Conservative Morality

One of the great tricks conservatism plays on normal people is to offer up a set of false choices in response to regime morality. The ruling class comes out with some new thing and conservatives come out with new responses. One choice is something the regime has declared a fatwa against, while the other choice is allowed. The job of the conservatives is to herd their people into the acceptable choice. Often, the acceptable choice is just an extreme version of what the regime offers.

The best example is racism. Way back in the last century, elements of the ruling class invented a new sin called racism. For most of human history, everyone just accepted the fact that people were different and people liked to be around their own. This was so obviously true no one had to think much about it. The exception was when one group of people tried to move into the area of another group of people. Invasions always led to violence, which is why invasions were immoral.

For reasons no one bothered to explain, elements of the ruling class decided that it was immoral for you to want to live around people like you. Further, you were not allowed to notice the differences in people. That was this new thing called racism. For several generations now, conservatives have been trying to prove that the Democrats are the real racists. You see, the greatest conservative principle is opposing racism more than the people conservatives claim to oppose.

This desire to be more of whatever the regime is promoting infects everything nook and cranny of the conservative mind. When the regime decided sodomy was a sacrament, conservatives celebrated sodomy. When the regime decided men in dresses could stalk your children in the playground, conservative suddenly discovered a new sacred principle in favor of crossdressers. To be a conservative is to fully embrace every degenerate moral claim of their alleged opponents.

Here is a good example of how conservatism is just the extreme version of yesterday’s moral claims by their opponents. The Supreme Court is looking at two cases related to freedom of association. Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina challenge the race policies of their respective defendants. In both cases, the schools discriminate based on race.

What the regime has always argued is that white people have dominated the world due to dumb luck and their unique cruelty. Whether it is the exploitation of resources held by nonwhites or simply good fortune, Europeans have unfairly outperformed the rest of the world and this is immoral. Therefore, it is required that current white people be made to suffer in order to balance the scales. This is the moral claim made in all policies under the umbrella of restorative justice.

One way to even the scales is to force whites to accept nonwhites into their lives so that the nonwhites can partake in the good fortune of whites. In education, for example, the underlying assumption is the teachers in white schools do a better job teaching their subjects than the teachers in nonwhite schools. The proof is Asians, who prefer white schools over black schools. Asians do very well, so it must be that special magic that exists in white schools, but not in black schools.

In the middle of the last century, a natural right enjoyed by all humans since the dawn of time was stripped from Americans. You no longer had the right to place your body next to another body without permission from the state. Further, you no longer had the right to deny nonwhites access to your life. Effectively, what was done is the forging of a new right possessed only by certain nonwhites. That right is the right to access white people and the things they create.

The rational opposition to this is that all people, even white people, have a right to make the most of their talents. Therefore, they have the right to work with whomever they think is in their best interest. This is a foundational argument of Western liberalism and the basis for market economics. Since you own you and have the right to use your labor as you see fit, it naturally follows that you have the right to associate, or not associate, with whomever you choose.

Conservatives do not make that argument. As you see in that post, their argument is that you have no rights whatsoever. You are not even allowed to notice that people are different and posses different qualities. Instead, in order to be even more berserk about race than the most berserk member of the new religion, you have to poke out your eyes and rip off your ears. The conservative principle with regards to the human condition is to be to the extreme left of the new religion.

Of course, the moral position here is that Harvard, a private college, can discriminate however it pleases with regards to admissions. If they want a freshman class of left-handed Korean midgets, they can only admit those people. On the other hand, North Carolina is a public university and as such must admit students according to a set of rules applicable to all American citizens. That would also bar them from favoring legacies and potential sports stars in admissions.

You see, while we human beings and citizens enjoy the absolute right of free association, our government does not have that right. Otherwise, it is not our government and is instead an occupying force. Foundational to liberal society is free association and that means we collectively own the state. As equal partners in the state, the state cannot favor one group over another. Again, equality before the law is a bedrock item in a moral society.

The writer of that post is probably a decent sort. He wants to do the right thing, but he has been conditioned by conservatism to think the right thing is always the most extreme version of whatever the liberals are peddling. It is so ingrained in the conservative mind that they do not notice it. If the liberals suddenly favored wearing colorful jock straps on their heads, conservatives would be boasting about how their new headgear is the best ever.

The result of this madness is the courts will now decide if the state has a right to discriminate against white people or no one has a right to discriminate against anyone for any reason at all. Given the makeup of the courts, the most likely result will be to ban the most basic right of free association. In effect, the new rule will render citizens as prisoners in a permission state. Conservatism will have made otherwise free people into servants of the managerial state.

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

154 thoughts on “Conservative Morality

  1. Freedom of Association is now not just for evil Whitey(tm). Anyone following the LA City Council tapes can see a few things.
    1. The Latino members with the exception of the Latino leader of a labor federation are not resigning.
    2. There are tens and tens of people outside City Hall protesting and the same assortment of weirdo fatbags too.
    3. Their voters not only do not care about calling out the “Bruno” [Gay White city council man who adopted with husband black baby] etc. they share their assessments which is why the council members are not resigning despite the media storm — Mexicans don’t care about Nice White Lady stuff “In This House We Believe” religious idiocy. If Mexicans are religious its either Syncretic Catholicism, Evangelical Revivalism, or Saint Muerte neo-Aztec stuff. Worshiping black people as holy racial redeemers is work Mexicans won’t do.
    4. No one has asked who recorded the stuff and who leaked it — recording without consent is illegal in California. [My money is on Karen Bass or possibly George Gascon]
    5. Latinos are the new evil Whitey(tm).

    We are ruled by black people. LA is overwhelmingly Latino and Mexican at that and you have this stuff. Hollywood has been pretty much 90% taken over by blacks, various Muslim/Pakistani/Indian groups which is why that’s all you see on TV, commercials, movies etc. While Mexicans can be counted on the fingers of one hand: George Lopez, Cheech Marin, Gabriel Luna, with cameos by Lou Diamond Phillips and Esai Morales.

    But that is not stable. Sheer numbers of Mass Latino immigration will bring both defact and dejure association of Latinos only, but breaking of the current black power base. With likely a desire for unification with Mexico in the cards.

    • Blacks are a cudgel against whites, they don’t rule anything. What’s old is new again. Getting the gang back together.

      As Z notes, the 90s were an interregnum of taboo topics and locking up criminals. If you’re of a certain age, that’s when your social consciousness was shaped, which makes for a lot of frustration. Like living among mental patients, or something.

      • Yeah. I imagine how we feel every time we pass by a Gap, or see an ad or a trailer or log into work and get an email from HR is how “Greatest Gen” felt when the civil rights act passed and The Great Chimp Out occurred.

        It sits in your gut and you know it is all based on lies being told about you and your people. In the 60s and 70s it was a physical retreat. Now, it is resignation I guess.

        Supposedly, the younger generation loves this fantasy world where the white man has all but disappeared, the asian man has never appeared, and four year old white girls cling to four year old black boys with a super crush and every black family is happy and wealthy and full of surgeons and executives, and young inter-racial lesbians walk hand in hand.

        It is truly amazing what the ruling class and Madison Ave have done along with the anti-white racial hiring and promotion practices. I am a GenXer and I grew up around openly gay people and interracted with blacks (Grandma’s best bible study mate was black, my elementary school principle for 3 years was black … … I had black friends). I never gave the first thought to any of this stuff.

