The Moral Divide

Note #1: I was on with Mike Ferris to have a causal chat about current events and the midterm elections. You can listen here. The Monday Taki post is up and it is related to the topic of the day. Sunday Thoughts is up behind the green door so if you do not have a subscription, get one. SubscribeStar and Substack.

Note #2: If you post a comment and it disappears or says something about it being in moderation, do not keep hitting submit. Do not change the wording thinking you will game the robots. Be patient. I check moderation several times every hour so your post will appear shortly. The best way to avoid moderation is to not link to video or images, as they always get flagged and I rarely approve them.

Every human society has a set of rules that define the society and answer the most fundamental question for any human society. You cannot have a society without first answering the question, who are we? History and biology do the heavy lifting for large human societies, while smaller societies, like social clubs, will have some sort of founding document to define the society. Of course, constitutions are not just for small scale societies. Big countries have them too.

The United States has had at least three unifying concepts. Originally, what held America together was a common religion. The founding generation were English people who practiced a common form of Christianity. Subsequently, the country was held together by republican virtue. A civic religion based around the liberal principles in the Bill of Rights. This was replaced in the 20th century with the melting pot idea, where diverse people emerge from the crucible of liberty as one people.

Throughout our history, in every framing of American unity, a set of principles has defined the morality of American society. First and foremost, Americans have the unfettered right to speak their minds, even to those in positions of authority, without fear of retribution. Free speech, the freedom of belief, the freedom to assemble and the freedom to do all of these to petition the government for the redress of grievances is the first principle of American morality.

There are other moral principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The right of self-defense, even from the government, is in the Second Amendment. The Fourth Amendments prevents the state from spying on citizens. The Fifth Amendment prevents double jeopardy and compulsory self-incrimination. The things we think of as our rights are enumerated in the Bill of Right, but in practice these are the moral principles we consider to be beyond questioning.

It is those rights in the First Amendment that are the most sacred to Americans, as they are the cornerstone of American morality. The right to believe what you want to believe, say those beliefs out loud and organize fellow believers to promote your beliefs is the encapsulation of the American identity. It is not just how Americans see themselves, but how the rest of the world defines American identity. The rest of the world may not like what we say, but they envy our right to say it.

This is what makes the assaults on Kanye West and Kyrie Irving important. These two are not simply getting jeered by detractors. There is a highly organized effort to destroy their lives and strip from them their most basic right. In the case of Irving, he has been told that he must publicly condemn the movie he promoted and denounce everyone involved in it. This is what the Red Guards did to their victims. They were forced to publicly confess and wear dunce caps in public.

There is also the race issue. Black people in America get a free pass on speech, even when their speech offends common decency. Kanye West promotes himself as a Christian, but he got rich in a business built on peddling vulgarity, violence, drug taking and criminality. Everyone has been forced to use euphemisms in order to discuss crime, because blacks get special treatment. Here we are, however, with two famous black people forced into a humiliation ritual.

What this suggests is the bigots opposed to this core moral tenet, the right to speak freely and without fear of retribution, have removed themselves from what we have always considered the fundamental morality of America. Bigot is the correct word, as a bigot is someone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices and intolerant of those outside their group. This is the factionalism that the Founders warned was incompatible with a republic.

Kanye West and Kyrie Irving are ridiculous people whose heads are full of nonsense, but these are the people who have always been the proof case. In our society, we tolerate ridiculous people with nonsense in their heads. To paraphrase Jefferson, we try to set them right to the facts. If they remain unpersuaded, we persuade everyone else to ignore them. From time to time, the ridiculous guy spouting nonsense turns out to be right and we are all better for it.

That is unlikely to be the case here, but it is not the point. What this incident reveals is that there is a moral divide. There is no middle ground when it comes to these moral principles that define American civilization. There is no ADL exemption to our moral code that permits this. There is no moral scold clause that permits the SPLC to organize an economic war on Elon Musk. These people have chosen to remove themselves from our common morality.

The moral separation is at the very heart of American identity. The Declaration of Independence is a moral document that spells out how the colonies and Great Britain no longer shared the same moral space. Because the colonies had evolved a new moral code that was different from that of the mother country, it was necessary that the colonies break free from the mother country. Two people who lack a common more code must separate from one another.

What normal Americans now face is the dilemma imagined by Hans Hermann-Hoppe when thinking through the challenges of a libertarian society. Hoppe has tried to address a well known contradiction in libertarian theory. How can a libertarian society deal with people who embrace socialism or monarchism? If your principles prevent the use of coercion, what do you do when members of a libertarian society embrace something contrary to libertarianism?

The starting place of every human society is that set of moral principles that answers the most fundament question for every human society, who are we? What must be done when a segment of society decides they are no longer us? This is what the bigots are presenting to the rest of us. They refuse to uphold our morality, the thing that defines us as a people, so they are in effect making war on us. How should we defend ourselves from this assault on our very nature?

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. Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that makes coffee. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

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

163 thoughts on “The Moral Divide

  1. America isn’t the land of the free and home of the brave. Americans are a conquered people so it isn’t surprising that they no longer have the basic freedoms. A conquered people are at the whim of the tribe who conquered them. In this situation the new masters despise the populace.

  2. Just had fun. Howard Stern went negative on Hershal. I put a comment on the article “Howard Stern is beneath contempt. Another Jewish liberal”. It was rejected. I erased “Another Jewish liberal” and it was published. I entered another comment “Howard Stern’s parents were Jewish” and it was published. I entered another comment “Howard Stern is a liberal”, and it, too was published. Kanye had a valid point!

  3. Obviously, separation is the answer to Hoppe’s dilemma that libertarians would prefer. But what do you do when the others refuse to leave or let you go?

    (I haven’t read the other comments yet — or any of Hoppe’s writings on the issue — so I apologize if this has already been addressed.)

    • I don’t grasp how this “peaceful separation” is supposed to work. Let’s say, for example, that there is an agreement for California to leave the Union. The plan is that they will have border guards, print their own currency and postage stamps, their own Olympic team, their own representative at the UN, and all that independent-sovereign-state stuff. All US military bases in California would be closed, all US military equipment removed, and the land turned over to the Dear Leader Gavin Newsom.

      In two days there would be Chinese bombers with nukes on board lined up on the tarmac at Vandenberg and Edwards. In two weeks Chinese marines would be climbing out of container ships in the harbors of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and tanks and artillery pieces and missile launchers would follow as quickly as they could be loaded on ships to cross the Pacific. The Chinese troops wouldn’t even be in the barracks yet before Gavin Newsom, Rob Bonta, Eric Garcetti, and London Breed would be begging them to go up to Modoc County and start making examples of those bitter clinger hicks.

      They can’t stop talking about how badly they want us colonized, displaced, replaced, and exterminated. They can’t shut up about it. They think it’s self-evident. They think it’s funny. Their ideology will not let them leave us alone. There can be no “peaceful divorce.” They are unwilling to share a continent with us, or a planet. Their ideology won’t let them leave us be.

    • Glenn Beck did that once — well, almost. After the buildup, what came on was Al Franken-Stein on ‘Air America’, an abortion in its way, and hilarious.

