is absolutely central. I do not and I have nothing in particular against Jews. I concede that there are many Jews who are also subvertive but these unfortunate individuals are opportunists who find traction BECAUSE our culture is collapsing and it is collapsing because of decadence which is the tragic result of affluence. That said, it would be sad if the JQ became the wedge that divided and conquered us.

    • This argument follows roughly the same logic (I know I know I’m simplifying):
      “You claim you are dying because of the acts of Sheldon over there.
      But everyone dies at some point for usually the same few age related reasons. Therefore I do not think Sheldon killed you or else contributed personally in your demise.

      Have I even listened to your argument, or examined your evidence much at all? Kind of. But my neighbor down the street just died of old age, nobody forced his death. So you probably were not “killed” either. Yeah I think Sheldon is odd and distasteful but surely he wouldn’t kill you!”

      I understand what you are saying and I agree that civilizations and empires seem to follow a similar life-cycle. But that does not diminish the JQ. The West has a long history with many empires and this specific group have played a crucial role in much of that history. That should be examined and looked into, not swept aside. Yes there are cooky simplified theories out there. But there are also nuanced, detailed studies.

      If this was a murder case (“they KILLED the West!”) we would probably have to establish the crime as an inchoate crime, imperfect and indirect. There wasn’t a hard criminal act–no specific stabbing or poisoning by the defense. However their behavior was anticipating or preparatory to further criminal acts. So even if it was “corruption” “degeneracy” “over extension” which finally killed us, if they were the ones that started this chain of evens/who set us on this course should they not be held liable to a significant degree? I don’t think we could say they were merely negligent or reckless either. Throughout most of their history they willfully guided society to take substantial steps toward harmful behavior they themselves would never partake in. This should be looked into and examined.

      I like to look at specific ideas, behavior and see how they interact and evolve within social settings. We don’t have to view the situation as the happy merchant sitting on a pile of gold, plotting the death of all goyim to be guilty. There are degrees to such things.

      • Would you agree that among what is really killing the West are a) massive influx of foreigners, b) loose moral standards in general ranging from sex to work ethics, c) that society makes ‘heroes’ out of singers, actors etc but not ppl who accomplish genuine feats of benefit to society such as scientists, soldiers, discoverers etc, d) the elevation and promotion of women into public positions of leadership?

        These are the symptoms Glubb establishes for a civilization in the more advanced decadent stages, using the Romans and Golden Age Arabs around 1000 yrs ago. To me it is hard to believe that whatever afflicted these ancient societies is not related to what is also afflicting us. That there are some extremely unsympathetic Jews who are gloating that we are stumbling and falling is, I think, well-documented. But these are opportunists kicking someone already down. They are not the cause for why he is down. The root problem we face is our own decadence, brought on by affluence and the easy life, or Glubb is very hard to explain.

        • But that doesn’t address the question of who is most responsible for facilitating the importation of foreigners, the destruction of healthy morality, the elevation of the weaker sex, etc. Is it a self-inflicted wound, the fault of a foreign tribe, or some amalgamation of the two? That declining empires share common attributes isn’t reason enough in 2021 to dismiss the possibility that said decline might be arrested or slowed by dealing with one of the causes.

          • Suppose it is true that Jews are primarily those responsible for allowing foreigners in. Then the question becomes why do Jews have such influence? Because the host people now think that Jews, and other minorities, should no longer be excluded from making or influencing political decisions. If they think Jews, as a minority, should be allowed to have influence or should be treated as ‘equals’ they probably think the same of non-Jewish minorities as well.

            And this new feeling that we should be ‘good people’ who treat all others as equals, came originally from the host population itself. How did it happen? It happened b/c there was such affluence that they did not feel threatened and therefore felt it was ‘bad’ or even ‘evil’ to deny others ‘equal rights’.

            The root cause of our deroute is our decadence. That others, Jews and non-Jews (I could list a lot here) exploit it doesn’t change the fact that if we weren’t decadent, they would not be able to persuade us to work against our own interests.

        • So your argument is that Sheldon had nothing to do whatsoever with the demise of the deceased man, Weston. Weston hit 50 and boom! like so many before him, he became a degenerate on the fast track to death. Sheldon was a shady person within Weston’s circle of “friends” who merely took advantage of Weston in his corrupted state. But otherwise Sheldon contributed nothing to that corruption and demise?

          I would disagree with you that Sheldon contributed nothing but the kicking of the ole man when he was down. I’m not even sure he’s doing that now. He’s gotten himself wrapped up in many ventures with Weston– maybe Sheldon is realizing he could lose alot in the demise.

          We should take a look at Sheldon before we write off Weston. Do you agree that Sheldon is an insular character who himself partakes in extremely selfish, exploitative behavior and has found himself within this type of scenario quite frequently, to an almost suspicious extent? (This is at least circumstantial evidence.) We should think about the type of person Weston was before he met Sheldon, and who he became after his frequent discussions and dealings with Sheldon. We can see that the path to demise began at roughly the same time. Weston took on new business ventures, joined new clubs, took on new opinions and behaviors afterwards. And all at the behest of Sheldon!
          Furthermore, we find that similar scenarios seemed to occur with Sheldon and many of Weston’s cousins, uncles, grandfathers…

          Okay I got carried away with this medium here, I don’t like getting into specifics online, especially when I can’t go back and delete my comments. The individual “murder” case isn’t quite the perfect analogy either but if there is one point I want to make its that like homicide, there are varying degrees here– we try to establish intent, but things get both murky and diluted with groups throughout time.

          I think where we might disagree is the level of culpability regarding Sheldon, and the starting points of decline for Weston. As I said I’m mainly interested in looking at how Sheldon introduced certain financial practices, intellectual themes and social-political ideas into Weston’s life, how these mutated, evolved– how they effect and are effected by the different minds they entered.

          I think these ideas/this behavior is largely inspired by tradition and group-survival tactics. It was much more explicit in the past (as evidence you can go back and read their texts, which were meant to be kept secret) but it has kind of evolved and diluted throughout time. So given all of that, I still think they should be held to a significant degree of culpability.

          • I think it is more the case that I’m saying that Weston has a cough, high fever, fluid in his lungs and bacteria in his sputum. And you’re saying ‘Ahh, Shelton is a shady character, this is clearly a case of poisoning’. But the symptoms are exactly like pneumonia so I think that’s the case even if Shelton is perhaps a shady character.

        • I tried to comment before, but I think it got lost in moderation (it might have been too long). I’m copy-pasting an abridged version below.

          The individual “murder” case isn’t quite the perfect analogy either but if there is one point I want to make its that like homicide, there are varying degrees here– we try to establish intent, but things get both murky and diluted with groups throughout time.

          I think where we might disagree is the level of culpability regarding Sheldon, and the starting points of decline for Weston. As I said I’m mainly interested in looking at how Sheldon introduced certain financial practices, intellectual themes and social-political ideas into Weston’s life, how these mutated, evolved– how they effect and are effected by the different minds they entered (not just Weston, but his ancestors)

          I think these ideas/this behavior is largely inspired by tradition and group-survival tactics. It was much more explicit in the past (as evidence you can go back and read their texts, which were meant to be kept secret) but it has kind of evolved and diluted throughout time. So given all of that, I still think they should be held to a significant degree of culpability.

        • “And this new feeling that we should be ‘good people’ who treat all others as equals, came originally from the host population itself. How did it happen? It happened b/c there was such affluence that they did not feel threatened and therefore felt it was ‘bad’ or even ‘evil’ to deny others ‘equal rights’.”

          So, someone was slowly poisoned, but it was their own fault because they didn’t detect the poison, weren’t vigilant enough in their suspicions? You are merely moving the burden of blame unfairly onto one party and dismissing the blame on the other. Either that or you don’t understand the true influence these people have had on our society throughout history.

          • “Either that or you don’t understand the true influence these people have had on our society throughout history.”

            Did they have the same influence in ancient Rome? In Baghdad in year 1100? How about India 2000 years ago or ancient China?

            I am not saying (((they))) don’t have influence or that there are no malevolent characters among them who wish us harm. I am saying that the fact that they can have influence and in particular, an influence at odds with our vital interests, is because we have gone ‘soft’. If we hadn’t softened up neither they nor any other foreign group could have manipulated us.

        • Did they have the same influence in ancient Rome? In Baghdad in year 1100? How about India 2000 years ago or ancient China?…I am saying that the fact that they can have influence and in particular, an influence at odds with our vital interests, is because we have gone ‘soft’. If we hadn’t softened up neither they nor any other foreign group could have manipulated us.”

          Bone up on Rome and the Jews. And “other empires die w/out JQ” is not an argument against the JQ. You are not providing counter evidence. Just because civilizations tend to follow certain cyclical characteristics, does not free bad actors of all culpability.
          You punish crime because it is bad. Period. Then you delve into the specifics, the utilitarian approach, etc.

          For instance, say your little brother goes out on the town with his buddies. He gets drunk, and while he’s walking back to his apartment, he gets beat up and robbed. You’re basically choosing to apportion all of the blame on your brother. “Well if he wasn’t drunk, he probably wouldn’t have gotten beaten up and robbed…”
          That doesn’t matter. You punish bad actors because crime is bad. Was your brother irresponsible? Sure. Could he have avoided this? Yeah. Is he blameless? No.
          You as a big brother should be pissed at the criminals, hope they get punished, and then offer a stern but loving guidance to your brother on how he needs to make better decisions.

          • What you say is true, but is irrelevant to the JQ because your metaphor is not an exact parallel. Nations are complex, decline is multi-factorial, and there is an inevitability to it. More to the point, the best comparison is that of a man seducing a married woman. No matter how you analyze it, both are to blame if she cheats. Sure, he’s wrong to try to seduce her. But she’s also wrong for saying yes. Likewise, the Jews are wrong for pushing degeneracy, but whites are wrong for embracing it instead of saying no.

          • Our real disagreement is on what is the primary and what is the secondary cause of our growing troubles. We are following a very strong and clear pattern throughout history. Which leads me to say ‘what befell these ppl before us is probably closely related to what is happening with us because the symptoms are so similar.’

            You are saying ‘no, we suffer from something entirely different compared to these ancient cases.’

            IOW, me: “same pattern, probably same cause”, you: “same pattern, different causes”. On this basis alone, by Occam’s razor or simple probability, yours is the less likely explanation.

        • You need to read more about the history of pornography and law before you are so quick to acquit the jews.

    • Diversity is death. Jews are not only part of diversity, they are the big enablers of diversity.

  21. Jones is far from perfect, but I’m still a pretty big fan of his because of his idea of the revolutionary spirit and how he frames it in moral (Christian) terms most (white) people can relate to. It’s powerful stuff. And I don’t think he’s necessarily wrong about race and ethnicity, simply either behind or ahead of the times. For instance, I see Italians as a kind of cousin even though my identity is in no other way tied up in being Italian. Compare that to blacks, to whom I feel little more kinship than a shared, abstract humanity. Different steps in the hierarchy is all.

    With regard to the Jew Thing, I sometimes wonder if some of its devotees are to Judaism what satanists are to Christianity, such is their zeal for it. At the same time, tons of Christians buy into chosenness despite Jesus’ thoughts on the matter and the fact these same people demanded He be crucified. How can that programming be confronted, except head-on?

    At any rate, EMJ does have a lot of ideas that leave me flat, but I chalk it up to him being a literature guy. All of us with an artistic temperament are a little crazy.

    I like Taylor, too, but I have to think he’s too anodyne to move the needle for most people.

  22. I’m 15 min into the debate, I wanted to watch it b/c of the comments here that it became an epic slug-fest. Happy that Taylor brought up tigers as an example of subspecies or races. The next paragraph is me failing to resist the temptation to go overboard OT on something I have an abnormal interest in, since the good Jared Taylor brought it up, so if you’re not into big cats pls just ignore:

    He is right that there are traditionally 9 subspecies of tigers. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the ‘governing body’ of ‘the scientific consensus’, about 3 yrs ago ‘decided’ that there are in fact only two races of tiger, mainland (Bengal, Indochinese, Amur (Siberian) etc etc) and Sunda Island (Sumatra, Bali, Java). Since I am reasonably sure I could hit around a 90% correct between Indian (Bengal) and Amur (Siberian) tigers if I just saw their picture, I think this lumping of subspecies is political hogwash and probably w a woke origin, to ‘play down’ the ‘evidence for subspecies’. So I agree that there were 9 historical subspecies of which 3 are now extinct (Caspian, Javan, Bali). So the good Mr. Taylor errs when he distinguishes between Sumatran and Sunda Island tigers, in fact Sumatran tigers are the last surviving Sunda Island tigers. But that is hardly a criticism, the man didn’t catch ‘the big cat thing’ that afflicts some of us. I’m also pretty darn sure the picture he shows of a ‘Sumatran tiger’ is in fact not but either an Indian (Bengal) or an Amur in summer coat. If you want to check if I’m gaslighting here, print-screen that pic and send it to a couple of big cat experts and ask them. I THINK I’m right, I’d happily wager a beer but maybe not. And, it is pretty darn irrelevant to the big story on this blog, that the West is demographically dying. Okay, thanks, had to get that outta my system 😛

  23. My impression of Jones from his stuff that rarely pops up in my Gab feed is that he has some sort of personal animosity towards the Jews. I don’t know if that’s the case for sure, and I wouldn’t necessarily hold it against him if he did, but by itself it just doesn’t translate into any kind of general policy. It’s hard enough to discuss those who rule over us without people like Jones jumping in and ranting endlessly about vague generalities and making the eyes gloss over of even those who might be sympathetic to his arguments.*

    The fact is, race realism makes a lot of sense when comparing Africans with all other human groups.