        But now, it is so brazen and over the top, and given that it takes place in the context of lies about who we were and are and why others are who and how they are and an openly stated campaign of hatred against me it has turned me. There is a disgust and a fire in the pit of stomach. I never want to see another image of, “diversity” again.

        They are creating this new reality and it is not a fad. It is here to stay. As for the young kids who love this, if it is true that they do, wait until they find out that they are last in line for education and jobs. In Hollywood, those advertising jobs are critical for nurturing an acting career when you are building your way up. That means that white men, no longer have that as an option. I think that is an opportunity for them and for us to prove ourselves right that we can live up to our ancestors who built the cathedrals, invented all of the technology that films and the entire world rely upon. We must build our own Hollywood, make our own grand films. We outsourced cultural production of the moving image to a group that seems all to willing to throw us under the bus. There is a big opportunity here to learn from that lesson and build our own network.

    • I’ve noticed that the names look super Indian/Arab/Pakistani/whatever weirdos in alot of TV shows and movies. Notably, Ms. Marvel and Batgirl.

      Unsurprisingly, Ms. Marvel had the usual grievance politics against White people, as well as Hindus. It also just sucked and Batgirl was so bad it got canned with a loss of 100 million +.

      I don’t really know how they got in but it seems like it’s going to be a disaster. Like, even worse than the previous peoples in charge.`

    • There’s a generation gap. Boomers are terrified of being caught on camera or tape. For Zoomers, everything on the internet can be assumed to be fake, and their concern is real life. Even when politicians “admit” to some recorded scandal and then resign in shame, there’s still a sense that everything was just staged.

      “Optics” aren’t real. It’s all circus funny house mirrors. Ideas matter more, and this is saying something because we know how much ideas don’t matter much. But they beat nothing.

  2. “This desire to be more of whatever the regime is promoting infects everything nook and cranny of the conservative mind. When the regime decided sodomy was a sacrament, conservatives celebrated sodomy. When the regime decided men in dresses could stalk your children in the playground, conservative suddenly discovered a new sacred principle in favor of crossdressers. To be a conservative is to fully embrace every degenerate moral claim of their alleged opponents.”

    I want to frame this with a cartoon of David French underneath it. There’s more than a whiff of the gimp here. It’s impossible to comprehend otherwise.

    • David French was CHOSEN to play the role which he is playing in this drama precisely because the cackling hand-rubbing hook-nosed men-behind-the-curtain first evaluated him to have precisely the sort of malleable amoral toady personality which they were looking for in their goyische servants, and after passing a battery of surreptitious psychological examinations, David French’s career was very carefully and meticulously planned and funded so as to place David French precisely where David French sits in the hierarchy today.

      Frankly there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between a David French at National Review and a Victor Davis Hanson at Cal-State Fresno [who was the subject of Z’s essay yesterday, “Never Trust a Neocon”].

      French & Hanson are experiencing artificially manufactured careers because they have safe & predictable & dependable & reliable personalities which will go to their graves without ever having been in any danger of becoming a loose cannon for their handlers, and thereby rocking their handlers’ boat.

      It’s all just applied psychological analysis, it starts no later than about high school, and with Deep State initiatives such as “National Junior Honor Society”, the selection process arguably starts as early as Middle School, aka Junior High School.

      Kinda off topic, but I wonder what true Home-School’ed college admissions rates look like when adjusted for IQ and race?

      Surely the sodomite & sapphiste & hook-nosed child-molesters who now control all of the college admissions committees in the USA must frown and scowl and curse under their breath when they are presented with an application from an Home-Schooled child.

      OTOH, if you were Home-Schooled all the way through high school, I don’t see why you can’t just keep Home-Schooling your way through college & grad school [the only difference is that the textbooks become exponentially more expensive, the higher you move up the ladder].

      • When it comes to the Useful Idiot selection process I expect the homeschooled go straight on the discard pile. I also like to think that they have more sense than to go to university in the first place, unless they want to become doctors, eg. Outside the STEM disciplines, there just CAN’T be many homeschoolers there. Probably too busy being useful and productive and revelling in not being communists.

  3. The ‘conservative’ article referenced describes how public opinion and the courts may realign and move back towards a meritocracy. The new sin of race and/or diversity being placed in the dustbin. Label it whatever you may, it has a good ring to it.

  4. Hahvahd is not the hill I’d want to die on, but it probably *is* for opinion-former Con Inc. yuppies who says things like “not the hill to die on.” (The median Democrat of 1980 era would reply with no hesitation to let Harvard bleed…) National Review 20 years ago may have been little more than an unironic rehearsal of Rodney Dangerfield’s “no respect” bit. Of course, it does put all the bloodthirsty freedom-jihad-mongering and Patriot Act prostitution in a different light.

  5. It’s simple really: the Leftists/globalists run the show. Conservatives are controlled opposition. Hence, conservatives completely cede the moral narrative to the Left and meekly try to claim that they’re the real “anti-racist” or what have you on stupid libertarian/indivudual rights grounds.

    I had a popular post that listed all the political slurs that the Left has for the Right: “white supremacist, racist, misogynist, islamophobic, anti-semtic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, baseless conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxxer, anti-science, climate denier, election denier, and a deplorable/vile dummy who believes in the flying spaghetti monster.”

    These are political slurs meant to DEHUMANIZE. In the same way that people understand that Nazis dehumanized Jews by calling them Jews, these terms do the exact same thing. In supreme irony, calling someone a Nazi is the same as a 1930s Nazi yelling out to the Jew. It’s a call to dehumanize, a call to kill. (Of course, this epithet is hurled at someone who makes the mildest objection against open borders)

    The slurs the Right has for the Left are not political slurs; they are OUTRIGHT slurs of identity; not obfuscated by the false morality of political posturing. These terms are: “nigger, faggot, kike, beaner, bitch, fat ass, tranny, freak, liar, loser, ugly, godless.”

    They are, of course, all BANNED as HATE. Hate they may be, but they do not hide behind political posturing of the Left’s hate words. They are an outright expression of identity disparagement; no fuss, no muss.

    • I forgot slut, whore, chink and probably some others.

      And also what took me a while to understand is that the Nazis felt the Jews were an existential threat to them in the same way the Jews feel that way about Nazis. From the Nazi POV, the Jews are the “Nazis” ie irredeemable blood lusters and destroyers, and the Nazis are the valiant heroes trying to save themselves and the world from eternal subjugation and degredation. BOTH believe they are the victim/threatened by the other.

      And in one sense, both are right. The Nazis are ridiculed about proposing Aryan Logic, Jewish Logic, etc. The point wasn’t necessarily to negate objectivity, but to point out that in the affairs of men, each group had it’s own mindset, it’s own logic, it’s own interests, it’s own vantage point for good and evil. Which is true and is why separation is humane.

      It takes a fiercely strong mind to understand and admit that if the Nazis won, they are the good guys and how we understand the conflict would be completely different. And what’s more, that goes for all wars.

      • Demonize—marginalize—destroy. This strategy is perhaps as old as man, but certainly predates NAZI-ism.