  4. How? In my view, the only realistic way is to consider it a war on our posterity and kill the attackers. If we value our children and the kind of society we want to bequeath them, we must. If history shows another way, I am ignorant of it.

  5. Fortunately, I’m not a lawyer, but if I couldn’t play basketball because of something I said it seems to me the team owner has violated my civil rights, and a lawsuit is in order?

    • The law is what a judge says it is, nothing more nor less.

      What judge is going to upend the last 50 years of muzzled speech and suffer the same systematic attack against themselves, their family and their own position?

      No such judge exists I would wager.

  6. Nice interview on the CWM podcast. It is interesting that the only 2 southern presidents were southern. I would argue that Clinton was not Southern by virtue that he is a Harvard guy whose entire entourage and power base was Northeastern. Then there is his carpet bagging wife who is pure Northeastern.

    So, it is even worse. After 1880 or so, they managed a gooberish peanut farmer.

    • I disagree with the entire premise that there were only two Southern presidents since the Civil War.

      Wilson certainly was Southern although he migrated to New Jersey and became a national figure there. As a boy he watched Jefferson Davis dragged in chains through his hometown in Georgia. I also would argue Truman was as well since, from memory, he had family in the Confederate Army and Missouri is a textbook border state, a blend of the South and the Midwest.

      That aside, the general point does stand. The South contains by far the largest population of any region and the post-CW presidents certainly do not reflect that–to its credit.

      • Andrew Johnson was a Southerner-a Yankee collaborator from Tennessee.
        Lyndon Johnson was a Southerner-a carpetbagging piece of shit from Texas who unleashed Negroes on White Southerners, but a Southerner nonetheless.
        What is remarkable is that there has not been a Southern US President who has stood up for Southern rights since Zachary Taylor in 1849.
        Unless you count Jefferson Davis.

        • Yep, those two fine specimens as well, and if you use the Census Bureau definition of South, you have to include “Biden.” As a native Southerner I rejected that definition even before that tyrannical piece of trash became “president.”

  7. Pingback: The Moral Divide | American Freedom News

  8. We can begin Sir Z by recognizing that The Bill of Rights are Amendments, not the Core Governing Document, and that who has what powers in government does matter.

    To make a practical suggestion we can restore Constitutional government namely Articles I Congress and II the Presidency, the Congress can go back to making, unmaking and controlling laws relieving the Bureaucracy of this burden, and the President can fire and hire Civil Servants. The Courts can go back to being the last and exceptional ditch instead of the primary indeed sole means of petition and redress for abusive laws passed by bureaucrats.

    How we restore Constitutional government is another matter altogether. Perhaps we’ll just vote harder and blog them into submission.

    Surely we can talk our way out of it.

  9. From Taki:
    Then there is the paranoia that has been a feature of Jewish identity [since]…
    —I think you could use glacial ice cores to see how far back that goes.

  10. Zman,

    Love your stuff. But your treatment of this topic, especially in the Taki post, is extremely weak. Oh, this is “just” happening “now”?? You cannot be serious. We have been in this state of affairs for about 50 years at least. Come on man. If you can’t address this point honestly, most of your stuff becomes suspect.

    Although I did appreciate the basketball history lesson.


    • Perhap you missed this paragraph:

      “Then there is the changing nature of America. In the 20th century, the country was close to 90 percent white. Championing blacks was a way for Jews to raise their status in a moral society without having to abandon their Jewish identity. This worked when whites had no concern for their own ethnic interests. In a majority-minority society where everyone has ethnic interests, this strategy is counterproductive.”

  11. Hrrrmmmmmmmm.

    The right to think what we want, and organize others to share in our beliefs…

    That is the problem in a nutshell, perhaps? Let us give the devil his due: The guys cancelling Kanye and that other one are palm rubbing happy merchants with funny hats and big noses. They are saying what they believe, they are encouraging others to accept it and act on it, and they are very, very organized, and excellent at marketing their views to others. They are so good at it, I myself used to stand with Isreal before I got corrupted by the dissidents. It can be argued successfully that all they are doing is living the American dream the American way. The way they’ve folded fake moralities, contrived legalities and half truths into their attack on heritage Americans would make Adolph proud. The dissidents could and should learn from these guys.

    I disagree with Andrew Torba and possibly our esteemed blog host. Sure, we should support other dissidents, but the “parallel economy” is a non-starter. The jews will simply undermine a viable parallel economy the way they are undermining their pet joggers and old world heritage Americans that don’t see colour. I live by a new creed now: if it’s legal, and it would make the happy merchants unhappy – do it! Without a second thought! If it’s illegal, but you can get away with it… do that too, if you’re so inclined. Terrance Popp is veritable expert in (administrative violence) and specializes in turning the system against itself. We need to do the same… but it is only a temporary measure.

    If we were smart we’d be driving the wedge between the jews and blacks for all we’re worth. Nothing but good could come out of that particular fight.

    • Yes. Our top priority is organizing our people.

      However, as I think David Cole said, they have unleashed their black Gollum and they may not be able to get it back under control.

      If we organize ourselves and stand up in ourselves and most importantly find the means to get our youth to stand up in themselves, in a mature, sober (think not Nick Fuentes), then we will be able to assert ourselves effectively in the midst of money grubbing pseudo intellectuals whose lies and trickery will be their undoing and a group of people with a blood libel who nobody, in the long run, has anything to gain from an alliance with. A voting block in exchange for not rioting and jobs programs and hand outs for all style and no substance in a globally competitive world is not a viable group to ally with.

      We focus on ourselves and see how we can opportunistically poke holes in their unholy alliance.

      • No. Emphatically.

        You turn your back on those guys, and they will put a knife in it. Yes, we must improve ourselves and steel ourselves for what is coming… but it is imperative that we see it coming and plan for it.

        Parallel economies and cultures mean a huge loss of profit for the guys rigging the mainstream market – that is why, historically – they crush them and the people that participate in them. You will not be allowed to walk away when this runs its inevitable course. You will accept your place in their new culture, or they will kill you and take your stuff. That is how these guys roll, and when they get wound up – they kill millions.

        Dissidents must become insurgents. Either that – or live in a failed state with a gangster govt.

    • If we were smart we’d be driving the wedge between the jews and blacks for all we’re worth

      Better yet, we should pit Israelis against American Jews

    • “and old world heritage Americans that don’t see colour.”

      Here is my workaround for this. I always say, It is actually true that I don’t see color, but OTOH I very much DO see culture. And when a particular, readily identifiable, utterly poisonous culture is linked overwhelmingly to a particular color (or nose size), then by sheer force of the associative property I am compelled to see color as well, under certain circumstances.

    • Blacks typically are all the wedge that’s needed at least in terms of real-world lessons about why it’s best to stay far from them. Surely not representative of all Jewry*, but say what you will about the Hasidim in Washington Heights NYC. They are some tough SOBs holding on to their community as the surrounding went to shit.

      *They take Judaism a bit too seriously, even by other Jews’ standards.

  12. I’m very close to a free speech absolutist, yet I think some speech is so depraved it should be prohibited. That’s obviously a fine needle to thread.

    There are some kinds of speech prohibited in the US, sedition and yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, off the top of my head. So, speech that directly threatens public or political order. Fair enough.