    That is what every argument seems to boil down to There are other groups like Gypsies who pose the same challenge, but none of them have the same numbers and would probably be an afterthought at their current scale.

    *(Usually my biggest hang-up with that crew isn’t that I disagree with the idea that what the Jews have sold over the years has been bad for White people, because I don’t disagree, but where we differ is that, alas, White people usually really liked what they were selling. Were we conned? Perhaps, though my experience has been that most Whites wanted to be conned. There’s only anecdotal evidence to back it up, but my thinking is that if Jews didn’t make the pitch then someone else would have.)

    • If Jones is an academic and has spent his life in the ivory tower, then his interactions with Jews, who dominate academia, are most probably the origin of his anti-semitism. If you thrive in a contentious atmosphere of back-stabbing political animosity, then a career as a college professor is for you. And the Jew does exceptionally well under those conditions. Hell, Jews were formed as such by millennia of self-absorbed tribal squabbles which justified their existence. Outsider, beware!

    • Your last paragraph is fraught with historical ignorance and question begging. I’d say nice try but it wasn’t.

  24. Yes, there are some people who argue (to the extent they are capable of rational argument) irresponsibly about the ‘Jew thing’, to the point Jews do seem to ‘live rent free’ in their mind — but this does not mean the ‘Jew thing’ is not real, i.e. that Jews have inordinate influence, and this inordinate Jewish influence is inordinately damaging to Whites and white societies.

  25. “Unless one can connect biological reality with morality, they exist in two separate domains. The race realists have yet to attempt this connection.”

    I would say race realists have three big issues to deal with in connecting biology to morality. First, is the question of fatalism vs. free will. Can humans choose their actions or are they fated by their ancestors to do good or bad things regardless of their internal desires?

    Second, should people be judged individually or collectively? Should black people be slaughtered en masse because they commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, or should crime be viewed as an individual undertaking?

    Third, is race really a crisp biological reality, or is it blurry? By this I mean do we really understand all the genetic determinants of race? For example, if you found the blackest woman in Africa and bred her with the palest man in Europe, what color would the child be? In contrast, there would not be any confusion about the child’s sex: it would either be male or female, based on it’s genitalia, but it’s race would be much more nebulous.

    I feel like race realists tend to ignore these issues and thus have nothing useful to say in regards to morality, whereas Christians have already discussed the first two questions at length and have concluded that all people have free will and should be judged individually, which means genetic predispositions don’t count for much in their worldview.

    • Should black people be slaughtered en masse because they commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, or should crime be viewed as an individual undertaking?

      Wide range of choices there bud.

      • Sure, those are the logical extremes, but most choices will skew either individualist or collective, so thinking directionally is clarifying.

    • 1. Yes there is free will. Due to genetics it may be harder for the Irishman to not drink to excess and it may be harder for the Frenchman to not molest young women, but they are held to our standard while in our lands regardless of the individual struggle needed.
      2. Yes. Individual offenses are treated individually, collective offenses collectively. In a collective fight such as war, we do not insist on individual guilt before shooting a particular soldier. The question you are trying to ask is when has a “crime problem” with individual solutions become a race war with collective solutions. That is too complicated for a blog comment.
      3. False question there. Trying to find the Golden Ticket That Explains Everything is something for teenaged fiction stories about mythical feminine railroad barons and their steelmaking lovers. In the real world of adults, almost everything has multiple causational factors. Some things are pretty highly due to genetics, such as attractive facial features. That doesn’t mean that if some vibrant doused Heidi klum with battery acid she would still be gorgeous: the genetics is a necessary but insufficient condition, influenced by a variety of constantly changing factors.

    • “… is race really a crisp biological reality, or is it blurry?”

      biology (DNA blueprints) -> culture (systematized behavior) -> politics (behaviors dealing with the exercise of power)

      What do we mean by ‘race’? It is a label that is not consistently used. Traditional notions of race (European, Asian, African) correspond extremely well with large-scale genomic structure. Europeans and Asians have overlapping sets of Neandertal alleles. Asians have some we don’t, and vice versa. Africans do not. Ethnicity is more granular, there being many ethnicities which belong to the same race.

      DNA (an individual’s set of chromosomes) is the blueprint for the hardware (their body). The politically relevant hardware is the brain, the seat of consciousness. The development of the hardware from conception to reproductive age is a function of many things, including chance or randomness. (nutrition and pharmaceutical forcing ex. prenatal alcohol)

      However, the range of potential hardware that might result from any given genome is constrained. If you have a manufacturing line making toasters according to some blueprint, you will get well made toasters, average toasters, and toasters with flaws in all the various ways that might manifest, but you will never ever get a microchip or a space ship. A European man and a European woman will never ever make either an Asian or an African baby.

      Pushing the hardware/software analogy, software is the set of behaviors of which an individual is capable. Each ethnicity within a a race has a culture, or set of behaviors, that have codeveloped naturally in tandem with the evolution of their genomes. Ethnicities within a race tend to have cultures that are more similar to each other than to those of other races. Every ethnicity will generate individuals who can adapt to the behaviors of outgroups, but these are always the exception, not the rule.

      When members of one race have culture (behaviors) imposed upon them that are not naturally in resonance with their biology, the changes are not permanent. When the imposition or forcing ends, they will like a stretched rubber band snap back, not necessarily to exactly where they were before. Consider the 1950’s-1980’s American leftist project to turn (American) Africans into Europeans. It failed spectacularly and left everyone worse off than before. The leftists then repurposed their civilizational mission to the task of changing European Americans into Africans. This is failing too, and leaving everyone worse off than before.

      • Zman: “Unless one can connect biological reality with morality, …”

        Leftist social engineering projects to force behaviors onto people that are not in resonance with their biology are fundamentally immoral because they always cause suffering and death. Leftist social engineering will always fail because biological difference is real and their equalitarianism is fantasy.

        The races and the ethnicities within each have different preferences for organizing themselves socially, politically, and economically, and there is no one-size-fits-all system that will not immiserate most. The variance in organizational and behavioral preferences is deeply rooted in the variance of our differing biology. The best way forward for humanity is separate states for each ethnicity or federations of similar ethnicities, each member of the federation having its own space for its culture to thrive.

        • “The best way forward for humanity is separate states for each ethnicity or federations of similar ethnicities, each member of the federation having its own space for its culture to thrive.”

          Precisely. Diversity is the root of almost all strife, conflict and upheaval. How could it be otherwise? Like is far more likely to fight unlike than like. If each nation-state was racially or even ethnically homogeneous, the world would be a far better place. Instead, we’re headed in the opposite direction and the misery quotient rises daily.

  26. Saw the “debate” yesterday and your critique is spot-on. I know Jones, have written for his magazine (not on this topic) and I was surprised–and disappointed–at his cockeyed take on the question.

    He’s not entirely wacko on the question of ‘Talmudic Jewish’ as opposed to ‘Torah Jewish’, which is a distinction he rarely makes but should.

    Oh, well.

  27. I think a major sticking point in the debate about race realism vs. social construct revolves around the fact that the great majority of humans have a belief in the “oneness” of humanity. Sure, blacks and Whites look different, but, hey, we’re all the same on the inside! Now, no one knows what’s on the inside. What is a soul? What is a spirit? How can you measure and catalog these things? Whether we ever really know is irrelevant. We don’t know now, so how could anyone say that everyone has the same spark of existence, from amoebas to mankind? This is just a pantheistic worldview that has become the default position for humans for some time now. But, you can ignore the fact that blacks and Whites are so fundamentally different physically, in motivation, in values, in intelligence, etc., because once all that is stripped aside, “we’re all the same”. So, just ignore the evidence of your senses, which can be measured, and believe that we are all the same consciousness, for which there is no evidence. Christianity used to believe in good vs. evil. Now it believes that good and evil are on the same continuum. Black is White. Male is female. Good is evil, and evil good.

    Christianity used to understand that breeding was to be kind after kind. After all, that was what was specified in the Bible. Animals instinctually follow this rule. You don’t see cardinals mate with blue birds. However, it has become a rule in Christianity that somehow now this no longer matters. Oh, sure, you can get a liger if you force breed a lion and a tiger, or a mule (sterile, by the way) if you breed a horse and a donkey. But, these are unnatural breedings. A child that has a White parent and a black parent is neither black nor White. An American Indian and a White pairing used to called a half-breed and they were marginalized by both Whites and Indians. Same with Asians and Whites, or Asians and blacks. Whether you agree with that rule or not, you should admit that it leads to “confusion”. Anyway, now everybody “knows better” and miscegenation is to be celebrated, along with homosexuality, diversity, transexuality, and a whole slew of “better” ideas that are better than just viewing nature and what works. That alone should tell you to avoid these ideas like the plague.

    • “Sure, blacks and Whites look different, but, hey, we’re all the same on the inside! Now, no one knows what’s on the inside.”

      Joggers surely ought to know, seeing that a large amount of them spend most of their time inside.

    • “Sure, blacks and Whites look different, but, hey, we’re all the same on the inside!” = “We are one race, the human race.” “We all came from Africa anyway!”

      All these meme-arguments, stock-phrases stem from the current moral paradigm/cultural narrative. They were not born from individual intellectual thought. They were absorbed via the culture, no rational thought involved. Our culture creates a specific frame through which the individual views these topics. We need to change that frame. Our current moral order worships Equality as its goddess supreme. We need to replace it with a new moral order, one that values things like honor, achievement, natural hierarchy and spiritual integrity. That’s really all there is to it.

      • “Our current moral order worships Equality as its goddess supreme. We need to replace it with a new moral order, one that values things like honor, achievement, natural hierarchy and spiritual integrity. That’s really all there is to it.”

        Oh, that’s really all there is to it? Great! We should be finished by next week.

        • Sounds good, I’ll meet you in Utopia for brunch around Thursday!

          Regarding “all there is to it”: yeah that was cringey and misplaced. I’m not picking my words very carefully today and getting ransacked for it. What I meant is, I think that the moral paradigm of Equality is the real meat of the issue. Its like the central nervous system of all our current “debates” or “issues.” Nearly all of them (at least how they are framed) stem from this value, this cultural moral icon of Equality.

          • Just so. And the manifest inequality of the races, punctuated most forcefully by the disparity between blacks and whites, has driven the Left into a frenzy of anti-whiteness. The AWs cannot eradicate the biological superiority of whites to blacks, so they are working to annihilate whites and the civilization they built. They must remove the offending object at all cost.

  28. that review is one reason, among others that I have no time for “Derb”. For years, he was the NR enforcer. The “Right winger” who would attack other Right wingers. He’s still doing it today and taking shots at Hungary’s leader. He got cancelled by NR, when he strayed too far from the party line. Sads.

  29. “ Unless one can connect biological reality with morality, they exist in two separate domains. The race realists have yet to attempt this connection. ”

    Z-man, I have been under the impression that such is currently the case. Are there not genes, or alleles, that are associated with violent proclivities that have been identified? And are not these alleles more prevalent in certain races than others? Do we not often say that “culture” is downstream from “biology”?

    I’d say that violent behavior in a society which benefits more from cooperative and peaceful behavior is demonstrably immoral.

    • Whew lad. You are very far off point there. For example, the Han do not have a conception of internalized shame from cheating someone – only from being caught and denounced for it. You honor your family if you cheat and get away with it. Is that compatible with “behavior that benefits society is moral?”
      Or more extreme: the Bantu of Africa do not have an indigenous word for “rape.” That is just what happens when a female is alone long enough with one of their males. To them, violating a woman is as worthy of censure as answering the call of nature. Be wary of projecting your morality; the left is correct that we do not share morality with other groups, though the reasons for that are wildly different.