        One demonizes a group and instills aversion from the rest of society (who wants to associate with bad people) which leads to marginalization (good people naturally avoid bad people), which in turn allows destruction (if some people are so bad as to be shunned, then they are bad enough to be destroyed and in any event “out of sight, out of mind”)

      • fakeemail: The Ten Stages of Genocide

        1. Classification: People are divided into us and them
        2. Symbolization: People are forced to identify themselves
        3. Discrimination: People begin to face systematic discrimination
        4. Dehumanization: People equated with animals, vermin, or diseases
        5. Organization: The government creates special groups (police/military) to enforce the policies
        6. Polarization: The government broadcasts propaganda to turn the populace against the group
        7. Preparation: Official action to remove/relocate people begins
        8. Persecution: Beginning of murders, theft of property, trial massacres
        9. Extermination: Wholesale elimination of the group. It is ‘extermination’ and not murder because the people are not considered human
        10. Denial: The government denies it has committed any crime

        What stage are White people at in America? Canada? England? Germany? Sweden?

        • I’ll pass on Germany and Sweden, but the Anglosphere is at Stage 6 of White genocide. I guess an argument for HUD and the Canadian, Australian and British equivalents expanding the projects into the suburbs can make a case for 7, but the traditional definition is forced relocation of the existing population. That is not happening yet by that definition.

          I do not have a handy link and I cannot remember his name, but an academician (probably fired by now) last year equated the current anti-White racism to the situation the Armenians faced prior to their relocation as a prelude to mass murder.

          • Jack Dobson: “the situation the Armenians faced prior to their relocation as a prelude to mass murder”

            The Crypto-You-Know-Whoms ran the entirety of the Ottoman Caliphate [just as they had run the entirety of the Iberian Caliphate up until 1492], and when the Ottoman Caliphate began to crumble, the Crypto-You-Know-Whoms used the opportunity to “never let a good crisis go to waste”, and unleashed satanic hell upon their Armenian Christian competition.

            At the end of the day, everything gets back to Khazaria and Yamnaya.


          • “traditional definition is forced relocation”

            It’s wise to do this voluntarily when the choice of location remains yours… time is running out.

        • In ZUSA, probably at 8 but i think 7 and 8 should be reversed. Removal (7) hasn’t quite begun yet, but 8 sure has.

        • We’re clearly in Stage 6 with a strong trend to Stages 7 and 8, elements of which seem to be occurring simultaneously.

          • For many whites, we still aren’t at the stage where having babies seems like a good idea. If more white people had kids, this problem wouldn’t be exist.

    • “In supreme irony, calling someone a Nazi is the same as a 1930s Nazi yelling out to the Jew. It’s a call to dehumanize, a call to kill.”

      Don’t believe relitigating the midcentury continental politics and history is particularly useful (for now anyway) but dont think we should internalize the dishonest framing weve been given. Jews were calling for the deaths of germans and in fact killing germans in generally indirect but sometimes direct ways… which eventually provoked a violent retaliation. Its clear enough the germans simply wanted them OUT before this and even later. Meij Kampf is a rather tiresome book and youre not supposed to have read it, but I suspect this is not because it calls for antisemitic violence… but because it DOESNT mention any of the murderous designs attributed to its author by much later (((american))) television shows.

      Of course the tribe refused to leave their position of control over a humiliated subject population and that’s when the local members got forcibly rounded up.

      When foreign armies (incited by these same jews globally, as they now admit) were killing massive amounts of german civilians, and in fact intentionally disrupting basic supplies of food, some substantial amount of the jews held in camps died under disputed circumstances. Annelies Frank died of typhus, for example.

      If America was invaded at the same time in a war effort chiefly stirred by japanese here and abroad… AND Japan was killing our women and children while we americans were actually starving ourselves… what fate do you think would have befallen the japanese we put in american concentration camps?

      Im not a fan of the midcentury german regime and I think Hitler was a disaster and I even manage to think rounding up the jews was a mistake (at least lacking means to expel them immediately)… but dont accept the cartoon badguy version of all that either. Germans wanted to rule themselves just like we do, and just like us they have not been allowed to do so.

    • OK …..I am at a loss. Someone help me. If I do not want to be called a Conservative or a Republican…pray tell what is left? I despise the Left Loonies. The Left has 5 or 6 names they will accept to be called. Help!!!!!

  6. Today, universities that have racial quotas are celebrated by the media as “progressive.” But what will be progressive tomorrow? The total banning of whites from leafy university campuses to redress a historical imbalance? Actually, I’ll bet they phrase it in exactly that way.

    • Your insight must naturally follow. It’s not “if” it’s “when”. The numbers of Whites in whatever aspect of society (such as university admission) used to illustrate your point is not the problem—*any* Whites in any aspect of society *is* the real problem!

      Why is it a problem? Whites is any visible aspect of society will serve as a reminder of the inferiority of most all minorities in society. So for example, you can boost—through declining standards and AA graduation/placement—numbers Blacks into medical fields, but when those Blacks are naturally compared to their White counterparts, the gods of “equality” and “equity” is shown to be false. Hell, even minorities will reject their own doctors in favor of White doctors when their lives are on the line.

      We can’t have that. So we must either eliminate these annoying—and increasingly apparent—contradictions or assure that only the most incompetent Whites are allowed to compete with our (incompetent) minorities. This of course is a race to the bottom and the exact opposite of meritocracy.

      Getting back to your university admissions example, this is precisely why the universities are increasingly eliminating/decreasing entry exams such as the SAT, ACT, LSAT, and the MCAT. The differences on these scores between Whites and minorities and their performance after graduation serves as a striking example of the failure of Leftist ideology.

      PS: For simplicity, I leave Asians out of discussion and ignore the “talented tenth”. On the main however, the observation holds true.

      • “The differences on these scores between Whites and minorities and their performance after graduation serves as a striking example of the failure of Leftist ideology.”

        This^^^^ big time.

        Well put.

      • The only real comparator that counts is that between whites and negroes. The Left’s use of “minorities” or “people of color” is just misdirection intended to obscure that fact.

        • I must object here Ostei. I try rarely to mince words. As you know, I’ve said repeatedly that Blacks present an existential crisis and consider other minorities not nearly so great a threat. On that, I’ve been taken to the woodshed by 3g4me more than once. 😉

          However, the aspect that other minorities (such as Hispanics) being fundamentally different wrt the meritocracy problem I outlined above—I would not agree. Of any substantial minority, only Asians I would exclude—and we’d need to discuss that in more detail as Indians are often classified simply as “Asians”. My go to definition is East Asians as in Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.

          • But there is a fundamental difference between Hispanics and negroes that is almost as great as that between negroes and whites. Specifically, Hispanics, in general, are fairly immune to white-hatred and have largely resisted mobilization against whites. Blacks and whites are the two primary things. Hispanics are the tertium quid that refuses to behave in the manner the Left predicts it should.

            Then there’s a very practical matter: is living next door to typical Hispanics anywhere near as intolerable as living next door to typical negroes?

          • “is living next door to typical Hispanics anywhere near as intolerable as living next door to typical negroes?”

            Mexicans will get drunk and crash cars and they’ll literally steal your dog from your backyard and put it in their backyard…

            But they arent very prone to spontaneously murdering and raping vulnerable people in hooting mobs

            So yeah mexicans make dramatically better neighbors by comparison… but its also better if your house is infested by bees than tigers.