    Why, though, no prohibition on speech that threatens the cultural or moral order? Do we, as a society, not consider culture and morality essential to an ordered society? In other words, was America dissolute and multicultural by design? Or is it that, not being an established nation (and being, to a significant degree, composed of outcasts and religious dissidents) when the Bill of Rights was written, the consensus to tackle that issue didn’t exist?

    I wonder if we’re truly the wicked people we’re made out to be in our time of weakness, or if we didn’t take up that duty in its time, or were we diverted from it. Maybe culture and morality are too important to not be dealt with at the beginning.

    • Free speech is a weapon to undermine the existing order. The whole notion was implanted in you for that purpose. The west never had free speech, it just had speech parameters that outside media promotion most whites were comfortable with.

      Recent history is demonstrating to those willing to let go of the tool that undermined their own society that control of the parameters of public speech is what makes public society.

      • I’m an American, so I’m jealous of my right to think and speak as I see fit. That doesn’t mean I want freedom from consequences.

        Culture, morality, tradition, etc., should set and enforce the limits in most cases, and the law shouldn’t be much more than a last resort. Americans, at least, haven’t completed the work on that front, so we wrote down and exalted the Constitution, and what society we have left is dominated by lawyers and money men. The people clinging to the written Constitution are clinging to a tree in a tornado.

        We wanted private life but didn’t give ourselves the tools to have it imo. Merely a piece of paper backed by force, and it’s pretty clear at this point what good that’s done. So on top of the lawyers and money men, people flee to the four corners for refuge because they don’t have a castle.

        Modern types say the pen is mightier than the sword, but a well-founded identity is mightier still. “That’s not our way” is hard to overcome. Free speech is part of American identity, constrained by that identity. Were we mature— if we knew who we are— we wouldn’t have been as easily wheedled and argued down the drain.

        • Your position seems somewhat self contradictory to me.

          The punishment aspect culturally and legally is the very thing that maintains boundaries of expression (as we see now).

          Trying to maintain that you can have both freedom to speak and be OK with punishment for such speech seems a position that negates itself.

          • Free speech means something different to Americans than the legal/philosophical idea. Culture is beholden to the law, so we get the latter. I’m arguing it should be the other way around.

            Culture enforces itself for survival, the law is an ass.

          • @painter

            we are agreeing sort of.

            When you have control of the culture then the law interpretation is aligned with your culture and there is little conflict and not that much use for it apart from punishing the outliers to your culture. As it should be, but it is largely invisible to most people even though it is strongly used to maintain public decency and was used repeatedly in the US against anarchism and pornography prior to WW1.

            As the control of the culture moved, the idea of an absolute free speech was injected by these forces into the culture to support the takeover and stuff like public pornography etc were enabled on these grounds, when a few years before it would have been punished under the same laws.

            The right to speech I contend was framed within the morality of the time it was drafted was probably mostly about freedom of religious views even though it was not explicit, and the idea of using it to attack public morality was not I imagine a thing.

            Even when the laws do not change, when you completely lose control of the culture to some other group the laws are then used against your own culture and against the common view all the time. Which is what you see now.

            I am saying that the idea of it being an absolute is not real, and never was, it was an idea added on to attack your own culture and reality is that in order to restore such a thing requires accepting that fact.

          • I’m not disagreeing with that. I think America would be a much stronger nation if we’d continued on the traditional route instead of embracing an Enlightenment fad. The reason we’ve ended up with a foreign elite without conquering armies is because, as far as the system is concerned, the contract is the basis for the nation.

            Laws don’t make a nation or a culture. When I say I’m nearly absolutist about free speech, I mean that in the context of my culture. Whether or not I’m aware of it, the culture is the limiting factor, not lawyers’ opinions. My argument is that the weakness of American culture is what allowed things to come to this. I’m not sure we lost control of it, because I’m not sure we had control of it to begin with.

            The reason why the people didn’t notice it happening is because it’s unnatural to them. They can’t conceive of such an absurd state of affairs, or believe it’s happening.

            That also means there is an American nation, even if the US was built on the failed idea of the social contract.

    • “Free Speech,” as that term is widely understood today is a thoroughly modern invention. Worse, “Free Speech,” has been subtly changed to “Free Expression” which is even more expansive than that fake “Free Speech” concept.

      Any concept or so-called “right” which forces you to stand by while degenerates load up the school library with pornography and instructional books on degeneracy aimed at 8 year olds is an evil concept which should be smashed, not defended.

      Even worse, is none of this libertine stuff ever applies to regular people. We have de facto hate-speech laws in the US. Ramzpaul was lecturing someone on Twitter the other day about how we don’t have hate speech laws, that is only true in the de jure sense. They are not new either. I know someone who was sent to prison for 3-15 years for hate speech, despite their being no de jure hate speech laws. Guy did 3 years of state prison and 12 years of parole.

      • I narrowly escaped this fate myself, I was looking at 5 years for basically sending a text message that a brown fella did not like.

        He took that message sent as a joke and twisted it up into something menacing because he was very savvy about what are the ‘right words’ to say in liberal hellholes when its a black vs. white issue. “Felt afraid for my life”, “threatening & intimidating”, etc.

        Recall, I never spoke an unkind word to this guy though he deserved plenty. This was all on the strength of ONE text message. And that earned me a 4 am no-knock raid, Roger Stone style. And on the same flimsy pretext too.

        It was an overt and overwhelming display of force to simply ‘let me know my place’ as a White male who would dare harass a a brown man that knew how to game the system.

        In spite of barely slipping the noose of a prison sentence it did utterly destroy my employability for 7 years and I will never fully recover unfortunately.

        Take home message? The internet, email, social media, and text messages are -forever-. Anything you say on those platforms or methods can and WILL be used against you in a court of law. Literally.

        Always consider this even when texting in private with people you trust. Pretend there is an FBI agent looking over one shoulder and an NSA listener looking over the other before you hit ‘send’ because for all intents & purposes, there are. They are constantly monitoring and harvesting so should you run afoul of the law even at a future point allllll that back data will be gathered against you.

        Learn from my and many others painful mistakes for seeming trivialities. Kanye and his buddy are learning the hard way that even their negro card which gives them a pass in 99% of interactions does NOT protect them from that top 1% on the victim totem pole.

        • I was skimming through this poast, and I got to thinking to muhself, “my goodness, this sounds just like JNDC’s situation”.

          So I scrolled back up, and sure enough, there he was.


          Muh bro.

    • “…some kinds of speech prohibited in the US, sedition and yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, off the top of my head.”

      That’s a bit of an old saw. From what I understand, you can certainly yell “fire”, but you can not escape punishment for such an action (assuming no fire). Here’s where we begin to discuss prior restraint.

      I think that’s where we need to begin discussion. Say what you like, but suffer the consequences (societal/legal) for saying things “beyond the pale”.

      • I agree agree about facing consequences. Prohibition and constraint are different. You can also murder someone and face the consequences.

    • Free speech does not exist here anymore. Why would someone exercise free speech when they will be fired from their job, have their property confiscated and their bank accounts frozen? That is not free speech. The word “free” implies you are free from retribution or consequence for expressing your opinion.