      • Very good post, and I agree will all of it, although I would note that there are two different Leftist schools of thought regarding morality. The first, which you allude to, are the postmodern relativists. And I share their views on morality. What constitutes morality in San Francisco, California is parsecs apart from the moral framework that obtains in Herat, Afghanistan. That we attempt to impose the former on the latter is our folly.

        But there is another, more traditional Leftist morality that believes fully that liberal Western morality is true human morality, and that it must be exported to every corner of the globe under the guise of human rights. These Leftists are the children of the Enlightenment, and they still have power, although they’ve lost all sorts of ground to the pomos and are now in the minority.

      • I’m not talking about Han or Bantu’s. I’m talking about Whites in America, or in general Whites in what we term Northern European built countries. In these enclaves—White enclaves—some behavior proclivities of non-Whites I contend to be immoral as well as biological. Hence the connection Z-man finds lacking.

        I pointed out one small example of findings concerning biological proclivities—not cultural—concerning aggressive and violent behavior as an exemplar.

        I don’t give a rip about how other races operate in their own homelands. I agree morality is culturally based—but also to a large extent, biological in origin. Bantu’s in Bantuland may well consider rape a simple biological release like taking a dump. But that’s not so in America—not yet. And yes, it is morally unacceptable for Bantu’s to rape Whites—whether in America or Africa. That’s my morality and it prevails in my land/people and if not so in Africa, then I will avoid such places in my travels—but I will never excuse it.

  30. The thing about daylight savings time was a (poorly argued) point that the thing measured isn’t the same thing as the unit of measure, and that there’s a dose of arbitrariness in the way in which we measure the thing. So, an hour, which is the unit in which we measure time is not the same thing as an hour’s worth of time.
    However, the measure is not completely arbitrary either because the day is objectively divided first into day and night, which are equal during equinoxes and secondly into time for work, time for leisure and time for sleep, so any division of the time of the day has to be a multiple of 2 and 3 (hence the Jacobin attempt to have a 10hour day failed).
    I think that what EMJ was getting at that race is a concept which we use to categorize people and that there’s a dose of arbitrariness on where you draw the line between races, and because of this dose of arbitrariness and because it is a manmande concept used to categorize people, he declares it FULLY arbitrary and fully manmade and therefore a “category of the mind”. So, he’s essentially committing the Lewontin fallacy.

    • Yep. And there are studies which show the “arbitrariness” is not all that arbitrary, or in other terms “inaccurate”. People seem quite adept at self classification and such self classification has been supported to an astounding degree by statistical follow up analysis.

      But anyway, that there are “klines” has never been denied by HBD science or RR folk, not]r,for that matter does it really make a difference in social decisions, which are to be bas upon “group” or average differences among races.

    • OK. But this whole approach is all rather confusing. The talk of blurred lines and such is fine to a degree. But we know white civilization and it’s yield and we know black civilization and it’s yield. The fruits of both are around us, and it is becoming more and more obvious – without daylight savings time comparisons – where the issues lie.

      All I know is that I like living around whites after my own mind. It’s true there could be blacks of like mind, but why take the chance? Race is the thing that will rip us asunder.

      • And one must always note that whereas the “good one” you know may make a good neighbor, bowling buddy, or Scout Leader, what will his children be like? Think regression to the mean. Best we remain separate as much as possible.

    • I get the impression he argues that point so he can then argue for the conversion of Jews (and everybody else) to the Catholic faith.

      The guy is a Catholic’s Catholic, and that’s fine, but he does seem to let his faith inform his insights rather than the other way around.

      There’s still much of value in what he says, even if he isn’t always its best spokesman.

  31. A far more formidable opponent to have a debate on the Jewish issue would be Andrew Joyce. He won’t be so easy to take apart unlike the more muddled and seemingly unhinged E. Michael Jones. AJ is very well versed on the topic and doesn’t get distracted. Maybe Frodi can ask the Zman and AJ to debate the Jewish issue.

    • The JQ like anything else is also a matter of taste and temperament. Some people just don’t get bothered by them. What can you do? We can debate til we are blue in the face. But one’s temperament isn’t going to change.

      Any debate between Zman and someone like a Joyce is going to come down to Pepsi vs Coke. What made the Jones vs Taylor debate interesting is that Taylor was not prepared for that line of assault and seemed blindsided and knocked off balance. And Jones made it personal and brought it into the mud.

      Any future debate, do you think the the contestants will be prepared for it?

      • I think the JQ goes beyond temperament and taste. For some people the Jewish issue is the central issue which explains the quagmire White peoples find themselves in, while others claim the issue is at best exaggerated and is pushed by cranks and lunatics.
        The debate between Taylor and Jones turned out not to be the central debate in dissident White circles, as the vast majority of White dissidents are firmly convinced of race being real and based in biology, whereas the JQ is a clear fault line dividing dissidents.

        • That’s what I mean by a matter of taste. You can have the likes of our esteemed host and Taylor feeling a bit uneasy in the presence of a rabid Juice hater, though they agree on everything else. They’d simply rather not deal with it.

          It’s definitely a schism on the DR. Probably the only one outside of the optics debate and those of tactics.

          I mean I am far more aligned with Jones on the JQ than either Zman or Taylor, but I agree on pretty much everything else. So it’s a real schism.

          But I am willing to soften my stance on it whereas someone like Jones isn’t. And there again is a matter of temperament

          This is something we will have to figure out or we simply remain splintered

          • I think one of the main problems is characterizing people who question the motives and actions of Jews as “rabid Jew haters” as if there is no rational reason people have to question them. I certainly would not take anyone seriously who referred to people like Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Joyce in such a fashion.

  32. It seems to me that the “Jew thing” is a stumbling block for the race realists as biologically Jews are mullatoes while Ashkenzi DNA appears to be an amalgam of Europe and West Asia (almost no traceable Arab but very close Persian and Armenian DNA, not surprising as the people who became the Jews migrated south from the Caucasus.)

    Okay, here goes… Kevin MacDonald. Even K McD fumbles in trying to find a biological basis to what he deems the Jews’ natural inclination, which they can’t help, to subvert their host people. Even the most virulent of all Western anti-semites, Alfred Rosenberg, characterized the Jews as “rassenschande,” literally race shamers, of no race, the hated mongrel.

    Jared has very good relations with Ilana Mercer whom the anti-semitic nitwits on Unz are forever trashing. Maybe the “Jew thing” will turn out to be a wild goose chase for those so inclined.

    • I remember when these scientists cloned a cat. This was maybe 10-15 years ago.

      Ok, so they cloned this one cat and we’re expecting the clone to perfectly resemble the original cat. However, the coat and fur pattern were entirely different. How could that be if the DNA was the same?

      There is a long way to go before we truly understand how life works. We may never even get there. So expecting DNA and biology codes and forth to explain the entirety of a person or a cat may be wishful thinking. And then there’s the obvious question. Could something or someone who created the entire universe make finding out how he did it so very easy? We can barely make single cell organisms, if we can at all. But imagine we then have what it takes to figure out how the universe was made? We have a very far way to go to solving this riddle.

      • We recently had two goats born, both boys, paternal twins from the same mom/dad, and despite being only a few weeks old they have different personalities. Goats. I’ve brought it up here before but I think we’ll find it depressing how much of our character is determined by our genes which is why I wouldn’t rule out that “Idiosyncrasies” of Jewish behavior could be genetic (which better makes the case of living apart).

        • My guess is there may be varying genetic modes of transport, as it were. There is DNA and perhaps something else we haven’t found yet or that transfers from parents to kids some other way. I’m just speculating, but it may be that DNA is not the only vessel. The fact that a cat’s coat may exist partly outside of the DNA code or partly determined by some other means is pretty interesting to say the least.

          God is not going to make finding out his magic tricks easy

    • In the end Jews will have to make a choice, continue as they are or work to help whites/Europeans, they really only have one option IMO

      • My thoughts too. We can fight them head on, which I think equals losing, or we can do end arounds and win on other fronts where they have to then say which team do I want to be on?

        They are always going to come back to us. But there is a message here that perhaps we can learn from. Might they be telling us we really need to pick up our game ? They need us but drifted away because we were no longer worthy of their parasitism, as it were. Perhaps there is a correlation between the health of white people as a culture and the degree to which the juice decide to sink their teeth into us. Seems they chose to spit us out because we longer fill them up and taste good.

        We have a very odd relationship with them, to say the least

  33. The problem for good entertainment is that race is such a taboo subject in the English speaking world that nobody with a good argument wants to be in a room (real or virtual) with Jared Taylor.

    Still, it hard to argue one point against Jones and that is white is not an identity. There are simply too many diverse white people. White is above ethnicity and ethnicity is where identity comes into play.

    • Whites on the colonial frontier in Pennsylvania were very diverse and didn’t mix, until Indians started to kill them regardless of their original country. At that point, whites started developing “assabiya.”

      • True. Just as “Native Americans” are not one cohesive group. They coalesce around issues of shared interest because of the pressure from outside racial groups, otherwise they have no time for each other.

      • Funny how that happens—when the threat is existential in nature. Question is, when will our “good Whites” again realize this?

        • When it’s too late

          But we also can’t discount that other peculiarity of white peoples. That we like to win at the very last moment, backs against the wall, no way out, chances slim, but lo and behold! We did it. Yay. Let’s go celebrate! Who’s buying?

          • I would say we are already in that position and it is rapidly getting worse and worse.
            Whites in South Africa, though trying to hold on are getting worse and worse by the day.

            We can only hope that the spirit of our ancestors rise to the occasion and reject all the propaganda and we can take our own side.

  34. “the ancients had no concept of race.” – True. Because the dominant tribe in every part of the world mostly killed the outsiders, leaving people who were the same as them. Only in the cities of fleeting empires, with centralized authority was this not the case. How long would a pack of Nubians have lasted in England or Germany thousands or even hundreds of years ago? And vice versa.

    “Unless one can connect biological reality with morality, they exist in two separate domains.” – This is what makes our era unique. They shouldn’t be separate for long, but we’ve had several decades where they certainly are. I believe this only could have happened in a long stretch of peace and plenty which is currently western civilization. When the SNAP program is described to future generations, they’ll marvel at how it could have happened, that the resources were available, and that it was even increased by 25% in the few years before our country became resource constrained, and hungry people quickly returned to biological survivalism.

    • I don’t know about the ignorance wrt race of the ancients. Certainly, there was not the science and descriptive terminology we use today. But when one reads Herodotus, one can’t help but assume he is speaking about what can only be termed various *races*—not just cultures—of the “peoples” he describes. Yes, most of it was simply hearsay from others, but I’m not sure he would consider all those humans as biologically the “same”. But it’s been a very long time since I plowed through his books.

    • The parable of the good Samaritan makes no sense if the ancients did not conceive of different races/ethnicities/nations. Peoples at crossroads knew of race, such as the Egyptians regarding nubians versus Assyrians, Hittite, and minoans.

  35. The point about sub-Saharans being the linchpin of race reality is a good one. Frankly, I don’t hold other non-whites in particular odium, although I’m not altogether keen on Arabs. I feel reasonably comfortable among Hispanics and the vast majority of Orientals, and these people are not, comparatively speaking, aesthetically traumatic. (Diversity is, first and perhaps foremost, is an aesthetic problem.) Sub-Saharans, on the other hand, are a different kettle of catfish. They are, as Z-man states, the outlier of the human family, and not remotely in a good way. I would put it this way: I would rather live in a country that was 70-percent white and 30-percent non-black POC than one that was 85-percent white and 15-percent black.

    • You have not been close enough to mestizos then. They are not like us in any way. Well, at least the more Indian they are. Not to mention Australian Aborigines. They are even worse. Indians (dot) too.

      • I have extensive experience with a mixed black/white/Hispanic neighborhood. I have tenants of all three types. I’ll take the Hispanics over the blacks any day.

        The heavily Indian Mestizo Hispanics tend to be pretty deferential to authority. That makes for sheep-like citizens, but good tenants. It’s hard to say if poor Whites are better than poor Hispanics. Hispanics and cockroaches really are a thing, but I’ve got some White tenant horror stories, too. They’re both much better than blacks.

        • I’d have to second that comment. My berg is majority Hispanic. It is most terrible in that it produces crazy Leftist government and subsequent incompetence. But there are no areas that are off limits to Whites as there would be in any city with a large Black population.

          Not all races are of equal threat to Whites. And as has been mention previously, low class Whites are also a bane in any environment.

          • My father was born in the 30s in a neighborhood in Philadelphia that today is indistinguishable from any neighborhood in South and Central America. It looks like the third world.
            There are things you will find in both black and mestizo neighborhoods you will never find in white neighborhoods. For example, large open-air drug markets. Even in the worst white neighborhoods in Philadelphia, you cannot just walk along the street and buy drugs. You have to know someone to get drugs.