          • Ostei, your analysis is absolutely correct wrt Hispanics as “neighbors” vs Blacks—but that doesn’t detract from my analysis that Hispanics are on the same track as Blacks wrt AA and false promotion, only that such is less of a threat to Whites.

            I believe we are in complete agreement—unless you reject the Hispanics are not recipients of AA and as such compete on an equal playing field with a whites.

      • We have to welcome such an eventuality. For starters, we should voluntarily withdraw from today’s academy, without waiting to be expelled. But if exclusion is what it takes to once and for all starve the beast, so be it. Secondly, I can’t think of a better way to illustrate the concept of “freedom of association” to on-the-fence whites.

    • That’s exactly what will happen. Diversity is just the creeping eradication of whites. Because diversity is good, and there is no such thing as too much diversity, absolute diversity–the erasure of whites–is best of all.

  7. It’s strange to think there was a time when Barry Goldwater — a member of the Arizona NAACP, by the way — could oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act on libertarian, freedom-of-association grounds. Few of today’s so-called conservatives have the stones to even utter the words “freedom of association.” It appears that the concept is entirely foreign to most of them. And these are the clowns who fashion themselves the guardians of liberty. What a farce!

    I have more respect for progressives: at least they let you know from the get-go that they oppose your natural rights with a ferocity that you better take seriously. Conservatives are “allies” you can’t afford to have.

    • Oh, they’ll support freedom of association. You just can’t use it in a “bad” way or conservatives will then fall back on private companies can fire or ban you because they’re private.

      • Basically they favor FOA when it requires no courage to do so. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason such folks became known as “conservatives” in the first place was not due to their stalwart defense of traditional values, but as a result of their lack of boldness. They have long been the junior partners in the destruction of civilization.

        • Absolutely. It took me more time than I care to admit for such understanding to finally sync in. As has been noted, Conservatism Inc. serves only to “conserve” Leftist gains in the political/social arena—never to roll back such.

          What’s the old saw, “Liberals want change yesterday. Conservatives want change two week from today.”

  8. It is refreshing to see that freedom of association is not forgotten. It has been forgotten by conservatives. The beauty of freedom of association as it applies to the Supreme Court is that the SC should never hear of such a case. Any imposition of association should be a criminal case with the imposer as defendant. Any complaint that, “I wasn’t allowed in there”, should never be entertained – even by the lowest courts of law.

    Now of course, because we institutionalized the violation of freedom of association, and since St. George of The Holy Overdose sent brazen anti-white discrimination in hiring and promotion practices into overdrive, we have no choice but to use the Civil Rights law to fight this using the courts. That forces us to legitimize those illegitimate laws and forfeit arguing in favor of freedom of association – at least in the short run.

    Our approach now has to be to adopt the tactic of actively and vigorously suing all institutions that openly discriminate in granting access and ascension based on race. This is ripe with opportunity. The strategic end game is to then force the institutions to ally with us in abolishing the anti freedom of association, “civil rights”, laws.

    In the short to mid term, given that the anti-white and pro-reparations/repercussions mindset is ingrained in the culture, and the severe costs that has and will have to our people, we have no choice but to become litigious. It is not in our nature, but we have no choice. Hoping an aggressor will just go away when their tactics are working is only encouraging further aggression.

    As for the albatross population, do they have any shame that they actively oppose merit and eagerly accept being given something? We know the answer to that.

    Until we impose a cost on the institutions, they will continue to grind away at us. The goal, that they have attained, is to put us last in line. A Microsoft AI engineering manager has a great post up on coerced “D&I”, hiring practices.

    Here is the Microsoft AI manager’s post on freedom of association:

    • “because we institutionalized the violation of freedom of association”

      Codified it, in fact.

      Excellent comment.

    • There was a picture of a group of white programmer bros spreading around twitter. Could not believe the venom directed against these guys who seemed to be just buds who got together to make a video game. You would have thought they committed a war crime, but it was simply because they didn’t have a minority on their team.

      If you interviewed them, I would guess they would talk of how they had good chemistry and just gravitated toward each other in an organic way. That is, of course, unacceptable, as it’s required to have a boring, stale corporate environment with plenty of H.R. ladies and colored people in leadership roles to truly suck the life and ingenuity out of any organization, crushing any innate talent that can be summoned through a truly cohesive, well oiled team.

      I would not be surprised if the general IQ of people on the Artemis team is higher than the original moon landing team, but even with the extra, on paper, brains, you can’t beat innate, instinctual hierarchy and sense of purpose when being around people who are truly your own.

    • I’m not sure you’re wrong about the tactic, but I’m also not sure you are right. For example, when some college opens a black dormitory, my instinct is to support it (And, pragmatically, more blacks in the black dormitory means fewer blacks in the regular dormitories — win-win), because then it can be used later as precedent for the White dormitory.

      • Trouble is, you can’t enter their space, but they can take over yours.

        But it might be a start toward something better. It does no harm and, as you say, has its good points.

        • It *may* however do harm. My old university set up the beginnings of an all Black dormitory 20 years or so ago. They started out with a floor or two in a larger dorm as we had few Blacks to fill an entire structure. Well, about a year or two into the project, two Black females got into it with each other and one stabbed to death the other in their room.

          Like with plutonium, one puts together large amounts of such volatile substances at your own risk. 🙁

      • “because then it can be used later as precedent for the White dormitory.”

        No no no a thousand times no. This idea literally never works. They never evee get tripped up by principle like “conservatives” do and the ideologically frame they create is never used succesfully against them.

        This is the libertarian idea that I shouldnt shoot my enemy with my gun now because then it establishes a precedent that when they get a gun insteas they can shoot me with it. They’ll shoot you anyway and they’ll take the gun from you due to your inability to use it.

        Here we’ve got an even more backwards approacb where you support your enemy shooting you today because it establishes a precedent of enemy shooting so that if you ever have a gun someday you can shoot them too

        Support more power and more options for our people 100% of the time. Any restriction on us relative to others is to be resisted simply on the principle that it reduces our prestige relative to other groups. All available tactics, underhanded, overhanded, backhand, uppercut, right cross, knee to the stomach, whatever. Everything for us by any means we can get it. This is how other groups operate and this is why we’re in the ridiculous position of having to ask permission to be admitted into our own institutions in our own lands

        • Segregating blacks in their own dorms isn’t my enemy shooting me. Oh, please don’t throw me in that briar patch, Br’er Fox!

      • I don’t care about their racially exclusive dormitories. In fact, I too think it is great. The University as a job training and certification institution is increasingly useless and unnecessary save for very specialized lab equipment. It’s primary benefit is in network building. So, I say, go ahead to your own dorms and graduation ceremonies. That only hurts the Kangz and Qwaynz.

        But, when it comes to denying or reducing our access to institutions, jobs, financing … … or excluding us altogether, we need to get sue happy. This project only worked because we accepted it and have acted like whipped dogs ever since.

        The challenges to this approach are: 1) we must still focus our energy on excellence and achievement 2) we must be ruthless and force the institutions to the table and set the terms – the civil rights laws and legislation will be repealed!

        Our posture must be that this is total war and nothing will deny us victory. Enough is enough!