      Also, like our esteemed host often points out, it is not what is said when it comes to speech, it is WHO gets to say it. If you are a white Christian who says that black crime is an issue, your life is destroyed. If you are a black pundit on MSNBC you can advocate for killing white people with no consequence.

      We have turned into everything the founders feared most. The idea of multi racial and multi cultural societies, or melting pots as Z points out, working out and resulting in harmony is complete and utter nonsense. It has never, and will never, work.

    • @paintersforms

      How about absolute free speech unless is proven to be untrue? Eg anal marriage is a net possitive for society

  13. Cherry picking a bit from other comments:
    Inalienable rights granted by God such as: freedom of speech, religion, association, unlawful search and seizure. These replaced with commands from an opaque government god / goddess with what is both illogical and oxy-moronic for: restorative justice, repressive tolerance, gay marriage, dysphoric genderism, saint Floyd(s), etc?

    As ZMan says: “They refuse to uphold our morality, the thing that defines us as a people, so they are in effect making war on us. How should we defend ourselves from this assault on our very nature”?

    Well, in just a few short days Red Wave Inc. will arise in our defense to repel the assault, whereupon truth, justice, and the American way will be restored. Are you as thankful as I am?

    • “Well, in just a few short days Red Wave Inc. will arise in our defense to repel the assault, whereupon truth, justice, and the American way will be restored. Are you as thankful as I am?”

      Congratulations for not paying attention the umpteen previous times a Red Wave occurred at the ballot box — only to result in the triumphant GOP selling out their own base in more ways than one can keep track of. Just because Republicans don’t demonize you to nearly the extent that Democrats do does not mean that the GOP is on your side. Both parties are wholly owned by the enemies of Western civilization. Don’t let empty rhetoric convince you otherwise.

      P.S.: I strongly suspect that your comment was intended to be sarcastic. If so, I apologize for my unsophisticated interpretation.

      • Highly sarcastic.
        Thus the danger of not stating it explicitly. I’d have thought most readers of this blog would get it. Live and learn. Not sarcastic.

      • Looks like Toma has changed his name for the “upteenth” time.. do the moderators here keep track of IP addresses?

  14. >What must be done when a segment of society decides they are no longer us?

    Physical removal. There is no alternative.

    But the question begs another: this segment was never us, was never going to be us, and played us for fools while we believed otherwise. The segment in question should never have been allowed to poison our society with their presence in the first place.

    It turns out that the new boss is not the same as the old boss. But putting that aside: we won’t get fooled again. If we have to place gargoyles back in every public space to pound it into the heads of the dirtiest dirtfolk…

    Never Again

    • “The segment in question should never have been allowed to poison our society with their presence in the first place.”

      That is the real lesson in all this.

      We will still have problems (the human condition and all that…), but at least we won’t have to deal with their shenanigans and machinations. That is the greatest gift we could give to our own posterity now: “never again.”

      Let the “segment in question” live, flourish, and die in their own nation, and not in our nations. They can never again blame us, and we can never again blame them.

  15. quote from Blade Runner “then we’re stupid and we’ll die”. nuff said.

    OTOH I base my group prejudices on my personal interactions with said group, if interacting with them gives rise to fear, frustration or rage, I tend to avoid those groups although individuals within said groups may be pleasant enough, it’s that old ROI question, if most of my interactions with them are bad, it profits me to cut them loose and avoid all future contact.

  16. My other comment was more about Jews as a people. As to what’s to be done, the simple and obvious answer is separation. But Jews will never allow us to peacefully separate. They desperately need whites, both as skilled helots and because of their strange need to have the moral approval over whom they rule.

    They can’t let us go economically or emotionally.

    But Jews are a funny master. In some ways, they’re all-powerful. In other ways, they’re a paper tiger. The key to their power is that other groups don’t have their own communities and institutions. Jews control other groups via the media, finance and education. If a group doesn’t watch their shows, use their own banks and educates their children, Jews lose almost all of their power.

    Sure, Jews can use their control of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to physically and legally attack the leaders of a group, but that overt power doesn’t stop the alternative community from existing.

    This is why Jews’ primary goal is stopping whites from forming alternative communities. It’s literally the most important goal for them because it’s their biggest threat.

      • It works for the Japanese and Chinese.

        Jews have been trying to get their hooks into the Japanese for 50 years, but the Japs won’t let them. Same now with the Chinese.

        However, Jews do have a lot of control over the dollar and thus international banking. The Japanese and Chinese know this, but keep autonomy by keeping control of their own banks.

        Keeping Jews out of your society is the best answer. A bit late for that now in the US. Ours will be a tougher road.

    • Their complete lack of introspection may have evolved as a survival mechanism as an out-of-power minority, but when holding actual power it is a fatal flaw rather than a benefit. “What’s good for the Jews?” leads to “Whatever is bad for Whites”, but they’re unable to look in the mirror to see that whatever they’re cooking up probably isn’t all that great for Jews either.

      • Yeah, their fatal flaw is not recognizing how their behavior to get on top causes them to get overthrown. They can’t shift gears.

      • Your comment is especially tanalizing for one like me who has read [too much] Nietzsche. I’ll skip the philosophy lesson, but cover the basics. Nietzsche lectures at length about what he terms master or slave morality. The latter is a response, a defense mechanism if you like, against being an oppressed powerless class.

        I don’t think N. uses the term, but Z often speaks of the American Negro as having a negative identity: “Negative” in the sense that Black identity cannot exist on its own but must have the perceived White dominant power as its foil. A similar analogy might be made for the Jew. What good would it do them if there were no Gentiles to feel superior to?

        Certainly the Jews fit the underdog definition during much of history. In fact, Nietzsche credits them with creating the first, or at least the most successful slave morality — Judaism, which was a survial aid.

        I’d never considered that might be their (or any similar morality’s) fatal flaw: What does the out-group do when it has become the de-facto in-group or Master?

    • Historically (at least in the past few centuries, in Europe) the Jews were not necessarily the wanderers, but they were almost always a parallel society in nations of their hosts. Due to their insular customs, they often had skills highly in demand by the Gentiles (money lender, judge, skilled crafts, etc.) In very modern times many Jews secularized to some degree. That meant moving to big cities, becoming highly educated and often ending up in important government, education and business posts.

      I’m by no means saying that Jews never secretly conspire against their hosts, but I think it’s more an aspect of the strength of their shared culture and religion that sets them apart. In other words, of course Jews stick together, relatively speaking. To use a modern example, the Jews probably “took over” the U.S. State Department not because of some diabolical plot hatched by cigar-smoking small hat wearing geniuses in some Alpine mansion a century earlier, although that is a popular conspiracist myth. Isn’t it more likely that Jews tend to certain specialites and among those are political science and simialr disciplines? All else equal, they network socially. Thus with time, they will tend to hire their own kind, simply because that’s who they know best. Call it a deliberate conspriacy if you like, but I label it emergent behavior.

      I think it’s when Jews have become too successful for their own good in a given culture, that the host nation resents their presence. Call them parasites if you like, but I say it’s more a case of their being the victims of their own success. Rather than parasite, they are more a symbiote. But everything has its limits. It is then that anti-Semitism arises, social discord, and at times, some form of pogram which leads to a new diaspora of the suddenly unwelcome guest population.