            Mestizos may be better than Africans, but they are still not us. They certainly don’t want us around. They hate us every bit as much as blacks hate us.

          • Tars, no one—not me anyway—argues that they *are* us—just that one needs to distinguish among them. For example, Blacks don’t do well anywhere in large numbers. Hispanic influx in LA has driven Blacks out of their older neighborhoods. They don’t particularly like them either. That can be politically useful, but you won’t get there not understanding differences among the races.

        • You are experiencing a particular subtype of Mestizos(not hispanics, too much European mix in their. There is a reason Mexico is such a violent place. And it is the ones who stay in Mexico running the drugs and immigrants.

      • I’ve lived 47 years in a city that is around 35% Hispanic, and went to a high school that was about 50% Hispanic. And I’ve had Indian friends and been acquainted with many others. I disagree with your assessment, although I know nothing of the Abos. However, like Amerindians, they are such a small group as to be inconsequential.

        • “Hispanics” are AmerIndians. There are many 10s of millions of American Indians still around, they just have Spanish names. Large numbers of Mexicans, for example, are entirely American Indian.

          People get confused by the term “Hispanic” which runs the gauntlet of pure Spaniard to pure Amerindian. So, yes, when you are around pure or near-pure Spaniards, they aren’t bad because they are essentially white Europeans. In Philadelphia, by far the largest “Hispanic” population is Puerto Rican, which has a high percentage of American Indian and even black. Whereas, if you are in Miami, your experience with “Hispanics” is probably near pure Spaniards.

          • I’m not talking about the Indians of Chiapas, or the Chippewa of Michigan who, at any rate, are hardly a factor in AINO. I’m talking about Mestizos, not Indians, and it is Mestizos who are Hispanic.

    • Ostei: I think how one responds to various non-Whites depends on one’s exposure to them. While I never had any particular interest in Oriental culture or history when young, neither did I have any animus towards Asians. After living among them for a few years and then returning to live among them unwillingly back in Numerica, I have strong animus against their mixing with White Western society. And, contra Zman, while they may not bring the irrational savagery that sub-Saharans do, they bring their own sort of social pathologies (which I will not bother to list here).

      Similarly, when I was younger I thought sub-cons and Saris were interesting and exotic. My first mass exposure to their reality was responding to their visa shopping in the Caribbean, and then as a non-favored ‘minority’ in Singapore, and now living amongst them (again, unwillingly) in Texas. While the initial animus results from attitude and behavior and odor, with growing numbers and encounters it extends to physiognomy in every aspect. I think that’s fairly natural, to come to associate a certain appearance with certain alien and unlikable behaviors, and then naturally to conflate the two and automatically find the appearance distasteful.

      • Oh, I readily acknowledge that no race is as physically appealing as whites, and I also do not want to live in a country that isn’t overwhelmingly white, regardless of who the minorities may be. I’m simply stating that, in every respect you care to nominate, blacks are easily the greatest aesthetic blight and are far and away the worst social pests. I wouldn’t find life not worth living in an environment dominated by non-black POC. If I had to live in a society dominated by blacks, OTOH, I’d jump off the Tallahatchee Bridge.

  36. How on earth can you be woke to the JQ but then deny basic racial differences? I thought they were a package deal.

    • Mr. Generic: Excellent point. While one can play about with terms like ethny or culture, the underlying biological reality does show basic genetic differences, albeit with some overlap. The Juice certainly considered (and still consider) themselves a separate race – that was the entire reason they began their campaign to label race a social construct – to recast White Europeans’ natural identification of ‘the other’ as ‘other’ as a pathological and malicious and learned cultural behavior. I think Z elides that point when he criticizes others’ ‘obsession’ with “the Jew thing.”

      • Genetically, Ashkenazim are 70 to 75% European and 20 to 25% Semitic. The Semitic component is significant enough to classify them as a distinct race or as a mixed-race people.

      • Actually, I think they classify themselves as ‘a nation.’ That is from the teaching of the Old Testament. For Torah Jews that’s very important. For Talmudic Jews, it’s a convenience.

      • That race is a social construct is only something white people believe. when I point this little fact out to normies they protest hard, but then I ask, do blacks believe race is a social contstruct ? do the Chinese ? do Indians ? do Jews believe it, ha ha not a chance, they push the idea hard, but its obvious they don’t believe it, I mean look at Jared Diamond, he writes Guns, Steal and Germs to push the usual agenda, but then he says genetic testing is great because “we can now tell who is really Jewish” but Jared its all a social construct

    • Where one stands on the JQ is something of a status and class signifier even on the DR. From my perspective, I see it taking on various forms. It’s Ellis island vs old America. Catholic vs Episcopalian. City vs suburb. Public school vs private school. Working class vs upper class.

      But perhaps most importantly, average IQ vs above average IQ.

      And all of the pretenses and aspirations thereto.

    • Because Jews are a religion and ethnicity. Jones can view them through the prism of religion and ignore race (and others can do the opposite if they so choose). Because of the intertwining of religion and ethnicity, Jews act as a Rorschach test of sorts for cultural analysts.

  37. According to some sources, Jones is a sedevacantist Catholic. I can’t verify this.

    They tend to be very much into conspiracy theories in general and especially ones involving Jews. They are schismatic Catholics.

    • He’s a throwback and really nothing more

      His Catholicism is what I grew up with. The Great Debate was the first time I’d ever heard of him or listened to him, and I kept feeling like I was 9 years old again in CCD. At first I thought he was a crank, but then I caught on to his game.

      He is a classicist and a man of the letters and arts. For him there is a duality. Even his approach to the debate was a deliberate contrast in forms. It was part education through performance art, to juxtapose passion against reason to bring home a larger philosophical point of man’s duality. He simply used an unwitting Taylor, who thought he showed up for a debate, as his stage prop. It was quite brilliant.

    • Jones is a sedevacantist Catholic

      Not true. He’s a defender of Francis’ jihad against the Old Rite Mass. That wouldn’t be the case if he thought Francis was not the Pope.

  38. Didn’t see the debate, but Jones has a point.

    “White” is a social construct, created in the US.
    Originally, it was limited to people from England and northwestern Europe. Irish weren’t exactly white and Southern and East Europeans definitely weren’t white at all.

    Then iit began to expand. First Celtic people’s were added to white – so Irish and French and Spanish people came in. Then south Europeans and Slaves. Later still Caucasian people’s like Turks and Armenians and Georgians.

    Since the civil rights era, the concept has begun to contract. As being white has costs and being a pox has benefits.

    So Armenians and Arabs are now pocs where they once were white. And “Hispanics” who include many mostly white mestizo are their own thing – which makes no sense at all. And what about Persians? Are they white or not white? What about the Tribes in Afghanistan and Central Asia? Most people include DRs consider them brown – despite looking more European than Russians do. What about Turks? White or not.

    • People of European descent have a distinct genetic composition, which separates them clearly from Asians and even more so from Africans. The fact that definitions of white have varied in their relationship to biological reality doesn’t confute the reality of whiteness.

      PS–I’ve heard very little discussion one way or the other regarding whether Turks, Armenians, Georgians, Persians and Afghans are white. If there is an overwhelming genetic overlap of these people with Europeans, then they are white, although I highly doubt that’s the case.

      Latin Americans who are sufficiently Castilian–think Cubanos, in particular–are white. Being white and living in Latin America does not negate one’s whiteness.

      And I’ve never heard Arabs referred to as white.

      • People of European descent have a distinct genetic composition, which separates them clearly from Asians…

        So Turks, Persians, Armenians etc. are out.

        Doe that mean Hungarians and Bulgarians are out too?

        What about Russians – they’re as mixed race as Latin American meztizos.

        What about Greeks and Italians and Spanish? All are highly mixed.

        • The Hungarians and Finns do have Asiatic origins, but they’ve been in Europe for so long that, de facto, they are white. These peoples are ideographic rather than nomothetic, however.

          Russians, Greeks, southern Italians and Spaniards certainly have an Asiatic tincture, but are nowhere near as miscegenated as Hispanics or even Ashkenazim. They are certainly white.

      • “ Being white and living in Latin America does not negate one’s whiteness.”

        Hell, it even dictates your position in that society—as it does in the rest of the world. The more European your countenance (caste) the better off you are.

        • Yes. And I hear tell Mexico even has a burgeoning anti-white supremacist movement all its very own. As savages stream across our southern border we exchange them for intellectual barbarism.

      • Well it all depends on how you define Arabs, Nassim Taleb is from the Lebanon and he speaks Arabic, but drop him in almost any country on the Mediterranean and he could pass as one of the locals, take a close look at Bashar al Assad you will notice that he has blue eyes, not exactly an Arab trait

        I’d consider Persians as white, Armenians and Georgians too, if Iranians were Christians I suspect most people would class them as white, a few years back the Irish footballer Roy Keane grew a beard and in some pictures from certain angles he looked just like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, its a bit like Jared Taylor talking about the Mexican Supreme Court, “they all look like white people to me”

        True Arabs are the Saudis and people closest to them

    • The provenance—and purpose—of that “everybody knows” idea about white people, that Irish, Italians, et al. were ever considered non-white in America, should be of special interest to JQ enthusiasts.

      They were “ethnic Catholics.” (When’s the last time you heard that phrase? Why is it gone?) The KKK, the WASPs whose W still meant “wealthy” (remember that one, too?), and local rival ethnics often did exclude Poles, etc., but not from “white.”

      Noel Ignatiev, inventor of current_year Whiteness®, enemy of all that’s true and just in this world, made that shit up. And nobody repeats it more often and with more conviction than the JQ right.

      Is it ironic or is it telling?

  39. I plan to listen in full later, but a criticism of John Derbyshire’s review is in order. While he nailed the primary problem with MacDonald’s theory–a genetic basis for political behavior, he concluded with what is little more than NAXALT, to wit, he had Juish neighbors as a child in England and they were wonderful people. Now, imagine someone attacking HBD on the basis of they have black friends who are wonderful people. How would Derbyshire respond? Exactly as he should.

    I’m agnostic on MacDonald but his work with wolves and evolutionary behavior was solid. Further, his analysis of Juish behavior in opposition to Whites, save the question of whether it has a genetic basis, is spot on.

    Anyhow, more after listening later.

    • After 200 generations of focused inbreeding to select for certain traits, a genetic basis for political behavior is baked into the cake.

      To infer that politics, which demand group action above all, are not culture- which springs from biology- is ludicrous. “Identity politics” is not a social construct.

  40. Isn’t there some genetic market that all non African humans share?

    If a biologist were considering some other animals with similar genetics they would say that it evolved in African, and then a sub species migrated out and further split into more sub species, But the African and Non African lineages were the great divide.

    • Taylor presented a genetic groupings image that pretty much showed that, with blacks all by their lonesome on the one side of the page. Everyone else was on the complete other side of the page and strung loosely together top to bottom. I had to laugh, it is kinda funny. But it’s something I have seen myself in just everyday comings and goings. Every race, to put it bluntly, doesn’t exactly like blacks, they are just weird and foreign. But everyone else can find ways to get along with everyone else. When I go this one market you see this very clearly. We have Russians, Armenians, Mexicans, whites, and whatever else, and there are the blacks all alone with no one wanting to be around them pushing their carts through the store. And blacks know this, and they double down on their isolation by being obnoxious. It’s their way of saying, I don’t care what you think of me, and to prove it I will just ruin your day. Last time I was there a black lady was screaming at some old Russian guy to go back to his country.

    • Every human outside of sub-Saharan Negroes have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.

      “The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background. The percentage of Denisovan DNA is highest in the Melanesian population (4 to 6 percent), lower in other Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander populations, and very low or undetectable elsewhere in the world…”
      They literally are a different species.

      • Every human outside of sub-Saharan Negroes have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.

        That’s a supposition.

        I’m referring to a specific variation of mitochondrial dna that is verifiable in every human being.

  41. Well it’s not just the Joos either. All The Usual Suspects have fan clubs with kids like Jones. Go over to Jim’s Blog, and he’ll tell you that all women childish, vindictive, hysterical, unfaithful – and that they are all secretly turned on by S&M, and testosterone fuelled he-men like Jim himself – who rules his woman with an iron fist. There was even some vibrant pakie that worked for the CBC that got into trouble for beating his girlfriend up – and Jim held that guy up as the picture of the modern patriarch. It was hilarious the way he and his cellar dwelling incels went on about women. I made the mistake of saying my wife was nothing like these awful women they contended with, and nor were any of the ladies at our church. They got all bent about it and told me that All Women Are Like That and accused me of being a white knight and a male feminist, HAR HAR HAR! I found myself arguing with guys that obviously lived in a trailer park, or had gone through humiliating divorces, and outright intellectual derelicts … and you end up insulting your own intelligence by arguing with them. Most of them had never had a relationship with a quality woman and had no basis to argue from – any debate would be a waste of time. It’s sad because women of worth will see that in them and avoid them at all costs.