        • Are you saying that some day Whites might make this argument work in our favor? [Speaking to an institution] “See? It’s those stupid Civil Rights laws that restrict your God-given right to discriminate against Whites. If they were repealed, you could have as many Blacks, Browns, and if you chose, zero Whites here and not fear a lawsuit.” 🙂

    • First off to Z – what an excellent piece today. Also, this just so happens to be my personal “hot button” issue. I work in software development and have for over 20 years now. I’ve worked for several very large companies. I can confirm that DEI is now the main mission statement for said companies. Creating value for share holders or great products pales in comparison to making sure that blacks and wahmen are given every preference imaginable.

      Let me provide some real world context. At my current company, we have about 100 software engineers. Of those 100, I would say that 15 are women, 40-50 are Asian/Indian and the rest are white males. We just hired our first black engineer a couple of weeks ago. He’s actually a contractor. My boss literally said that he would be good for our “diversity goals”. No, really, he said this.

      In order to promote or hire someone, “diverse” candidates MUST be considered first. Managers are actually given scores for this. The lower the score, the more negatively it affects bonus and raises. I love how they choose their words, as you all know, “diverse” means nothing of the sort. A 10 person team with all black males is considered “diverse”. It is a code word for anti-white. That is all.

      Like all woke companies, we have a Chief Diversity Officer. She is a fat, angry black woman who has never had a real job. She has bounced around corporations for 20 years stealing large sums of money while pursuing her real passion of being a black political activist. A quick perusal over her twitter page shows nothing but a stream of Ben Crump sound bites and harsh language directed at whites. Oh, and a bunch of crap about saint Floyd.

      One of the wahmen in our data mining group is a white, leftist (who looks exactly as your mind is picturing it right now), who is a “champion” for diversity. She provides no real value, but she has been the source of several “incidents” in the office. She is constantly complaining upwards that toxic masculinity has made the work environment unsafe for her.

      As for me, I have stopped caring much about promotions since I am at a stage in my career where I enjoy being an individual contributor. While we are encouraged to go into the office, I choose not to, as I view it as a risk. All that needs to happen is I am getting a glass of water and some angry, leftist mutant decides to make up a story or to make a false claim that I said something under my breath. I also refuse to be in a meeting room where I am the only male. That is the equivalent of walking down the street in Harlem after midnight. Why would anyone want to take that risk? My hope is that I can hang in there for another decade and retire. I have completely lost my zest for corporate life, and the nail in the coffin was when my company (all tech companies really) decided that they needed to control my mind as well as my time.

      Back to Z’s essay – I cannot stress enough how spot on he is in his assessment of conservatives. I have one friend in particular who is exactly like this. While he pushes back more on the transgender thing, he refuses to accept the reality of race. He is convinced that it is “poverty”. No matter the evidence, he views it as immoral to formulate a view of black people based on the data. It is absolutely maddening.

      • My brother is a normie conservative. He brought up the news that VP Harris said that hurricane relief will be based on equity. (This announcement was later retracted.)

        He triumphantly stated that this annoucement shows that the Democrats are the real white supremacists because it reveals that they believe that white people can survive just fine without aid. He clearly thought he had scored a huge victory with his DR3.

        I sighed and told him that leftists are unfazed by charges of hypocrisy.

        • No. It reveals that the Democrats hate whites perhaps even more than the Republicans do, and wish them to die.

      • I am right there with you Tired Citizen. What a destruction of a once incredible industry. Starting in 2012 it got fire bombed with wokeness. In my early years, my managers were women, one a lesbian one became a senior executive. Nobody gave a crap. They were excellent engineers and became good and excellent managers. Nobody gave a crap about any of that and no issues were made of it.

        Then the tsunami of easy Fed money rolled in and the permanent boom occurred. That brought in the woke HR and Recruiter opportunists who convinced a bunch of weak men to ruin their companies. I hope someday they find out how much they are loathed and hated by the many smart people who they have betrayed and whose profession they have removed all joy from.

      • White managers who accede to the corporate diktat of preferring non-whites in hiring bring to mind this passage of Churchill (yeah, I know):

        It is the primary* right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth.

        They’re accomplices in the demise of their own people and should be informed of their treachery at the earliest possible moment. Don’t threaten them, just let them know that you know exactly who and what they are.

        * It’s your “primary” right. Above all else, preservation of one’s home(land) takes precedence.

      • All is not lost. Due to that darn Bell Curve, even the most progressive firm will have great difficulty sourcing much more than the extremely infrequent Blacks or Latinos for anything “tech,” no matter how much they drop their standards. Despite the “hire a felon” movement, that is and will likely remain verbotten in many government [contract] jobs. The progs will foul their own nest so effectively they might as well be standing in bird lime. Of course, the firm’s mission and its prospects will all go to hell but at some point the failure will be there for all to see. At least those of us on the outside watching and eating popcorn.

  9. Excellent article. I have just one fairly minor quibble. Hence, I’m not sure that Harvard qualifies as a private university in anything but name. The monies and other subventions it receives from the federal government per annum outstrip the GDP of most equatorial African states. I don’t think any organization that is so tightly soldered to Washington DC can be considered truly private, and I imagine the plaintiff will make that case before the Supremes.

    • I agree. This is a great point Ostei. Any institution that receives funds from the government cannot be considered private.

      The Conservatives real issue is that they won’t adopt such positions on merit and because that would mean destroying America’s legal and institutional foundation to save it. What they just can’t see is that the Left did that over a century ago. There is no America to fight for. They will clutch their ideology, principles and integrity into the abyss of extinction.

    • The public/private distinction has been largely erased. In part, that’s why I don’t have a problem with this mechanism to overturn BAKKE. If there were still an actual private anything, my opinion would be different.

      • Even worse, Harvard has conspired with the regime to undermine our civilization, our culture, and our way of life. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are more numerous than negroes in Nairobi.

        • True. But equally true that all of academia–not just Harvard–has conspired to demolish Western civilization. If academia had not become a borderline Leftist monopoly, beginning in the late 60s, Insane Clown World would not exist.

    • Ostei: The whole division between public and private is nonsensical today. The government is enmeshed in every aspect of everyone’s life, often by damned invitation. Is the local pizza joint or hairdresser a ‘private business’? Hmmmn, do they or any of their suppliers have any federal loans or benefits? Do they rent or own premises located within a building on a public thoroughfare or within city limits? Put one toe in this murk and find yourself sinking in the quick sands of pilpul.

      The ancient idea that a man had a right to sell what he owned or made to whomever he chose – and could equally refuse to sell or trade – has been dead since WWII (if not since Reconstruction). That war, the subsequent creation of the UN, the elevation of Juice and egalitarianism and antirayciss philosophy – that all smothered the hitherto American idea of freedom of association. You must proffer your services to whomever chooses to engage them for whatever purpose. All you’re supposed to consider is if their money is green (or be forced to accept their EBT).

      All human relations have been commercialized, and nothing is private – witness people eagerly celebrating their most private moments online (engagements, marriages, gender reveals, birth). Most people are irredeemable fools and attention whores, and this has been exploited by the usual suspects.

      Your only claim to privacy is what’s in your own head – IF you don’t plug into the matrix of tv, tiktok, twitter, etc. And the WEF and Faceborg are feverishly working to ensure even that zone is plugged in and carefully screened for seditious anti-‘x’ thoughts. It’s a holy war on their part, and we’re the infidels. To engage in lawfare against their lawfare is not my definition of ‘winning.’ Opt out, separate, and build privately. There is no foundation to rebuild and nothing left worth defending – certainly not in their court system.