      The Old Testament story of Jospeh’s rise to power in Egypt and eventually the Hebrews’ exodus is a narrative echoed endlessly through their history, up to modern times. They are a talented people but they often bring great ruin upon both their hosts and themselves.

      The above is somewhat informed by the book “The Jewish Century.”

      • Only the Joseph thing is a complete myth of victim hood and in reality the jews were not slaves, but were the Hyksos who infiltrated Egypt and seized the northern part of the country leading to a takeover and the hyksos kings of northern Egypt for 100 years until the Ahmose 1 finally kicked them out using force in an exodus and exiled out of
        egypt to judea..

        So even then they founded their identity on a fake victim narrative when they had taken over and seized power.

        The exodus was just an expulsion of an occupying force.

  17. Those demonizing and punishing West and Irving are overplaying their hand. All their excessive kvetching ends up raising a lot of suspicions about the ethnic group at the center of these controversies. When West says that a certain demographic is responsible for “cancel culture” and he ends up getting canceled for saying that, more than a few normies are bound to wonder if maybe he was on to something. If I was advising the demographic involved in these controversies, I would tell them that, for their own sake, they should chill out and rein in the ceaseless condemnations. But too many of that group are too self-righteous to exercise such restraint. They cannot bring themselves to consider how these dust-ups must look to a lot of third parties. Their lack of humility and self-awareness could not be more apparent.

    • Overplaying their hand?

      Who’s going to stop the ADL or the SPLC?

      The “Red Wave”?

      Despair is a sin, but I don’t see any meaningful pushback on the horizon.

      • The fact that the ADL and SPLC can’t be stopped constitutes one more reason why suspicions toward a certain ethnic group will increase. That those organizations have become America’s most prominent foes of free speech could be a feather in our cap if we play it right. Before “meaningful pushback” can happen, sufficient awareness of the problem will have to occur. Such awareness may not occur as quickly as folks like you and I prefer, yet, rest assured that eyes are being opened. Will it happen too late? Maybe. But we don’t know that yet.

      • The free speech-destroying power of the ADL and SPLC creates a lot of angst that dissidents can turn to their own advantage if they play it right. “Meaningful pushback” requires sufficient awareness of the problem. Just because that awareness is not happening as fast as you and I might like does not mean that it is not happening at all. There’s a lot of eye-opening stuff going on right now. Even a lot of normies are liable to catch on despite themselves.

    • “When West says that a certain demographic is responsible for “cancel culture” and he ends up getting canceled for saying that, more than a few normies are bound to wonder if maybe he was on to something.”

      Those who have read my posts will know that I *never* speak on the “Jewish” question. I’m skeptical to say the least. However, today’s posting and the references made have me rethinking my naivety.

      When Blacks of such standing (crazy as they are) can be taken to the woodshed and coerced in such a manner, one has to be brain dead to not suspect a great power lies behind such efforts. That power is not in the interest of the Republic and its people.

      • There is much to respect and even admire about the Jews. They have made great contributions in the vast majority of intellectual and artistic fields. What’s more, from a strictly aesthetic standpoint, they appear to be a part of us, a distinct white ethnicity not unlike the Irish or the Dutch. And for the longest time, I allowed the above to define my disposition toward them.

        Alas, begrudgingly, I’ve come to the conclusion that despite their appearance and their many accomplishments, they are not our people, and indeed, seek to dominate us and to subvert utterly our civilization. What’s more, they have succeeded smashingly–with an invaluable assist from white Leftists. That being the case, when AINO lapses into abeyance and Whiteland establishes itself on the periphery, no Jews will be allowed. They, along with negroes, will have no place among us.

        • They boil off their majority of “normals”, who are absorbed into the broader population, becoming indistinguishable in a broader regional ethnicity– european, arab, turkic, etc.

          This leaves a distilled core of focused traits, tendencies, and talents. Those are the dedicated zealots, driven with religious meaning, filled with righteous mission.

          I’d say this mechanism can be applied to all demographics.

          Some adaptations are more successful in their environment, reinforcing the distillation cycle, creating uniquely distinguishable sub-groups. The driven, whether political gangsters, missionary preachers, song-writing musicians, or muscle car mechanics.

          Thus the Zman’s indifference- he sees not just bad j**s, but bad guys all around.

          I agree, as the like-minded recognize each other, and birds of a feather flock together (if the normal majority allows them to.)

          • PS- I also must agree with Ostei’s conclusion, that some cannot be allowed.

            They are distinct and alien enough that they will try to conquer territory for their own.

            All Nature knows this. The birds the live by this law. The red wolves respect the territory of the grey wolves.

        • I was raised to believe we (Jews) are white. That this is a no-brainer and that saying anything otherwise was antisemitic. The only difference between us and an anglo gentile was religion.

          I have very anglo looking features. Light skin, blue eyes, etc. Few Jews live in my city and no one suspects I am Jewish. Everyone perceives me as white, the whitest of the whites. This has all the more had me walking around thinking I am a white person that happens to be (non-practicing) Jewish.

          My original genetic report from 23andme didn’t make me think any different. It said I was 100% European, (99% Ashkenazi and 1% Eastern European).

          Years later I discovered another genetic service that doesn’t just tell me I was Ashkenazi, they tell you what other ethnicities you are similar to, very similar in fact. The list was shocking to me…there was nothing close to an Anglo-Saxon country on this list. It was a mix of Mediterranean countries (Sicily, Southern Italy and Greece) and Levantine countries such as Jordan. If anyone saw this list (which is the general DNA of every Jew) no one would think of us as.white. At the very most you could say we are on the fringes of being half European. I’m still confused though why so many of us look whiter than our DNA suggests.

      • It is often the last redpill taken and that is understandable, Compsci. Most people who are really intense on the subject come off as psychopathic monomaniacs and some are. As always there are exceptions to the rule and many interactions tend to run undermine the generality.

        Still, the claims as often as not are true.

        Try typing J** here and it goes into moderation. Does another ethnicity get the same treatment? When the dam breaks the flood will be unstoppable.

  18. If I may be excused for cracking wise a bit, God bless Ron Unz, Righteous among the Jews. You will see what I mean.

    A piece appeared at Unz Review that I link here:

    Here is the opening paragraph from this post:

    “A MintPress study has found that hundreds of former agents of the notorious Israeli spying organization, Unit 8200, have attained positions of influence in many of the world’s biggest tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.”

    The penetration of these sorts into the fundamental workings of these Internet/Social Media giants is stunning. I thought it was bad, but it is way, way worse than I had feared. And they bring all of the know how to the party; surveillance, blackmail, all manner of ratfucking.

    You wonder how your rights have progressively been made off limits to you, and the whys and wherefores of the authors of this hyper-empowered campaign to do so have been? Here is an entry point for further comprehension. Heart-droppingly bad…

    • Back in the 90s the ADL was caught spying on US citizens for Israel and S. Africa. They had to pay a fine. That’s it. They weren’t forced to disband or register as foreign agents under FARA. I guess that’s where the blackmail comes in.

  19. While everyone keeps saying that Jews are overreacting, I’d disagree in a sense. Jews’ paranoia and overreaction is one of the reasons that they’ve gained the power that they have.

    It’s who they are. They could no more react in a sensible, controlled way than blacks could come to dominate physics.