    • A general truth like “women are attracted to masculinity” gets turned into “all women want to be raped by an AK-47 wielding Afghan warlord” through the magic of Jim.

    • Who’s Jim?


      He’s kind of a character but looks like a toe or penis. I can’t decide which.

      He needs a better camera at least to give his head some needed three dimensionality. That cheap go-pro thing he’s got is not doing him any favors.

      • He was the one in Dlive chat hurling childish insults. Mr. Bowtie the senile guy and such.

      • “Jim” is the proprietor of “Jim’s Blog” which is popular with a particular group of neoreactionaries. They are probably more focused on the “woman question” than on the JQ or on race.

  42. I hope where one falls on the spectrum of the Thing doesn’t become a form of DR virtue signaling.

    I get it, we are trying to market in a positive direction, but it’s not working. One thing that became apparent in the debate, and something even Taylor seemed to concede the day after, is that “whiteness” has largely become what Z would refer to as the stick. It gets thrown and a bunch of white guys go running after it like dogs. Jones had a very important point, partly buried away in his mad hatter routine, but that the very concept of whiteness is something defined by our enemies. It’s a stick they fashioned and throw.

    Greg Johnson to his credit took this up. He says, fine, let them define who we are, we will fight them on this battlefield of their choosing. That’s a reasonable response and one we can debate.

    Jones is suggesting simply another tactical move, that we break into smaller more solid groupings and come at the enemy from multiple directions. He’s an old ethnic, and the reality is that whether we like it or not there are self-Identifying traits that simply loom larger in a person’s life and stir the passions than does something as broad and generic as “white”. Even Johnson and Goad realized this. If you want to stir a persons passions and get him motivated, whiteness doesn’t work, and that was tangentially Jones’ point. However, being a proud southerner does, or a proud Pole, or an Irish Townie. Or even being a Catholic. That hits people at the gut level, and they will fight you over it. Will anyone fight you over “whiteness”? Not that I have ever seen.

    Maybe lost in all of the bombast was simply the suggestion that “white” isn’t working as far as getting people motivated, angry, riled up, committed to a cause. On one hand it’s a term invented by and exploited by the enemy,. Yes of course, it has been used in laws and so forth for over a hundred years as Taylor argued, but that accounts for a slice of its usage. No denying that “white” today has largely been co-opted by our opponents and for all intents and purposes was turned into THEIR stick. They are the ones throwing it around, and we are the ones chasing it. There is no denying that.

    The Thing at this point is largely a distraction. I see a synthesis of the Taylor and Jones positions as perhaps something worth trying. We say this is a war but we don’t act like it. A war effort is hard work. If we want to get whites unified, we have to start by breaking them down into groups that matter. Rile up the Irish one way, the Italians another, the southerners another. Etc etc. and someone has to get out there and start the door to door work and hustle.

    In short, we have to build a coalition of different groups. I know I know that’s hard work and it goes against the very concept of the broad category of whiteness. Yes, wouldn’t it be great and easy if everyone came together under the banner of being white? The world is telling us in no uncertain terms that it motivates some. But not all, and the others need to be brought into the fold as coalitions.

    A lot of this will start happening organically, and in a time of crisis, yes the various factions of whiteness will find immediate brotherhood with other whites. We all know that. I lived through hurricanes where in a time of crisis all whites come out of their homes and meet in the street and bond together in a loosely coordinated repair effort.

    So I guess the question is do we do the hard work of building coalitions now or do we wait for the crisis to force everyone into each other’s laps?

    As for the Thing, yes, we all know it’s a problem, but there are ways to win by going around them. Coalitions for example,. They simply can’t get all of their pets focused on the various multiple groups coming at them all at the same time. It will be hitting them from so many directions they won’t know who to focus their hate on. Imagine trying to get blacks focused on obscure groups of identification? Here comes Team Lithuania, and you get only blank stares. But if we come at them as “whites” that makes their job easy. That’s one big blob to focus on. And that’s something we have to think about.

    • Of all of the replies here I find yours the most cogent. If you want to look at this debate as either or , you will miss the good points. Whiteness when really examined is like you say not enough motivate. Coalitions work much better, aske the Left. I am with the Euros with much of this but make no mistake if ever things were not so bad they would go back the ugly crude American meme.

      I know people who have lived among Swedes and Finns and believe me this alliance goes so far. We are discarded euro trash to them when all is said and done. Right Felix?

    • Most Whites, IMHO, don’t dwell on race–and some of us view racial identity as so primitive as to be repugnant. Most of us identify by ethnic heritage, sex, generation, religion, region, or even the cities we live in. I believe that Taylor is of Scots-Irish background–the Other, Protestant, Ulster Irish. While I admire them as an ethnic group, they strike me as the least-ethnically-conscious group in the U.S. When I worked in the Austin/San Antonio area, the Cervenkas, Kubiaks and Kubiceks in the area identified as Czechs, whereas the McNeils, McMasters and Fergusons viewed themselves as “White.” Thus I believe that Taylor’s pursuit of “White Identity” has limited positive due to the above divisions, and unlimited potential for mischief for our Leftist enemies. “White Identity” is likely to be reactive, thrust upon us by a largely, gerontocratic Left that cynically uses crude Identitarianism to marginalize White males of all generations (not to mention their wives and kids). I can only hope that Whites, male and female, from my fellow geezers to the emerging Generation Z, get the message: They. Hate. Us. And act accordingly.

      • I tend to agree, but it seems to me these Whites that feel repugnance toward race realism don’t practice what they preach—and perhaps that’s all that’s needed to advance the cause, but you need to be subtle when working with them.

      • Why is racial identity crude, yet ethnic identity is not? Whites are being attacked qua whites, not because we’re Czech, Scottish or French. So, crude or not, we’d be well advised to rally together as the race we are and work toward our own interests.

    • Mr. Falcone,

      Excellent comment.

      The issue is unless you retreat into an ethnic ghetto, your children will continue down the road of multi-cultural American mush. The Italian/ Irish/ Pole / Lithianian race-riot refugees living in the Chicago ‘burbs are not a fit counter measure to Globohomo. Lithuanian/Italian or Greek/Irish hybrids may have a lower mutational load (and higher orthodontist bills), but they make themselves that more prone to exploitation by focused tribes.

      Of equal concern is how to get past a genetic predisposition to bug out? All of my ancestors were the guys who said “f#@! that, I’m leaving”.

      • I hear ya. My “vision” as it were is basically a war effort. It may not be practical or realistic.

        But it would entail basically leaders from various communities or coalitions joining together in an alliance.

        I mean, our enemies sort of have us where they want us. The American program in general, the melting pot, may have been devised for this very purpose, to mix people up ethnically (Heinz 57) so they can’t find ways to coalesce at the gut level. But you will find that the old ethnic neighborhoods, though smaller, still have that sense of cohesion and will stick together.

        I get where the advocates of whiteness are coming from. They are trying to find a way to gather all the tribes under a single banner. Is that realistic? I don’t know, but the very nervousness Johnson showed tells me, deep down, he is not very confident in the workability of his project. He truly seemed scared and threatened and jumped into damage control mode.

        I guess, bottom line, is that it is may take an existential crisis — a crucible — to get whites to coalesce. But at least in the meantime we can do the very basic work of forming communities. I will not stop moving in that direction, despite any fears Johnson shows for his hobbyhorse needing some adjustments and repairs.

    • As Greeks, we always understood the concept of whiteness to be a very Anglo word for an Anglo world. Hence if you were to tell us to fight for the “Whites”, we would shrug our shoulders and move on. If you told us to fight for the Hellenic world, however, we understand that very well. The same for an Ethiopian as well. They won’t fight for “Blacks”, but they will fight for Abyssinians. The race realists as far as I can tell can’t seem to understand the concepts of ethnos.

  43. Jones did not come across as a nice person.
    Jones was up against a true gentleman who presented a well researched case.
    Jones was like the leftist school marm barking at the kids in class incoherently only about Jews. There really are problems with Jewish power in modern society but it’s not just the Jewish power that is the issue, there are other factors including the perversion of Christianity or some might say that Christianity’s natural universalism is part of our civilizational problem.
    I am a Christian who believes in the merits of the biological racial differences argument, I have no problem believing in the biology of racial differences and believing in Christianity.
    I just wish we had better spokesmen than Jones.

    • I kept thinking about being trapped in a room with the guy. My goodness. You quickly understand why animals gnaw off a limb to get free of a trap.

      • He’s definitely found a home at, among the Haxos and Ultrafarts and other inmates at what seems like an online asylum (no sharp objects around, I guess). It’s definitely an eclectic site, but I wonder how comfortable Steve Sailer and Bertie Woostershire feel amongst the fulminators–columnists and commentariat alike.

    • I have seen enough of Jones to know that as far as personal / people skills go, he has none. Inconsiderate to those close to him. Gottfried got banished early on but remained jovial but time and resentment may have had something of an effect on Jones. Saying that, he’s not crazy, senile or any of the other slams midwits attribute to him.

      • His scholarship is very impressive, and it did in fact make him the more impressive figure. The debate was something of a renowned classical scholar versus a magazine journalist, and though Taylor had the better presentation he did not measure up to Jones in terms of the pure power of personality. Jones also dictated the tempo. He had Taylor running after him rather than the other way around, which is why I say he won the street fight but not the debate. There were shades of Trump vs Cruz.

        That’s my honest take. I also think Taylor has got to stop that stupid self-satisfied smirk. I was glad to hear that even Sam Dickson, in the day after wrap up and damage control, had told Taylor he can’t do that.

        Why do I say damage control? I hate to say it, but Jones’ real sin was daring to question the legitimacy of the term whiteness itself. It was almost as if Johnson could see his entire project crumbling before his eyes and had to rush out and put out the fires and do some damage control, and Goad rushed in to join him. There’s no denying that is how it came off. And then the next day they had to bring back Taylor to rehabilitate his image because they all know Jones bloodied him up pretty good. And that they did so without Jones there to defend himself did not shine well on them. It was very high school-ish. It was not manly in the slightest.

        And that again is the real sin. Jones had simply outclassed them all, and though their ideas are better, they were shown to be not quite ready for prime time. That is the big takeaway. And I hope they learn from it. But the high school antics have got to go. There is more than one way to do “bad optics,” and ganging up on a guy not there to defend himself is bad optics. Again, just being honest. And I hope constructive.

          • I have no idea what that means, Zman

            I later listened to various podcasts with Jones. Again, I had never before heard of him, but there is no denying his erudition and scholarship. Taylor, for all his skills and so forth, is not in the same league. And that showed, whether you or anyone wants to admit it or not. Would YOU get into a debate with Jones on topics of Greek history, as an example? Do you feel confident enough in your scholarship to go against him?

            I sure as shit wouldn’t. But I’d fight him on areas I know well, and what he did was shift the terms of the debate to his advantage and Taylor had no answer for it. And Frodi seemed lost reading comments while the thing was going off the rails, but it was great entertainment.

            At the end of the day, Jones is the kind of guy who brings people into the tent. He’s a very good performer. We need people like him.

            Again, we need people like him. We need some variety. Some fire in the belly. He is GOOD for our side. Johnson is wrong thinking he needs to banish him. But people are people, and it’s a turf war at this point.

        • On a personal level I can deal with Jones and his personality much more than Taylor. Jared does come off as condescending and a bit phony. I get it, his pedigree, Yale education and such have some to do with it. Taylor still has balls though and I respect him highly for what he has endured.

          I do understand Irish Catholics very well which leads me understand where Jones distinctions come from.

    • Jones would say the problems in Christianity is the influence of Jews.
      ANd its true. Jews did inspire a lot of heresy

  44. Z, you mentioned in your Sunday Thoughts podcast that a good debate is often between two people who are generally on the side but have some differences. I agree. Two people with diametrically opposed worldviews have a hard time finding enough common ground to have an actual debate.

    With that in mind, I’d love to see a debate (actually, a bit of a re-match) between Taylor and Steve Sailer. (Or between you and Sailer.) Both are race realists but from that starting point, they diverge on where to go. Taylor lands on white identity/ethno-nationalism as the way out while Sailer continues to believe in Citizenism, which, very interestingly, is a synthesis of colorblind civic nationalism and HBD-aware.

    About ten years ago, they had a back-and-forth on paper with Sailer concluding that Citizenism had the best chance with average whites and thus was the best course. (Sailer was cagey about whether he would prefer Citizenism over white identity if he thought that they had an equal chance.)