      • Today’s Nietzsche quote may be a bit out of context:

        “Since Copernicus man has been rolling away from the centre towards x.” [from The Will to Power]

        I take this to mean that in that time period (the Renaissance) Man was moving from old, approved thought towards the unknown and forbidden.

        Actually, perhaps not so much off-topic. He was writing about nihilism, which is the abandonment of values. To all appearances, Clown World may pretend it’s creating new values, but to me it looks more like haphazard destruction.

        He began that book by saying that after nihilism runs its course, we would need new values (or, perhaps, a return to what worked long ago?)

    • I like Ron Unz’s (?) definition: it’s a tax-free hedge fund with a prestigious university attached.

  10. “the moral position here is that Harvard, a private college, can discriminate however it pleases with regards to admissions”

    Certainly, if they stopped taking taxpayer subsidized loans and started paying taxes on their endowment.

    • And stopped taking grants.

      What is the aggregate amount of grant money Harvard has received from the government through the years?

      Surely, the real number must be 11 or even 12 figures allowing for all of the clandestine cash flowing from the deep state in furtherance of its nefarious objectives.

    • A whole of of evil could be trimmed back if the ludicrous concept of not for profits was abolished. Tens of billions are channeled into foundations annually and channeled into all sorts of nonsense. Skimming just 10% off the top would be worthwhile.

  11. Back when I’d comment at Instacuck I would press the normies there as to why can’t White people hire other White people, use only White businesses, only live around White people, etc.
    The only response I’d get back was “well if you discriminate then you better be ready for others to do it to you!!”
    The response was so shockingly clueless that, well, I thought it better that I just leave.

  12. It is jarring when you encounter it, but far right people really do believe that race is a Machiavellian plot concocted by Democrats (or insert center left party/”globalists” of their country) to maintain political control, while artificially dividing us to keep the masses weak.

    The Right’s ability to construct competing narratives to what’s offered by Liberals doesn’t get its due.

  13. The best part of the Grutter decision was O’Connor justifying AA because it allowed rich and powerful whites a chance to be around non-whites. Given that these whites would be our future elite, we need to expose them to all the people that they will rule.

    I’m not joking. That was her reasoning. Elitist to the core.

    • It was astonishing. O’Connor basically opined that the cultural enrichment of wealthy GoodWhites was far more important than the blatant discrimination against and persecution of working and middle class BadWhites.

      She was a Reagan appointee, as was Colin Powell. It is time to recognize what a disgusting anit-White racist POS Reagan was, too.

    • If they required Good Whites to be around people of a different social class and, say, criminality profile, they might be onto something. But of course, that is never proffered.

    • Harvard, as everyone knows, gets billions in Federal money and also provides a nice landing place for out-of-favor elites…So it isn’t really a private University..more like a luxurious resort for Cabal members…

  14. The racism scam has always been about White vs. black. Only YT could be racist and only blackie could be the victim and conservatards have always been on board. Of course the scam has broadened out in recent decades, but Whites are still the most evil racist bad guys ever and sambo is the primary beneficiary. It was never about equality, but rather blacks becoming the new massa with whip in hand.

    • Exactly. When you strip away all the gobbledygook from BAKKE, the who purpose and intent was to punish Whites and allow blacks to persecute them.

      • Jack: And the whole legal system and its lawyers and style of argumentation is entirely run and owned by one super special group. Even the former ‘white shoe’ law firms have been infiltrated or suborned. Almost everyone has his price – and the opposition have world-wide and nearly unlimited funds.

        • You forget the lesson of “Bake My Cake”: the process is the punishment. You win just by making them play the game.

  15. > class comes out with some new thing and conservatives come out with new responses. One choice is something the regime has declared a fatwa against, while the other choice is allowed. The job of the conservatives is to herd their people into the acceptable choice.

    A popular parenting strategy that is popular today but I’ve grown more and more to despise is the two-choice model where the parent gives the kid two options, and they make their supposed choice and the parent says, “okay, you made your choice”.

    For example:
    – Okay, you can clean your room or go without dinner.
    – You didn’t clean your room, so therefore you have chosen not to have dinner.

    It’s a really passive aggressive authority model that gives the parents the idea they are not imposing their will on the child, even though that’s exactly what they are doing. Of course, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with giving an order and a punishment for disobeying said order, but assuming it was the child’s autonomous choice based on all real options at his disposal is ridiculous. Making your child go without dinner for disobedience as a dictate based on your authority as a parent is perfectly legitimate. Pretending said authority does not exist and it’s a pure autonomous choice of the child is nonsense.

    You see the same nonsense now in adult life.
    – You refuse to vote, so you chose to not have a voice in the political process
    – You refused to get the vax, so you chose to lose your job.
    – You refused to apologize for your post, so you chose to get banned from this platform.

    Its a sick tactic to gaslight people into assuming they have autonomy where none exists, and this is going to be the model moving forward in western countries.

    • Interesting – I hadn’t noticed the extension of the parenting technique into our fair leaders’ model for how to manage society. Makes perfect sense and reflects in part the introduction of females into positions of leadership in business and government. Of course they would govern this way.

    • I am not disputing the issue of coercion, possibly in an unfair manner. Not all choices are (or should be) binary, but many, in fact, are.

      I think you err in your examples. I would re-phrase them as follows:

      Your parent-child example seems well argued enough. Let’s try some of your following cases.

      If a citizen chooses to not vote, he is by definition refusing to participate in a democratic process. I “hear” in your example the resentment such a citizen will feel if his party doesn’t win. Well, that is often the case and we often bitch about it here. Our faction may be up to 49.9999% of the voters and it may as well be 0%. That’s just the way a democracy works. Full stop.

      Jab or job example: partially agree. I’d agree that any added requirement for an existing employee (e.g. take this experimental vaccine, or be fired) should be off-limits. But for a new hire? I see nothing unfair there. Employment is normally a voluntary contract on both sides. Nobody has a “right” to a job any more than a parched farmer’s field has a “right” to rain. The employer should be free to set job requirements (but, perhaps not to unilaterally amend them after the fact). The prospective hire can accept, negotiate, or reject the offer accordingly. The acid test: is there any coercion?

      Social media: Yes, your example is an example of censorship of speech. But the platform is privately owned. The speaker may not have the right to say anything. You are a guest (or customer) of the proprietor, who sets most if not all the rules. Sorry, but that’s the way private property works. If you want freedom of speech, get your soapbox on the corner of the street, or start your own periodical.

      It’s all too easy to think that one’s “rights” carry over into the private sphere. That is rarely the case.

      “You can speak your mind, but not on my time”
      — Billy Joel

      • Holy shit, a libertarian found his way here! How’d that happen? Did you get lost little fella? Come on now, move along, you’ve got your own social media platforms/central bank/pharmaceutical industry/entire government apparatus to create.

        • 😀 Keep those downvotes coming folks! I must have really hit a nerve. I haven’t sunk that low in a long time!!! Thanks for the sarcastic remarks which actually merit what i hope will be a relatively sober response: No, I don’t have the power to create any of those things. But three of those things are private entities, which legally have no power over me. Nor do I have any over them. Although it would be very difficult, I could probably avoid those entities, or at least minimize my contact. In stark contrast, my participation in government is rarely a free choice. Government is (theoretically) the only agency with legal powers of coercion. We all wish that government would do what we wanted it to, but we’re angry when it does things we dislike. Rarely does it occur to anyone that perhaps a solution lies in having a smaller government.