    Over the years, I’ve noticed that Jews’ extremely high level of success wasn’t about some IQ advantage (which is small and more than overcome by our numbers) but because of personality traits. Jews are just more intense than whites. Jews are generally far more neurotic than whites. They also have a bizarre level of confidence.

    Jews always turn the volume to “11.” They’re naturally drawn to politics and gaining political power. If they own a business, they push the business to the limit. As investors, they’re famous for risk taking. Etc. Yes, Jews help one another, but I guarantee that if you stick one Jew in the middle of nowhere, he’ll immediately push to gain control of that town. He might fail, but other Jews in other towns will succeed. The point is that they’ll try.

    It’s who they are.

    Jews wouldn’t have gained control the West if they didn’t take things too far. What’s going on with West, Irving and Musk is just Jews being Jews. They never accepted our morality, and they never will. They’re morality is based on “Is it good for the Jews?” and overreacting is better than not overreacting.

    • On the other hand, hibitual Jewish overreaching quite possibly accounts for myriad pogroms, expulsions and persecutions of Jews over the millennia. They provoke their own destruction. But the fact that they keep doing it suggests that, indeed, Jews just cannot help themselves anymore than nuggras can resist criminal behavior in pursuit of shiny objects or a fat booty.

      • I think that’s true, Ostei. They suffer from even more impulsivity and destructive behavior than other elements of the Left. In fact, along with blacks they require Whites to exist. It is pretty well agree throughout the Middle East that once the United States goes, Israel goes. Based on what we see here it is difficult to disagree.

        • That’s why they’ve been accommodating China, over US objections, passing along sensitive military tech, giving them the running of the port of Haifa, etc.

          • The Chinese are extremely aware of Jews and their power. They won’t let them infiltrate their society.

    • Another element of their success is having a loose attachment to the truth when it comes to argumentation, i.e. sophistry. Honest people tend to screw themselves over because there’s a limit to how much they can bend the truth before they become uncomfortable and start giving off “Look at me! I’m lying!” body language.

      It’s the difference between marching into that job interview, looking the hiring manager right in the eyes, shaking his hand, and declaring that you have over twenty years of experience as a database manager….versus a floor-staring quietly mumbled admission that you spent the last twenty years organizing your internet porn collection to be searchable by name, site, and areola type.

    • This tunnel vision is the heart the problem with the modern system.

      Umbrella corporations cannot control their greed. Kingdoms then, and now, governments, are being eaten up by the multinational profit motive.

      John Rockefeller’s creation, the modern, unlimited corporate structure, is a machine out of control with no off switch.

      • (Sorry, addendum- note that the crypto-Rockefeller father Nathan came from France, nee Turkey, nee Spain, already immensely wealthy, and no one knew where the family money had come from.)

  20. “The United States has had at least three unifying concepts. Originally, what held America together was a common religion. The founding generation were English people who practiced a common form of Christianity.”

    With respect to our learned host, I’m not sure this is correct. We had Puritans and Congregationalists in MA, Baptists who moved to CT, Anglicans and Presbyterians in VA and the Carolinas, Catholics who found refuge in Maryland and Quakers in PA and all kinds of other Protestants mixed in. These were hardly folks with a common religion. They tolerated each other just enough and there was enough empty land and open space for the project to work.

    But I do agree that they shared enough common morality to found a country. I think the whole point is that respecting each other’s differences is essential to the success of any heterogenous country. Limited government and freedom of speech is a crucial aspect of this.

    • Only a subset of whites finds limited government and freedom of speech worthwhile. Almost no one else in the world finds any value in these ideas.

      People must not assume that concepts by themselves have any power to impose themselves on our world. If there is insufficient muscle behind a concept then it may as well not exist at all.

      • However, the overwhelming majority of white Americans think natural rights are important. The French or Swedes may have other ideas, and that is fine, but here we think individual liberty is critical.

        • I used to believe that but I think the general response to covid makes it impossible to support that assertion. How important could natural rights be to that same overwhelming majority of White Americans who abandoned their most fundamental individual liberties without even having to be starved or jack-booted very much. Fear is the great motivator in a faithless and exceedingly effeminate nation not ideological fealty to constitutional abstractions that are openly despised by very people sworn to see them upheld. The lesson for the dissident observer that seeks to sway hearts and minds seems plain enough.

    • I first thought as you did, Willard. However, then I thought of alternative religions such as Islam, Buddism, Zen, etc. even Judaism. The commonalities among the various sect’s of Christianity–including Catholicism are nothing compared to such massive differences. I think Z-man’s statement holds well in this light.

      • Agreed. I guess my point was that the long-standing history of tolerance of minor differences developed the precedent in modern Americans for assimilation and toleration of massive differences. We see now that this was a mistake – boiling pot, frog etc.

    • At the Founding the US was overwhelmingly British (> 80%) and Protestant (~98%). I believe the small number of British Roman Catholics at the time had more in common — in terms of their familiarity w/ British Common Law, high levels of literacy, etc — w/ their fellow Brits, than either Protestant or RC had w/ some of the later immigrant groups.

      • My son is thinking about colleges and I’m pushing Hillsdale in Michigan.
        The school was founded by abolitionist protestants in the 19th century.
        I’m torn, however: the school has a very large traditional Catholic enclave and I don’t think the school needs any more, which infortunately includes young Noname.
        As with the melting-pot, how much “Catholic” can you add to the Protestant American stew without ruining its essential character?

        • I was at Hillsdale and have no complaints in the main. However, it may not be a match if you are a reader/follower of Z-man.

          Hillsdale is hopelessly CivNat. Catholic is not the issue in my opinion. They are CivNat, non-race realist and stuck in the 50/60’s. I love their Western Civ emphasis. Their student body comes from wealth, as much as any Ivy League. Good connections to be made there.

          Lots of “Conservative” folk send their children there as an alternative to the cesspool Leftist colleges, however their children are being geared to take their place in public service, politics, or the family business. No objections here either.

          I found their STEM offerings to be weak. They are a Liberal Arts college in the main and of course a proponent of the Western Canon. If your son has technical aspirations, look to Kettering University just up the road from Hillsdale. Several departments are nationally ranked.

          Warning. Kettering is a ball buster on par with the best of technical universities–but with a twist, an important twist. You study half a year, then *work* half a year in technical industry (hopefully related to your field). You must obtain a position in a major company and do real work—at your level of eduction of course. They’ll help you find such a connection/job.

          First thing son and I were told by the President of Hillsdale, “If you are fired for cause by any company that employs you while at Kettering (work/study), you are expelled from Kettering!” Hell, there was even a mandatory course in how to dress for employment. And yes, mandatory for parents to attend.

          Son was impressed. I was shocked, but that was because of years of employment in Leftist academia—you don’t wear shorts and t-shirt to class as a faculty member there. 😉

  21. Maybe its a curse and a blessing that I attended public school in the 1980s and 90s. Yes, there were some rumblings about multiculturalism and political correctness, but these were mostly dismissed as rhetorical flourish by the far-left. History lessons placed immigrants in the proper context as people who came to a country created by British settlers. Historical figures were not caricatured villains that at every opportunity wanted to kill American Indians or send more brown people to a plantation. There was nuance and complexity to these men, not new perspectives that read like a children’s book, casting the characters in values of absolute good or totally evil.