    Anyway, it’d be a very interesting debate, especially given how colorblind civic nationalism has failed. I’m not sure how Sailer would defend Citizenism given its track record, but it’d be fun to see him try.

    • I don’t know if Sailer would do it or if he would be good at it. He seems to avoid interacting with anyone outside oft he HBD people in twitter. IIRC, he refused an invite to AmRen because he did not want to be associated with that scene. That’s his choice and I am sympathetic to people who fear guilt by association. Sadly, a lot of “our guys” turn out to be unbalanced trouble makers who take pleasure in dirtying up people trying to reach a broader audience. The old crabs in a bucket phenomenon.

      • I agree that Sailer seems nervous about being “tarred” by associating with certain groups. Despite sticking to his HBD aware guns, Sailer still seems to want the approval of the establishment pundit class and a place like AmRen would definitely close that door. (Murray is the same way.)

        Honestly, I don’t understand why Sailer cares, but even if he does, he has to know that they’ll acknowledge him, certainly not now.

        Regardless, his Citizenism is probably the closest thing to an alternative that our side could imagine working. It’s mostly a race-aware America First strategy.

        Citizenism is Steve’s great answer to our situation; he should defend it.

        • Sorry, meant to say that the establishment would never acknowledge, much less approve, of Sailer.

        • Steve Sailer really can’t defend his citizenism/civic nationalism. I’m not saying it’s because he’s not smart enough. If anyone could do it, Sailer could.

          You (Citizen of a Silly Country) and, to some extent, one or two others regularly point out the failings of Sailer’s civic nationalism in the comments section to his blog. Neither Sailer nor his acolytes in the comment section ever really address your points. It’s more or less a one-sided debate.

          I think that Sailer somehow understands the failure of his beliefs to hold up to reality. But the alternative is too horrible for him to contemplate. So, he just ignores the issue.

          • Yeah, I also don’t think that anyone can defend Citizenism very well. It’s a failed policy at this point (Trump was its last hope) and that’s very clear.

            Steve genuinely seems to be a very nice guy. He also really enjoyed his childhood and younger years in California.

            I think that makes it very hard for him to come to grips with 1) our elites really hate us and want us dead and 2) we are never going back to the old America and need to break this country apart.

            However, I’m not going to lie, Sailer’s unwillingness to face the current realities of the world and to hide behind clever snark piss me off. Sailer is a very clever guy. We could use his insights. The Sailer Strategy for getting a Republican – which Trump used – was great. Maybe he could think of a Sailer Strategy for saving whites.

          • There is some confusion as to what Sailer means by citizenism. My understanding is that he limits it to immigration. The government should base policy on what is good for the current citizens, even when it comes at the expense of prospective citizens. This is a easily defensible position within the liberal tradition. The trouble is it is limited by the language it employs. Who decides what is beneficial to the current citizens? The open borders people simply assume open borders is good for everyone.

          • Z, that’s why I like ethno-nationalism. It’s moral and practical all at once. It’s also simple which means everyone can understand it and difficult to manipulate.

            Why can’t this guy come into the country?

            Because he’s not one of our people.

            Japan for the Japanese, so to speak. The moral argument is that the Japanese have a right to exist and continue as a people. It’s also practical in that we can look at the guy and know he’s not Japanese. There’s not much to debate or define.

          • Who decides what is beneficial to the current citizens?

            PJBuchanan’s position was that immigrants must be culturally compatible with this country. And that, in his formulation, meant that immigrants must be of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. (Let’s not quibble over that term yet..)

            That earned him the disgust and derision of the Globaloney Crowd, but that’s because they insist-stupidly–that religion is irrelevant.

            You’d think that by now they’d have learned something about Mohammadans, but it’s not THEIR children who are in combat.

        • I don’t blame him for not wanting to be smeared as one the cretins allegedly on our side. But the desire to please lefty and remain in his good graces is a habit people really need to shake. The only way to remain in lefty’s good graces is to abandon every position that differentiates you from them. They have a zero tolerance policy, at least for anything important to them. You can argue about the top marginal tax rate or about “illegal” immigration, but you really cannot touch the progressive narrative in anything but praise or to take even further.

          • “But the desire to please lefty and remain in his good graces is a habit people really need to shake.”

            Yes. This is an attitude still held by many who ought to know better. But ‘acceptance by lefty’ is one helluva drug.

            ” The only way to remain in lefty’s good graces is to abandon every position that differentiates you from them.”

            This is becoming harder to do now, at least in my opinion, for normal people. It is hard to not observe the looks of disgust on normie’s face when ‘tranny story hour’, ‘normalization of homosexuality’ and other deviancy is pushed. Problem is, many see the problem and are disgusted by it, but still send little Timmy to be educated by people who hate him and his family.

            But the last year’s overreach has made it quite easy to call lefty out on a number of things. It’s just that the platforms we have are not big enough – which is why we have to preach to every man on the ground who is worth it.

            For the rest? To hell with them.

          • I don’t know if they’re trying to remain in the lefts good graces per se. It’s really hard to influence policy makers if they dismiss you out of hand. On the other hand, if they are committed to an insane cause, they are beyond influence so who cares if you can speak to them…

      • Sailer has said he supports affirmative action for descendants of slaves. Sort of as a price to pay for our original sin. His idea is to limit it JUST to American blacks.

    • I’ve reached the conclusion that iSteve is a basically decent guy who has toiled in semi-obscurity for years.

      He is a product of a very specific time and place.

      I think his unfortunate perspective on Beer Flu is driven by his personal battle with cancer.

      Those things are not going to change.

  45. I was bummed that they didn’t publish the after panel recording with Z on it.? Has anybody found a third party recording? I’ve heard comments along the lines that Jones came for a street fight whilst Taylor prepared for a college debate. Rings true. I am sympathetic to the argument that blacks, and their deficiencies, are less problematical than our elites who hate us. Ex. When blacks invariably fall short academically the only explanation can be white racism. Blacks, on their own, wouldn’t come up with this particular libel, or make stick.

    I guess it arguable the extent Jewish animosity to goys drives the above societal subversion. It was a goy that came up with white privilege. Of course there also Marx and Derrida to answer for hehe.

    • A critique, if I may.

      One of the great successes Leftie has had over us is marketing. He can sum up his morality, his virtue, his motivations, his desires for a better tomorrow AND shut down any possible disagreement or rebuttal – and put it on a bumper sticker.

      We have scholars doing 4 hour presentations complete with infighting, lunatic guest speakers, jargon, inside jokes, you name it. Even if it IS top notch material, I don’t have 4 hours to spare, never mind Normie who has a full time job, kids, and other hobbies of his own. If brevity is the soul of wit, Leftie has the better of us.

      Your presentation style is impeccable, Z. Could you devote some time to perhaps host a debate show/guest speaker of your own? And present it in a businesslike fashion? It might give these guys something to work with? Unscripted chat shows are fine for dissident insiders and big wheels… but they will not appeal to normies and yesterday men.

      • This is my beef with Rollo Tomassi over at the Rational Male.

        He makes good points, but he could easily edit down his podcasts to 30-45 minutes to make his points because there is so much redundancy and empty filler in his typical 3+ hour runtime.

        He insists that he needs the 3+ hours.

        I think he’d grow his subscriber base tremendously if he abbreviated his podcasts.

        • Agreed.

          For me, I’m sorry, but it’s 30 minutes, tops. For a cracking good writer and content creator… maybe an hour. Any more than that… welp, I gotta life. I have chores, I have errands, commitments and deadlines like everyone else – and a 3~4 hour show filled with prattling and banter is a time sink I cannot afford. You have to earn people’s time and too many would-be speakers and voices don’t get that.

  46. The best answer – at least to me – to the “race is a social construct” line has always been the example of dog breeds.

    Dog breeds are, of course, social constructs. But that doesn’t make their differences less real.

    Same with colors. We decided to call a certain wave length that our eyes pick up as the color red. Why the name “red?” Where does red end and orange begin? Hard to say, which means that the color red is definitely a social construct, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

    Normies seem to understand this and gets them to accept racial differences in the the same. Now, as to the moral question of why whites should continue to exist as a people, that’s another issue. But you can’t get to that issue until you get Joe Normie to accept that there are different races and that’s okay to believe.

    • I call it the curse of the midwit. The midwit hears something that seems “complex” and think that if they associate with it, they must be smart (because smart people deal with complexity of course). To the midwit, the most convoluted answer must necessarily always be the correct answer. Its even better if that answer “bucks” tradition and long held beliefs. All of this of course leads them into all sorts of problems. They often ignore the simple truth as it slaps them in the face.

      They haven’t even thought about the basic ideas of linguistics or epistemology. So you need to break it down simply for them:
      “You agree that a tree exists irregardless of humanity, society? Yes. It springs from the ground naturally.
      Words of course are not organic, they do not spring from the ground naturally. So the word “tree” is inorganic, it is a human/social construct. Does this fact diminish the object the word “tree” refers to? Of course not! It doesn’t lose any of its reality, its authenticity because we created a word for it.
      It is the same with race. The word, the term, the concept is a human construct. Our relationship with it has a history that has undergone change etc. However, at its core, the word describes a biological fact. It is simply foolish to try to talk yourself out of it.

      Lebron James and his wife aren’t going to make love and produce an Asian child… that’s race realism.”

      • Yeah, I don’t try to push it too far with people, but everything that has a word attached to it is a social construct. Why did we use the word “table” to describe this thing. Does a table have to have four legs. Can it have three and still be a table.

        That object is called der Tisch in German. The fact that an American doesn’t know what Tisch means doesn’t mean that the table doesn’t exist.

        The fact that something is a social construct doesn’t make it less real.

      • Ah. And you, no doubt, are the poor beleaguered MENSA intellectual, Reynard? Cursed by your scintillating intellect? Good heavens.

        If our enemies were lumpen morons, they wouldn’t be giving us the thrashing we are getting. We would own the public places, the institutions and industry. That blithering ignoramus, Vox Day, for all his vaunted intellect – gets banned from every social space he shows up in, is hated and despised by at least 50% of the people that would otherwise agree with him, and has been reduced to making his living by hussling bad SF and second rate comic books. Let us dispense with this fake intellectual imposture and get on with the game.

        Above I mildly rebuked our esteemed blog host for the dismal lack of marketing by the Dissident Right. Leftie can sell his politics, philosophies, virtues, and strengths on a bumper sticker. Our guys are doing 4 hour podcasts with unlikable antisemitic lunatics. Our presentations must be like the Friday Power Hour: prepared, carefully assembled and articulated in a businesslike fashion. I am a “midwit” and the only reason I was able to make it over the Great Divide was that the men here slowed down, shifted gears, and took the time to explain things to me in a friendly, patient manner. I was not treated as a child or an idiot and nor should I have been. There are millions of men like me out there that have pieces of the DR foundation, but not all of it. The trick today is to shore up their foundations and give them what they need to make the leap as easy as possible for them.

        The coming culture wars are ours to lose. We need to remember that.

        • I wasn’t trying to offend, and I’m not claiming to be a galaxy-brained misunderstood genius. I don’t use the term “midwit” to mean someone of middling or average intelligence. Its mainly about the people who only value opinions based on how smart they think it will make them appear. Maybe I should change my term.

          “If our enemies were lumpen morons, they wouldn’t be giving us the thrashing we are getting.”

          Yeah I agree with that. The comment I made (“tree” etc.) is one I’ve brought up with normal people during discussion. Nothing like a major debate against the top brass.

          I accept that most argumentation on these topics is pointless no matter who you are speaking with. I have tried to make my major argument clear on here before: all that really matters in all of this is propaganda and the broader cultural narrative–basically the moral fairy tales we/the masses tell ourselves. All else is a chasing after the wind. Until there is a new moral fairy tale, nothing will change.

          “I am a “midwit” and the only reason I was able to make it over the Great Divide was that the men here slowed down, shifted gears, and took the time to explain things to me in a friendly, patient manner. I was not treated as a child or an idiot and nor should I have been.”

          I too appreciate this type of discussion, and value this board very much for just this reason. I hope I’m not coming off as arrogant.

          • There has to be another element within the definition of “midwit”—other than IQ.

            I agree with your definition and your repeated description of “midwittery”, which seems a bit clearer/more understandable than Dutton’s. However, I don’t perceive many—if any—midwits in this group, albeit I bet we are not the high IQ bunch touted as to be beyond midwittery by Dutton. 😉

        • If my comment seemed offensive because of how simple it was, I really think sometimes we really do need to just break things down to their simplest components. In my experience, really, alot of people need it to be broken down to that type of discussion.