      • If a citizen chooses to not vote, he is by definition refusing to participate in a democratic process. I “hear” in your example the resentment such a citizen will feel if his party doesn’t win. Well, that is often the case and we often bitch about it here. Our faction may be up to 49.9999% of the voters and it may as well be 0%. That’s just the way a democracy works. Full stop.

        Which ought to make you think that democracy is just a tool that you should abandon when it is not serving the needs of your people.

        The American Revolution was not a democratic action.

      • Our faction may be up to 49.9999% of the voters and it may as well be 0%. That’s just the way a democracy works. Full stop.

        Not true – that’s the way “our” democracy supposedly works. Others have proportionate representation.

    • That false choice is at the foundation of Christian society though.

      “Believe in Jesus (and submit to the earthly authority of the church) while being given no proof or be tortured forever in a lake of Fire.””

      “If you refuse to believe, it will be your own fault you end up in Hell.”

      • A. That is not the entirety of the choice, there are verses that address the fate of people who have not been exposed to the Gospel, and it’s not “straight to hell with them.” Through the mid 20th century, it was probably fair to say that everyone in the West had been exposed to the Gospel, but the West has become so secularized that there is a large percentage of the population that, like you, has such a primitive understanding of the Gospel that they could rightly be categorized as having not received a fair exposure to it.

        B. It’s a choice you may not like, but why is it a false choice? What’s false about it? If Christianity is true, then the rules God set up are the rules of the universe. Not liking a choice doesn’t make it a false choice.

        • Good point – not all binary choices are false just because you don’t like it.

          Borrowing from Pascal, fact is you will die. Only possibilities are something exists after, or it doesn’t. If not, no worries I suppose. If yes, it behooves you to figure it out. Not a fun binary choice, but one nobody is exempt from making.

        • The flaw in such reasoning is based on the model that Abraham’s god is the Creator.

          No. I will not worship the Jew, nor his god.
          That is a false choice.

      • You seem awfully worried about the afterlife for someone who allegedly doesn’t believe in it.

    • The problem with all this nonsense being that Western society is on a collision course with extinction, at which point the old rules of survival will take over…

  16. I think a lot of that is driven by generation politics, Z. And it’s fair too – back in the boomer’s day you could actually have a discussion with a liberal. Not even 20 years ago I used to duel with one on the old message board style forums. He was a proponent of queers, and I was solidly against them. Up here in Canada the sodomites won that battle hands down… and we got the first raunchy gay parades, gay divorce, gay school teachers – and my buddy was just as pleased as punch. But then the other stuff started. A pastor was sued and censored for publishing an article critical of queers in the newspaper. Gays started stalking kids in the schools, Christian bakers were put out of business because they wouldn’t bake a dildo themed wedding cake for a couple of queers, etc ad nauseum…and I remember that guy apologizing and wondering what in hell his team had just invented and set loose on the world. He was still a leftist… but he knew, deep down, that something had gone seriously wrong.

    On Blab we are starting to see younger folks that sound more like you than you do. They make the same noises, they call out the jews when necessary, and smirk at the manifestation of race realities. (Wafflehouse Fight Club was a dissident tour de force in chit poasting, HAR HAR HAR!)

    Why – yesterday, even Tulsi Gabbard flipped the democrats off and hit the road. What the hell was that? Could there be a rising “dissident left”? Something HAS to happen on the other side of the Great Divide. Things can’t keep going as they are. Perhaps the same dissident bomb will go off over there as it has over here?

    One can only hope.

    • The Tulsi Gabbard – Glenn Greenwald “dissident left” is really just civic nationalist with some old-school Democrat thrown in. (Joe Biden in the 1980s in other words.) They’re not actually dissidents; they’re people who notice though, and have taken maybe half a red pill, but still think facts and persuasion will bring us back from the precipice.

      I wish Tulsi good luck, though. Hopefully she’s the start of something.

      • I doubt that her “conversion” is anything but opportunism. Seeing her opportunities for higher office and higher grifting going up in smoke by a combination of Democratic Party anti-white policy, as well as being shut out of plum positions because she does not belong to the Biden/Obama or Clinton factions, and lacking a strong patron, she’s made the turn towards the Vichy Right who will lovingly embrace her as a Strong Conservative Woman like “Nikki Haley”, allowing her to milk the cash cow within the Vichy Right and CivNat circles.

        • Exactly. Though one hopes she still has enough residual animus against the GOP to prevent her from joining the cuck right.

        • I fear Pickle Rick is probably right on Gabbard. There is a white pill here which is every time a leftist does this, it creates an opening for a white man to find his balls and speak in even stronger terms against anti-white racism and the anti-white legal order.

          At some point, white men are going to have to be the ones to stand up and speak truth with conviction and strength. Whoever leads this is going to find themselves with a king making following. The time is ripe.

          • “At some point, white men are going to have to be the ones to stand up and speak truth with conviction and strength. Whoever leads this is going to find themselves with a king making following. The time is ripe.”

            So far, it is primarily the right that has been policing white men and preventing them from standing up.

            I don’t see a “King making following”, the dissident right is still vastly outnumbered by the conventional conservatives who want the token black man to represent their interests at political conferences and in congress (see Walker in Georgia)

        • Well there is one significant difference between Nikki and Tulsi – Tulsi is not a warmonger. I think she is pretty sincere about that. Maybe the neocons will change her, but I hope not.

      • Nothing will be made of this. She will disappear into the void. When Tucker asked her if any of her colleagues reached out to her, she said “only one”. That should tell you all you need to know. All that will happen with this move is a whole lot of nothing, and she will be excommunicated from “the club”.

        The left is populated with true believers who will stop at nothing to win. That is why they have won.

        • She was excommunicated from the club when she got snarky at Kamala during the prez debates. It was around that time she decided not to run again for congress…obvs the Dems weren’t going to send PAC money her way.

          I just hopes she decides to go bold now. It is now or never. She must set up a Gab account, have Blake Masters on her show, and start retweeting Kanye and MTG. If she throws a bone to the old-school Reagan Democrats while doing it, or finds some synergy between the old Left and new Right, she could start something special.

          That’s what my heart tells me. My head tells me that she’ll go the Candace Owens route, and be just a normie radical centrist.

  17. The 1984 Grove City College decision by the Supreme Court said schools that receive even $1 in federal money, even for someone on the GI Bill, who gets the money independently for serving the Emprie, has to follow all the federal rules, such as Title IX for women’s sports. Harvard, although private, receives many millions a year. Amusingly, now there’s controversy over who is a woman. And it’s Harvard Law that has corrupted the judicial process more than anything else, even Yale Law.

    • The Supreme Court ruled a while ago in Bob Jones University vs. United States that the government can selectively choose to remove tax exempt status for racial discrimination and other wrong-think. They would do far worse now to any implicitly white organization.

      The game is rigged, even if I agree in principle with Z’s point. No good answer.

    • “Amusingly, now there’s controversy over who is a woman.”