    In today’s world, history is fluid and wielded as a weapon to tear down whomever is the target of the day.

  22. The regime pretends that speech must be limited to protect the hurt feelings of blacks, homosexuals, etc., but what they really want/need is the power to censor criticism of the regime. The Ye kerfuffle started with his stupid “White Lives Matter” t-shirt, which upset blacks and liberals, but when the regime attempted to reign him in he switched to criticizing the regime, a huge own goal on their part. This is why they have gone “death con 3” on him. Similarly, a random black ranting in the street that “blacks are the real jews” can be ignored, whereas a multimillion dollar sports celebrity with a huge following echoing Ye’s talking points on this topic is a threat that must be neutralized.

    • It’s always a “twofer”. You get rid of a big, notorious critic, and such sets an example for many future critics.

    • They well understand (given that is the game they use themselves) that toleration of a thing leads to its expansion.

      If they tolerate it, it will spread and the holy hoax is next in line for discussion, removing the ace they play at every tied game.

      Then you are just some other group among the other groups.

  23. Mencken said free speech always has to be defended at the point of the worst cases. Nobody tries to censor cooking recipes.

    • Same with judging laws. Always assume the worse application of such. I remember when they passed the RICO act. Every legislator got on the band wagon and said we needed it to fight drug kingpins–especially asset forfeiture. Now what do we read about daily? We read about some odd old White guy who deals in cash having his money taken at a check point or traffic stop without being charge with a crime.

    • The primary speech that has to be defended is what is denoted as “hate speech.” While there is an increasing tendency to enforce narratives through suppression, that is a recent trend.

      • And guess who pushes for “hate speech” laws everywhere they get in.

        That we have been taught to worship these creatures, to accept their values and place them above our own.
        It is so galling.

  24. Great essay! Z, you’ve done a brilliant job of succinctly stating our moral position.

    Of course, the erosion of our traditional moral values is nothing new. As Z has pointed out previously, the ‘civil rights laws’ of the 1960s did away with our freedom of association. And ‘gun control’ laws have certainly infringed on our Second Amendment rights. The authoritarian response to the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville demonstrated that our freedom of assembly no longer exists. And ‘hate speech laws’ threaten to eliminate our freedom of speech.

    Regarding the question of what to do: on one level, this is first and foremost *a war of ideas*

    As soon as a sufficient number of our fellow Americans come to believe that hate speech laws should trump freedom of speech; as soon as a sufficient number of our fellow citizens come to believe that ‘you’re safer without a gun than with one’; as soon as a sufficient number of our fellow citizens believe that ‘equity’— ‘equality of outcome’— should replace ‘equality of opportunity’ in our moral value system; as soon as a sufficient number of our fellow citizens come to accept the narrative that our ancestors were terrible people, and must be renounced: that George Floyd was a noble martyr, while Robert E Lee was a despicable bigot; as soon as these lies are being taught in a sufficient number of schools— so that a majority of young people come to believe them— *the battle is over*

    As was shown in the Supreme Court decision ‘discovering’ a ‘constitutional right’ to homosexual marriage, the Court will find a workaround to the rights and principles enshrined in our Constitution, if they feel like they can get away with it; if they believe that there are insufficient numbers to oppose them.

    > So our first task is to fully engage in the battle of ideas— as Z is doing in this essay— and do all we can to convince our fellow Americans of the rightness of our point of view.

    • “As was shown in the Supreme Court decision ‘discovering’ a ‘constitutional right’ to homosexual marriage…”

      I believe it was worse than that. The SCOTUS (IIRC) universalized gay marriage under the 14th Amendment (?) because of the number of States that had legalized GM by that time. What’s the difference? Well, that can mean in the future if enough States back some crazy “right”, it can be forced upon the rest of the States. But I may be off here.

      • Yes, I believe you’ve got your facts wrong: my recollection is that, prior to the Supreme Court decision ratifying homosexual marriage, there had been 32 State referendums on the question, *all of which had voted ‘No’.

        Then the state of Maine, in a second or third attempt, finally voted ‘Yes’: the first State to do so.

        Shortly there after— despite a clear consensus among the states that they did not want homosexual marriage— the will of the States that was standing— the Supremes made it law.

  25. Of course they will say that the country is no longer what it was and that diversity is the new reality, the new morality, and anyone disagreeing with that is the bigot. In effect they are treating the constitution as de facto out of date.

    Whether a country can or should remain what it was historically is an interesting question. It’s certainly horrible for those who see their values being trodden in the mud by Johnny-come-latelys.

    What’s the word for those who are alienated from their own country? I am one. I live in exile because I can no longer stand my country (Britain). They’ve wrecked it and I’m mad as hell but it’s beginning to seem like I’m in a minority.

    • > What’s the word for those who are alienated from their own country?

      At a large enough mass, a conquered people. History is full of peoples who had their heritage stripped from them and forced to follow laws that only benefit their foreign rulers.

      By the time the current mess is over, there will be plenty of white cultures that are completely wiped out.

      • If the white people who make this country function permit it…But at least in the South and Southwest, they won’t…And as the energy crunch intensifies, and the Build Back Better hoodlums continue to sabotage agriculture and food production as well as energy production, the conflict will become more and more openly explosive….

    • Well, I am in London and I know that I am in a minority. Both race and attitude.
      Some geezer told me today that he had to leave our meeting as he had to get his coof booster. FFS, still shitting his pants after nearly 3 years!

    • The country is no longer what it was because it’s no longer the country. America is no longer America, and I imagine the UK is no longer the UK. Both have been destroyed and replaced by something worse. Much, much worse.

    • A nation certainly can, if its people have the will, if their culture has the required social capital. Japan and Korea, for example, aren’t going anywhere. Turks know exactly who they are, where they came from, and what their place in the world is. Nobody is colonizing and replacing them, and no one is even willing to try.

      Now, if we are talking about specific cases, closer to home, then there is much less reason for optimism. Ameri-Kwa has been on borrowed time since 1860. Lyndon Johnson, with considerable assistance from civnats and the rest of the usual suspects, drove the last nails into its coffin before most people reading this were born. America collapsed 50+ years ago. We are living in the rubble, staring at a single edifice here and there that remains standing, and pretending that the rest of the shining city is still there, trying very hard to ignore the mulattos and mestizos dancing in the burnt-out police station across the street. We were able to ignore this before we were displaced from it and forced to face everything around us, without closing our eyes.

  26. “There is no middle ground when it comes to these moral principles that define American civilization.”

    There is if you except the Third Founding, i.e. the Melting Pot/Ellis Island influx remaking American morality (after the second founding at Gettysburg.) There’s a carveout/exception to the right of free speech made on the grounds that minorities—if subjected to hateful speech—might become victims of pogroms, genocides (or to paraphrase our corpse president) end up back in chains. It’s ridiculous to claim that rich black morons insulting rich Jewish sociopaths is going to lead to another holocaust or the revival of the Transatlantic slave trade, but since most Americans accept the premise of the Third Founding, we’re stuck with the conclusions, which is that not just hate speech, but meanie speech must be curtailed. Managerialism means we’re in a daycare center and the Golden Rule trumps anything that might have been codified (by white meanies in wigs.)