          Most discussion on these topics gets lost in the clouds of specific terminology, etc. The “race doesn’t exist” argument is essentially just a semantical word-game. They have just rewritten the definition of race, moved the goal posts and created an unrealistic burden of proof. So I find it useful to bring the topic back down to its simplest elements.

          • Indeed. Keeping it simple is really a must. Thus, if you’re really serious about ‘converting’ someone, terse yet jarring sentences are the way to go. Maybe a parable if you’ve got the time, Christ was quite good at that.

            To be honest, if you know a chap who is on the level and probably just needs a nudge, then coming outright and saying certain things is very helpful. Anti-white is a brilliant term for this because it captures how many actually feel.

            And it is all about ‘teh feeelz’.

      • Right, also Justice, or courage. Are they “categories of the mind? ” Well, yes. Do they exist? Plato thinks so.

    • Climates are “social constructs” (things that we give names and categorization to). There are differences between humid tropical and polar desert that matter.

    • I would just point to how unhappy blacks are. And, since they are equal in all ways to Whites, they should be able to build their own civiliation ON THEIR OWN!

    • Dog breeds is a good one. We speak here about the aspect of race and it’s connection to behavior—or whether there is even a connection. Well, I don’t know any dog owner that will not readily confess to/describe dog breeds in terms of innate behavior. Some dogs smart, some dumb, some natural hunters or herders, some friendly some aggressive, etc. Yet, all breeds can mate with each other and often are crossbred in order to express/combine such behaviors.

      And so it is with people.

    • “Dog breeds are, of course, social constructs. But that doesn’t make their differences less real.”

      And their differences don’t need to be a source of conflict between them. I say this as someone who owns dogs of different breeds. They live together pretty well, with minimal conflict. Of course, this is possible when you have a strong master and a clear hierarchy, so maybe the issue isn’t breeds but leadership…

  47. Being someone who has on a random occasion met Jones personally, it’s not surprising the debate went as it did.

    I actually a book of his, “The Slaughter of Cities”, which interestingly enough, had very little on Jews and was a very normie friendly book on blacks used as bio-weapons against ethnic communities. Getting into the discussion of the book, he quickly started deviating on a tangent with my apolitical normie wife about (((you know who))), which I had to intervene on. Once his wife came to his side, he started talking more like a normal person, which just shows how having a good wife is important to keep a lot of men grounded.

    Jones is a smart guy, but tries to be too clever by half, and is a total sperg. His good ideas get lost in strange argumentation styles and chaotic thought processes that are hard to follow. You see this largely in his debate, but in his books too. Given Jones’ attack of Marx and Hegel in his most recent book, I’m not sure he even realizes how many of his points in the debate he conceded to these two without knowing it, which is also a hazard when you have lots of ideas but neglect to put it in a cohesive framework.

  48. “This has always been the failing of the Right. They have always assumed that once they proved their case, the other side would have no choice but to throw down their weapons and embrace them as brothers. This is not reality. Unless one can connect biological reality with morality, they exist in two separate domains.”

    You have to start anew with the youth. The culture of all current generations is corrupted and cannot be changed. We will never alter the current moral order of the masses. We are in the long-game now.

    The last time I spoke to someone about this sort of thing I used this thought experiment (they were utilitarian in mindset, so it was fitting)
    There is nothing worse than wasted potential. It is perhaps one of the greatest injustices to a an individual/people–it is downright wrong to squander human worth and talent for nothing.

    Imagine two people, A and B.
    A has a total “human potential” of 120, and can reasonably attain a potential of 100 under current social conditions.
    B has a current potential of 50 and his ultimate ceiling is 70.
    Imagine we told A that we must sacrifice his potential to help out B. We tell A, “You will never attain 120 in this lifetime–it is a very difficult thing to do anyway, it’s an unrealistic goal. Furthermore, you will never attain 100 in this lifetime. In fact, we feel that if we hold you to a potential of 80, it can help B attain his ultimate potential of 70.”

    Is this fair? Is this “just”? Sure we can say we are being compassionate. But in the final analysis, have we done the “right” thing? The best thing? The “Just” thing?
    Simple math: A had to sacrifice 20-40 points just so B MIGHT be able to reach his “one in a million” chance of getting to 70. In the grand scheme of things, we have lowered the bar. The total pool of human worth has only decreased.

    • what i never could understand is why people don’t just accept the hand they were dealt instead of trying to steal aces from the other players..

    • If one just simply looks around one’s immediate environment and sees those things of great utility and therefore importance, one should be able to assess that they were not the work of low level intellects. They were the work of our “betters”. Sometimes just a single man, but most often a group of better men, one working off the findings of the other.

      I am grateful for their efforts and my life is made infinitely better by all such men. To cut the legs off tall people does not make one taller—only less mindful of one’s mediocrity.

  49. So that’s the famous E. Michael? For some reason I’ve never gotten around to any of his stuff. I sat through Jared’s boilerplate intro, curious to see what all the fuzz about him, and the guy goes on like he’s Jordan Peterson three days without his meds: metaphysic woowoo right out of the gate, unable to explain what he’s even arguing.

    No thanks, I’d rater see Jared debate a rational person.

    • Yeah, I knew very little about him. I had some vague recollection of his making a fuss at a Sam Francis event a dozen years ago, but the details have faded from my memory. Otherwise I thought he was a TradCath with a Jew problem. I got the sense that his crazy guy routine is a defense mechanism. He is not a guy with strong analytical skills, so empirical topics put him in jeopardy of sounding uninformed, so he does the crazy guy act. Just a hunch.

      • I’m not sure you can even call him a tradcath. He seems to think the traditional Latin Mass is a Jewish plot to suppress Jew questioning among Catholics. He’s also a big apologist for Vatican II which is not a popular position for tradcaths to take.

        For me Jones’ biggest problem is he doesn’t think/speak extemporaneously. A couple years ago I binged a bunch of his guest appearances and he has some dozens of scripts he rehearses over and over again. He’ll be on a podcast and just execute scripts that are tangential to the specific subject someone raises. It’s quite inhuman and inauthentic. He’s really not equipped to debate because of this.

    • ” the guy goes on like he’s Jordan Peterson three days without his meds: metaphysic woowoo right out of the gate”

      lol right on the money, my impression too

  50. Jones has gone off the rails with the JQ issue years ago. No different than Kevin McDonald who Frodi and company adore. I couldn’t slog through with either CoC or Jones’ Revolutionary spirit. Some good points and historical insights but then goes too far. (As Jones tells it, Paul Gottfriied pushed him to all this in the offices of Chronicles around 20 years ago).

    So yes I am more with Taylor on all of this but am also one of those who criticize him for not engaging a bit on our enemies actions or misdeeds. The little after party Frodi had with Goad, Zman and Johnson was interesting. All of you were a bit timid in answering Jones charges against Taylor. Even McDonald was given much slack when he goes just as deep as Jones does. I wouldn’t share a fox hole with either Jones or even Frodi.

    • We know Taylor and his opinions on this topic. We also know why he tends to avoid it. If you want to know why, just watch the comment section here. Kevin MacDonald will be mentioned in a 100 comments that are in response to no one from people who have never commented here.

      • But even though this subject maybe isn’t a centerpiece of his personal philosophy, why hasn’t Tom Sunic been mentioned?

  51. until recently the Derb was pretty much the only person willing to review CofC, from the opening paragraph of his review I always assumed the Derb agreed with Kmac, its just that he wanted to keep his job. going against the tribe is very bad for your career

    But the truth is important too

    The reason few people will review or in some cases even admit to reading CofC is, if you disagree with Kmac, you have to point out where he’s wrong, calling people names is a poor argument

  52. At the risk of being accused of having the “Jew thing,” and in consideration of Steve Sailer’s theory about the “War on Noticing,” it is at least curious that the administration of doddering old fool is dominated by you-know-who’s:

    White House Chief of Staff
    Secretary of State
    Attorney General
    Secretary of the Treasury
    Secretary of Homeland Security
    Director of National Intelligence

    And here are a few examples from further down the stack:

    Deputy Secretary of State
    Deputy Director of the CIA
    Deputy National Security Adviser
    Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technology
    Deputy Counsel to the President and National Security Council Legal Advisor
    State Department Undersecretary for Political Affairs

    But I guess the reason for this is simply that they are so smart…and I’m a bad person for noticing…I’ll try to stop noticing…

    • I can see how it happens. Imagine you live in world where cars keep falling apart, and you notice gremlins getting in the inside of cars with wrenches and mucking them up every day. You take pictures, are show video, and you show them the gremlins ruining the car in real time, and still they call you a weird conspiracy theorist and crazy regardless of all the evidence.

      The social ostracism just makes you want to double down because the only alternative is you really are crazy. Pretty soon the want to be right in this one issue is your defining characteristic. Of course, gremlins aren’t the only reason cars break down, but every one of your peers inability to even acknowledge it just makes that one issue all the more apparent and all-encompassing.

      • I remember Ramzpaul saying this that once he started doing videos he just saw patterns emerge. A group that was 2 percent or less was so overrepresented in this Anti White nonsense. If they were slightly over represented like 2 or 3 times more it would be fine or coincidental. It was however like every-time someone made an Anti White choice or action. It was David Gelbaum bribing the Sierra Club to stop mentioning immigration, or the ADL coercing Kennedy into writing Nation of Immigrants to open up 1965 immigration law. Neocons like Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin pushing the GOP to be more open borders. Neo-cons and that whole movement I find the grossest because the impose wars totally in Israel’s interest, then create refugees from these wars and then insist Europe and USA take in all these refugees and none to Israel. Kristol and Max Boot have been dead wrong on every foreign policy issue and yet still get the kid glove treatment. Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis were right on all these issues yet we have to ignore why Kristol was promoted and Buchanan booted. Chuck Schumer and Bill Kristol both agree on 9 out of 10 issues yet are told to us that we can only choose 1 of those 2 choices to lead our country.

      • It would also be like a pyramid saying is this group 100 percent responsible or mostly? They always give you a 100 or 0 percent responsible. Why not say if 5 things happened to cause our current mess this 1 group was at least 60 percent responsible for it? 50 percent? 80 percent? 40 percent? Why is it always presented as they are the sole 100 percent reason, or none at all and it is all a conspiracy? People tend to be so either or on it.

    • Every morning, as I line my bird cages with old newspapers scattered about on my work table, and against my will, I scan the columns looking to see how many of the contributors have Jewish names, how many interviews are only between Jews, how every story seems focused only on cosmopolitan issues, and I have to wonder if I too have this “Jew Thing.”

      • David Frum talks to Bill Kristol, talks to Jennifer Rubin. NY Times run by Sulzberger. SNL I saw a skit once that was Andy Samberg who imitated Mark Zuckerberg next to Jesse Eisenberg who plays Zuckerberg in the movie The Social Network. Lorne Michaels is the show producer of Saturday Night Live. All 4 the same from the group always preaching about diversity and evil White people need more diversity.

      • Seth Rogen whining about this being Anti Semitic rather than demonstrably true say had this exchange with Eddie Griffin the Black comedian.
        “Because I’m Black, and you’re Jewish, motherf***ers,” Griffin told Rogen, according to the book.Rogen said at first he thought Griffin’s comments were simply a bad joke. “Oh yeah, what do you mean by that?” Rogen asked.

        “I mean, you Jewish motherf***ers run Hollywood, and you only make movies with other Jewish motherf***ers.”

        “Oh,” Rogen thought. “This isn’t a joke. This dude is just going on some anti-Semitic tirade.”

        “Sorry, I guess?” said Hill, awkwardly trying to navigate the situation.

        “Don’t be sorry,” Griffin said. “Tell your Jews to let other people make some movies.

    • That made me realize the truth about the Middle East. Not only Afghanistan, but all of it, back to HW Bush’s resurrection of jihad. Islam was nearly extinct, only wrinkled grannies wore hijab.

      Take a people whose entire history has been blood feud. “Avenge” used to come with their mother’s milk.

      Now bomb them, crush their economies, take food and medicine away from their children, humiliate and ravage them. Murder them by the millions.

      Boil that pot until the frogs are ready to burst… and then, offer them an escape. Safe passage…into the West.

      Since 2003, we’ve gained 8,000 mosques. This must be the civnat version of “so we don’t have to fight them over here”, I suppose. Like the rabid Albanian gangs in the EU, thanks to (((Wesley Clark and Mad Albright))), we’re about to get Arab Springed with the Afghans.

      Not for nothing were Baghram and the Embassy abandoned. An embassy is a fortress redoubt for expat citizens. Instead, the only documents shredded were the pre-vetted visas for Afghan allies, dubious as they may be, and we left giant, gaping backdoors into every bit of military and State cyber.