      According to the Selective Service department, if you were born a man, you’re a man for purposes of draft registration, regardless of your “gender identity,” and likewise with women — women who identify as men don’t have to register for the draft. Based SSO — official government policy is that men are men and women are women and there’s an objective difference between the two.

      “US citizens or immigrants who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register. Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register.”

  18. I somewhat disagree with you, I think. Anything that wipes the abomination of BAKKE from the face of the Earth is a good thing because it inadvertently declares diversity/multi-culturalism to be anathema to the human condition. I am afraid, though, we will see a distinction made between public and private, allowing the latter to continue to persecute Whites.

    The TAC jackass who wrote that piece got the right result for the wrong reason. Take note how he cannot acknowledge the persecution of Whites that BAKKE represented and has to use Asians and Jews as fig leaves. Even for the wrong reasons, anything that alleviates discrimination against Whites is a good thing, and a gateway to allowing Whites to disassociate from non-Whites.

    Little steps.

    • I understand that line of reasoning, but enshrining the claim that no one can discriminate is a high price for a little schadenfreude. If on the other hand they simply overturn Bakke and send the whole matter back to the beginning, then it is a good result. Let’s have a debate about whether private entities can discriminate.

      • You’re right, but it’s a subtle – yeah, I know, it’s not really subtle – argument.

        People are simple. The court saying institutions can’t discriminate on the basis of race is probably the best that we can hope for.

        That said, I’m on your side. There’s a difference between public and private institutions. Just as I’m allowed to decide who comes into my house, I should be allowed to decide who I do business with.

        • What the regime has done since the start of the last century is break down that ancient barrier between public and private. The concept of hate speech rests on the assumption that you have no right to your thoughts. Even the space inside your head is a public space.

          This is the logic of the prison.

          • “Even the space inside your head is a public space.” Exactly. Every argument against free speech (and every law against discriminatory thoughts and actions) is predicated on the idea that you do not have a right to your own opinion. Your own mind belongs to others (or at bare minimum the broader ‘communal good’). This is also why the family structure must be destroyed.

            Brilliant analysis of why conservativism failed to conserve anything. The NR article has to be read to be believed. Now I know how we got here.

          • “Even the space inside your head is a public space.”

            Every totalitarian system, including ours, embraces that concept.

          • This may be where conservatives are most evil. They allow for the punishment of Badwhites by private entities but, of course, never allow for Freedom of Association by private entitities.

            Conservative Inc is just fine with Twitter banning people because of their political views because it’s a private company and should be allowed to do what it wants.

            But if I opened a business and said that I’d prefer to hire only whites, Conservative Inc would lose its shit and demand that I be shut down.

            At least the Left admits that it wants total control. Conservative Inc tricks normies into thinking that it wants freedom.

          • I would only add that the GAE regime also considers our physical bodies to be public spaces under their control.

        • “I should be allowed to decide who I do business with.”
          In a sane world, yes, but the cheese fell off that cracker a while ago.
          I remember as a kid several places my parents took me that had a sign near the entrance of the establishment that read “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” And that was gospel for quite a long time, no one questioned it. Now, that’s an invitation to having your business closed via lawsuit.

        • They obliterate that distinction through the use of federal funding carrot. Not many private institutions could exist without feral – I mean, federal – student loans. You want the loan money, you follow our rules.

          Even if you could get by w/o feral – I mean federal – student loan money, they would probably try to pull the same stunt with accreditation, in particular any degree that requires professional certification by the state afterwards.

      • I agree it may be a high price but it is worth it. I would prefer what you suggested, overturning BAKKE and going back to the status quo ante, but since that will not happen I will take the incrementalism as unpalatable as it may be. BAKKE, even more than BROWN, laid the foundation for blatantly anti-White discrimination. If it can die, even at the cost of a leftwing rationale, I’ll take it.

        As somewhat of an aside, if there is a good decision, it will be lit AF to watch the Democrats introduce legislation to permit anti-White discrimination and to watch the Republicans fall all over themselves to support it in some way or another (this somewhat happened with DOBBS). Aqain, win-win.

        • The problem is it is incrementally more oppressive, regardless of the position. In rendering any verdict, the axiomatic premise of the ruling (gub can regulate interpersonal relations) is reinforced.

          • I fully get that argument and it has validity, but disagree that chipping away at BAKKE reinforces the current regime. It actually attacks its central premise. Incrementalism in this limited context is perfectly acceptable.

        • I completely get your point, but I think of over 200 years of constant judicial activism (I pin the start to Marbury v Madison) that helped lead to the current state of affairs. I do not feel this trend will be undercut by any ruling. I could be wrong. But I will reiterate that I still believe that the most recent abortion ruling will ultimately be superseded by a future ruling that will make all abortions completely legal in US. I suppose time will tell.

          • Another here who feels that Marbury v. Madison was the fatal bite at the forbidden fruit; to my mind, the ambit of the Supreme Court was primarily to decide the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes (with ancillary responsibilities concerning interstate conflicts and international legal disputes). Instead, we got the first instance of “makin’ shit up when it’s what we want to enshrine and reinforce via stare decisis. Once that was accepted, look out below, as even parts of the Constitution such as the Interstate Commerce Clause could be shanghaied to suit the preferences of the centralizers of Federal power, undermining the 9th and 10th Amendments in every way possible, this being a dome deal after Lincoln.

            And from that vantage point, the Federalization of abortion law easily flows. Screw the cant about the “laboratories of democracy” being the individual States, ’cause that argument is done and dusted.

  19. We’ve fallen so far from the tree of knowledge I fear we are now at the shrubs of stupidity under which grow the poppies of perversion..

    • Yes, and he talked about Nozick a few weeks ago. Of course, modern “libertarianism”, as opposed to the old-school stuff, is a clown car and Zman has made this point ,um, a lot.

      • When Murray died in the mid 1990’s, he had already spent a good 20 years castigating the “libertarian” frauds at Cato, and Reason. There’s nothing at all new about various left wing thugs and neocons calling themselves libertarians.

        • Libertarianism went through a similar purge as conservatism. The paleo-libertarians were pushed out in favor of the lifestyle libertarians. The old Ron Paul brand of libertarianism was fine, if a bit unrealistic about the real cause of our problems. Sound money is not cure for ideological fervor.

          • With sound money, certain players could not make as many war loans to fund their war against White civilization.

            The skinsuit economy is no longer about white people making white stuff. Those things aren’t the basis of measure anymore.

    • Libertarianism is foolish because it refuses to see that the basic unit of survival is the tribe not the individual.

      • Yes, great insight. None of us are an island. And individuals are not “rational” as the libertarian would wish it so. The human condition, indeed the condition of all life, is CONFLICT. To be born, you need Man (thesis) and Woman (antithesis) to create Baby (synthesis).

        Within in a tribe there is endless intra-personal conflict for status, work, property, mates. It’s ALWAYS conflict! The human condition is fraught and always on the precipice of tragedy and WAR just by nature of life.

        But it can only work if the family, the tribe work and stays together. To introduce foreign tribes is throw a powder keg and ask for war and misery.

      • I surely agree with you; your observation is generally what history, experience, etc. teaches.

        After the hornet’s nest I created here earlier, and being called the “L” word (which I cannot deny), my only comment is: perhaps the libertarian exists because the tribe kicked him out on his individualist ass 😀

Comments are closed.