      As well, we paid off the Taliban with a fortune in equipment and weaponry (and captured slaves), which they are selling along with the manuals, for dissection by every interested hostile party at Jayne’s.

      Now, the undocumented mujahideen who pushed their way to the front of the crowd are arriving for airdrop courtesy of free rides by USAF. Every one onboard has relatives we’ve killed.

      As they’ve done for 1700 years, our greatest neocon allies have thrown open the gates to Toledo to their half-brothers after enflaming them to vengeance. Jones may be wrong in a typically overcomplicated Catholic way, but his Cath instincts are not.


      Also, see South America. (((Prohibition))) and its medicinal followup’s under-the-table money corrupted every layer of politics in the US, and has turned the Latin continent into narcostates fielding rogue armies. Not for nothing did Naval Intelligence run coca farms in Peru, and a hundred other oppos occur. Their savaged economies are pushing them North, a southern flanking attack, the Latin Spring to agument what’s been arriving at the airport.

      A setup 30 years long, by those with much longer patience still. When I asked my Muslim friends in the 80s why their closets were stuffed with weapons, their cryptic smiles came with only this answer: “We’re waiting. We’re just waiting.”

      • No, I take it all back. No herdsman, wise to the ways of herds, would ever set a fire to cause a stampede.

        Of course not. I’ve seen nothing but contentment, respect, and gratitude from that wisest of all peoples.
        I bow before their God, do I not?

  53. Thank you for the link. I discovered Sunday Thoughts and now simply must listen in to the debate.

    Sunday Thoughts had this exquisite gem:
    “…Mario Cuomo’s sons, Uday and Kusay…”

    Anyone who comes up with such delicious dish can’t be all bad, despite his deplorable lack of investment in ovens. Big, honkin’ ovens, from sea to shining sea.

  54. as it would be interesting to see someone approach this topic from traditional Christian ethics.”

    I have been wrestling with this myself. I have not found one reference to anything that comes close to “racism”. Discrimination, yes. But not racism. Its’ in no catechism, not in Densinger, not in any writings of the saints.

    Now, one saint did say that Jews should be separated from Christans, so they don’t make mischief. This was in Spain, and I think it was endorsed by a pope. Now, is this infallible? That certain groups can be separated ? I don’t know, but its clearly not immoral if saints and popes are saying, “separate!”

    What I also find is lots of mention of race. He was the “pride of the Slavic race”. If we had a pope, I think he would have had to tell us about the integrity of nations, and racial integrity. But we don’t have a pope, so we are on our own.

    • The other strike against “racism” is that the Bible does not even condemn slavery. Slavery is seen as an evil, but its like death: a consequence of sin. There are a few popes that talk about Catholics not enslaving other Catholics, but its hardly clear.

      So if owning slaves is not intrinsically immoral, how could legal separation be? Makes no sense.

      Now, the ending of slavery in the Roman empire is applauded, but I’ve never seen where it is labeled as intrinsically immoral. Slavery is an form of labor.

      • Take it one step in another direction, if today we have prison and that prison life is demonstrably worse than slavery was for most blacks, then how can slavery be singled out as evil by a people who engage in a form of human subjugation that is worse?

        People will say “Oh but they commit crimes and that is why they are punished!”

        So what? Evil is evil. If buying a slave to work the fields was evil, then locking a person up and putting them in everyday situations where today could be their last is evil as well. What about debt slavery, as it’s called? How is using every ounce of the society to get people to spend beyond there means and the only way out is to never stop working to pay off their debts, how is that essentially different than a serf buying his rights to freedom after toiling away for nearly all of his life ?

        It’s all such bullshit. I would much rather be a slave than in prison, and so would 99% of everyone.

        Slavery was, at root, just an employment arrangement that is not much different than the stuff that still goes on today. Making it into some expression of evil means that humanity is eternally evil because they keep doing basically the same thing to each other. Just change the names around and muddy up the discourse.

    • Until very recently separation of races was a given and not even an issue. As Zman has pointed out all the political philosophy always assumed the discussion was about life among whites. Nobody in the Church has to talk about race because race wasn’t an issue.

      There are plenty of bits of scriptural bits nationalists can use. For example, Psalm 73 comes to mind: “Thou hast created all the borders of the earth…”

      There’s also the fact that God scattered the nations and divided the tongues for a reason. A one world government is clearly antichristian unless it’s Jesus himself at the head.

      I don’t think we’ll ever see race-affirming statements coming from official Christendom, especially in the Western Church, but we should not accept the kind of race-denial that comes from Jones.

      • The Epistle to the Ephesians makes it clear God sets the boundaries of the nations. Revelations makes it clear that God, in the end, will be raising up people from all nations. This implies the existence of nations in the end, as God’s will.

    • a bat shit crazy scold. man is a lunatic. part of the modern herd of such afflicted creatures. he is just a life support system for a meme (anti-hebe).

    • EMJ also liked to use a photo of him with a piece of tape over his mouth. Like “I’m being censored, by golly!” It’s stupid and over-used. That alone turned me off of him.

  55. “East Asian are different from Europeans, but they bring none of the social pathology of Africans. What is the argument against mixing Asians with Europeans? What about West Asians and Europeans? This is a valid line off attack on the race realist position.”

    Indeed. Although this can easily be dealt with by simply saying: “I prefer my own people and culture, thanks.”.

    But yes, it is very interesting how few people take this tack when dealing with race realists, because it would be interesting. That said, a Chinese is still a Chinese, and pleasant as some may be (certainly nowhere near as overtly violent and damaging as joggers), they still have no real loyalty to me and mine…

    I mean, is Chung really going to care when Afshar launches a successful petition to bulldoze a Saxon monument that has stood for 1000 years to build some apartments for all these new Afghans? It just isn’t anything he’s connected to – but I’m the sort of guy who see how many duskies there are down the street and feels a pain in his chest – and I’m not talking about a stabbing, you’ll understand.

    • To be unfair, the Chinese tend to bulldoze their own history too. Take a walk around a Chinese city – the Chinese are fond of saying they have 5000 years of history – but I dare anyone to find any there.

      East Asians, besides the black hair and cuisine, are similar to Euros in many ways. First, they possess the qualities of K-selected people. Second, they build awesome civilizations over and over and then destroy them just as awesomely, over and over. They are an epic people and everyone with melanin knows this. Third, our peoples both wear suits to work and wear absolute trash on the weekend. Fourth, our women are the first to be contacted on Tinder. Fifth, English is the lingua franca. Sixth, we both love beer. I could go on…

      • Marko, I appreciate the interesting response as I’d not thought of Chinese cities in this way. But, I must say, I don’t give two hoots what the Chinese do in their own lands. What they have done – and yet may do here – bothers me.

        Given a decent Englishman and a decent Chinese (or any other ethnicity), I’ll take my own. To be fair, he’d have to be a pretty awful Englishman for me not to take him.

        I was not aware East Asians liked beer so much…

      • They have their own cultural brews (baijiu in China, sake in Japan, soju in Korea) but lager beer consumption has gotten wildly popular. It helps that salty Asian food and beer goes extremely well together. Almost every city in China has its own beer brand…but it all tastes like Budweiser to me. Though it’s a cultural appropriation so maybe a bad example of commonality.

        I’m not trying to argue that East Asians (AKA “fancy Asians”) and Euros are particularly mixable, but you got me thinking about interesting similarities.

        • I can confirm that Asahi and Sapporo beer are both excellent with tempura, teppanyaki, and sushi.

    • A friend of mine in college came from what can be described as Turkish Aristocracy. For him among other Turks, these divisions were real and meaningful, but to me they were all just Turks and their divisions were sort of silly.

      But…. Even though I am not English, if I were in the presence of say the Queen of England, I would feel automatic, reflexive respect and deference. It’s almost instinctual. But to the Turks, they would be “Why do you give a shit what she says?”

      My point being is that people just feel connected to others who are like them, and the hierarchies in place mean something. It’s a decent litmus test for who is who. If you find that say the Queen of so and so elicits automatic and instinctive respect, or if you show little respect but then feel the condemnation from others burning and affecting you, those are probably your people. If you feel no automatic or reflexive respect for the Queen of Turkey, say, and if all the Turks are staring daggers at you for not showing deference but you simply don’t feel the heat of their wrath and perhaps simply roll your eyes at them, then probably not your people.

      And that is where the fights start when you get down to it.

  56. Funny how I have never seen a picture of either man, but I can tell immediately which one is Jones, just from the video preview. Just as the best argument against hereditary monarchy is hereditary monarchs, so the best argument against anti Semitism is anti Semites.

    • The man is ancient. You could make the same argument about philo-Semites being scooter-riding diabetic obese boomers who’s worldview is absorbed as much via osmosis as any “libtard.”

      The Jewish Question is legitimate but mostly from a biological perspective where you actually look at what they are doing as a group strategy at your people’s expense and you conclude it’s not in your interests to have them in your territory with any control over your institutions whatsoever. That is of course never the way Jones looks at it. It’s the way they dislike the most though since it’s easier to co-opt or just ridicule and dismiss weird religious arguments with little to no relation to reality than it is to do so with the way Kevin MacDonald and others like him look at things.

      • One of the biggest troubles jews ever created was bolshevism (all around the world). I accept the thesis that jews had been the engine of bolshevism, and without jews, the Soviet Union wouldn’t have been established. However, it is very hard for me to see how to explain this phenomenon from a biological perspective. Probably the biggest problem is that a “group evolutionary strategy” is compatible with pretty much everything except explicit antisemitism, so it is obviously compatible with bolshevism.

        • What I find odd is the dislike of such a fine concept as “group evolutionary strategy”, as if we all were naught but pure individuals, sprung like Venus from the forehead of Zeus.

      • Well, the Catholic church DOES teach that Jews are main human enemies of God. But He wants them to come into the one fold. There is a balanced view of this.

        jews are not gods, they can’t control as much as the anti-semites claim

        • Its not that they control everything, its the over sized influence combined, with patience and a plan, they tend to get what they want over time

      • Kevin MacDonald must be the most influential person that nobody is willing to talk about, for example I suspect that Peter Hitchens (and other normies on the right) has read CofC, but he would never admit it, for strategic and possibly personal reasons

        Welcome to CNN, I’m (((Larry King))) tonight I will be talking to professor Kevin MacDonald about his fascinating book called Culture of Critique

    • You’ve never seen Jared before?

      I must say that mustache sits rather well on him. Few men can carry that off.

    • I immediately thought he looked like Andrew Jackson at the same age. Jackson was a mean, cranky son of a bitch too. But at least he was ours.

  57. Jones always struck me as a kind of an absent-minded professor, sort of brilliant within a very limited domain (and he is), but disorganized in his thinking and incompetent in every other regard. He’s the guy who fills his classroom’s chalkboard with inscrutable figures, then has trouble opening the door on his way out and has to call the janitor for help.

    That said, the argument to merge scientific and moral critiques of our current orthodoxy on race is happening, but mostly in the trenches and at the micro level, all across the country with these normie white moms going ballistic over CRT. Yes, I know: men should set the conditions for the society and do the fighting (even culturally) but a patriarchy has women to enforce its rules and norms, and mother mammals, when they feel their offspring threatened, fight more viciously than the males a lot of times. That’s biology and morality dovetailing again. So please, rulers, keep telling moms to tell their kids to get the experimental “vaccine” and to teach their sons and daughters to hate themselves. Pull the pin on that grenade.

    • The sophomoric reasoning is what struck me. I said in the after-show that I would not tolerate that in a college freshman.

      • i wonder how many of these guys like jones have undiagnosed syph? seriously, they all have this crazed rictus look in their faces.

        I’ll tell you who jones looks like: Marshall Applewhite.

        • Maybe it’s gauche to speculate on a man’s sexual proclivities, and the Catholic jokes are hack, but when you combine the sort of sexless vibe Jones gives off with the bowtie look and the religious fervor, it does not bode well, whatever the guy’s got going on in the bedroom (or in Thailand, or at a rest stop at 3 a.m.).

        • Jones is a serious traditional Catholic (assuming its not all a scam) so his chances of having something like that is very low

  58. Yeah the best argument filled with facts and reason will not convert people but saying “it’s okay to love your people and prefer them above all others” might.

    • Whitney, this is really the only tool needed. Preferably, it ought to be said in a proud and confident manner.

    • “Unless one can connect biological reality with morality…”

      Is that what Whitney just did?

      Asking the Zman for some helpful quips, phrases, or examples here.

      Hopefully to be covered in future posts, as those slow on the draw (myself) could use some ammo here.

  59. It was incredible. Jones, as insistent and emotional as he is, is just plain crazy. Did he accuse Taylor of “conspiring with the Jews?”


Comments are closed.