    It is fascinating to see Jews getting apoplectic about this, considering how joyously they take to the antiwhite stuff (which unlike antisemitism, is codified in everything from education to the medical establishment.) Imagine if Jews had to endure what whites are enduring right now with CRT or medical equity: “Because Jews have historically been better off than gentiles, gentiles will have access first to medical treatment, vaccines, etc. Also, every Jewish child must confront his Jewish fragility in the classroom, where he will learn that—no matter how good his intentions—there is a force within him that wants to practice usury and drink gentile blood.” How long would that last?

    • Repressive tolerance was always nonsense, even by the standards of nonsense. It is why Marcuse is an inflection point. That is where the sharp down turn in American intellectual life became obvious. All of the concerns about minority rights were addressed a century or more earlier, but the intellectual class that rose up in the middle of the last century was ignorant of this part of the liberal tradition or hostile to it.

      Compensation without limit quickly devolves into a blood feud. The limits on compensation are time and place. If I break your window, I can be forced to repair your window or pay to have it repaired. The compensation is the direct, measurable loss to you because of my actions. It is why the pain and suffering business is monstrous and illiberal. You cannot measure pain and suffering, so therefore you cannot compensate someone for it.

      This is where compensatory justice and restorative justice leap outside Western morality. Whatever harms were done to people long ago, there is no way to compensate them. They are dead. There is no way to compensate their descendents, because there is no way to measure the harm that they may have suffered. More important, there is no one around who can be blamed for that suffering.

      • Hey, according to some old family records, your great-grandfather broke my great-grandfather’s window, so now you owe me for it.

        No, more than that, someone who looked vaguely similar to your great-grandfather broke my great-grandfather’s window so now everyone who looks like you has to pay me.

        • It’s the cultural version of debt bondage.

          Somewhere in Pakistan, a four-year old is working in a brickyard because his great-great grandfather eight generations ago got a loan from the brickyard owner’s great-great grandfather.

      • Fully agree.

        Of course, that’s why the progressives came up with the vague and poorly defined notions of “systemic racism”, “institutional racism”, “White privilege”, “implicit bias”, etc.: the sweeping and all-inclusive claims that “racism” and “White privilege” are so deeply embedded in White society, that “people of color” and other “minorities” are still being invisibly harmed by them.

        The claim that all White people possess “implicit bias” means that even if you aren’t a racist, you’re still a racist

        The replacement of equality of opportunity with “equity”— equality of outcome: an impossible result, one which can never be achieved— assures that *efforts to achieve it* will be ongoing forever.

        “Reparations” will be demanded until “equity” is achieved; that is, for ever. Thus reparations— and the anti-White narrative which it assumes— will be enshrined as a permanent part of the new morality of George Floyd America.

        • How anyone can read the Bible and not see it as the political propaganda it is.

          That was the key insight for me; what seemed unintelligible gibberish now makes perfect sense.

          Look at the results.
          People organize- the entire thrust of the book.

          I do wish they’d stop trying to be the “new jews”, or the “real jews”, or whatever- that is, somebody else, who wrote that story for themselves.

          We have abandoned our own great and astonishing story for a far lesser history.
          We are giants trying to become gnats.

          Cosmic? These second-rate aborigines wouldn’t know cosmic if it bit them in the ass, they are beasts who cannot imagine outside the walls of their cage.

        • Why would anyone downvote this? This is 100% truth. It is exactly why those terms are used and defined as they are. There is no way to quantify how much atonement should be made for slavery. Blacks have a race card with no expiration date and no credit limit. Also, when you invent something that doesn’t really exist, it is inherently impossible to measure.

          “Prove that you do not have implicit bias”. “Prove you don’t have white privilege”.

          It cannot be done. This is why those terms were created. It is by design and it is quite clever.

        • They neatly elide the truth.
          The system rewards hard work and competence
          White people practice hard work and competence
          White people get rewarded by the system
          therefore the system is racist.

      • Paragraph 6 has a couple of errors that are not representative of your usual quality.

        With the Stephen Miller ad, it is clear that we are now at an inflection point. For a century of the idea and the attempt to implement restorative justice has failed. At failure, its advocates show no contrition. They double down on the blame and moral condemnation and even increase the number of programs. What does that tell us? It tells us that we are not dealing with people who are acting in good faith. Worse, the new program to teach my 7 year old niece sexual perversion and to teach my 5 year old nephew that he is the epitome of evil, tells me that we are not dealing with bad faith. We are dealing with a sickness of the mind that some call evil.

        Back to the Miller ad. I think we need more of this. We need to couple it with short, Prager like, videos not on principles but on presenting our accomplishments from Sicily and Greece to the Nordic Arctic Circle. We need to highlight the greatness of our people in 5-7 minute segments from The Iliad to the moon walk and the digital revolution.

        Our people are stunned by the newest round of the anti-white cold cock. They need help standing up and something to gird their rightful anger upon.

        Then we need someone like you to draft a document similar to our Declaration of Independence. I think this article is a good foundation.

        Race and and the reality of tribal contention must also be addressed. For the race part and in particular the albatross population, we point out all of the good faith actions we took to help. From ending slavery to $22 trillion (at a minimum) in reparations, to a third founding that banished our constitutional order and granted legal privileges to a population that utterly failed to take advantage. We point out how much we accomplished with the apex of walking on the moon until we stopped to grovel in guilt and uplift that was squandered and drove our nation to bankruptcy. We discuss the crime and destruction of our cities that were once the envy of the world. We get the point.

        We make a statement that we no longer tolerate this order and that our money and labor that enables it will no longer go to it. We state clearly that this continent is our continent that our people discovered, explored and civilized. We resolve not to move but propose peaceful separation. I believe we should make a statement, pointing out the land we purchased and the nation we created for the Africans who were enslaved by their fellow Africans to return to and make their own.

        We also need to address our dependence upon foreign born engineering and science professionals. We need to engage our industry and convince them to invest in us, and point to the chaos and waste investing in diversity has been and will continuets advocates not just doubling down but politi to be. Every other tribal group has invested in themselves and demanded a seat at the table of industry to get theirs. The blacks are creating an entertainment industry juggernaut and are attempting to do the same with science and technology – at least through funding and exclusive recruitment and mentorship programs.

        We have been out maneuvered by every tribe that came to our shores. While we resolved to be Americans in good faith, every other tribe resolved to destroy our nation and take what we have and they acted on that resolve for a century.

        We need our own resolve, our own plan and our own unyielding commitment to action. We need to undertake this plan and find a way to do it without unlearning and losing our people’s greatest strength – personal responsibility and emphasis on personal development and achievement to create in cooperation with our fellow people.

        Our people have forgotten who they are and where they come from. We need our own Dennis Prager, but instead of “Conservative” and “American Principles” videos, we concentrate on our people hood and history videos. We must focus them on positive identity. A select few can be used to refute the historical revisionism, and outright historical fictions made to denigrate our people, civilization and culture. First and foremost, we tell our people about Alexander, Caesar, Clovis, Charlemagne, Alfred … … Our pioneers and voyagers and our scientists and inventors. On top of the short clips, we need films and documentaries too. I think a small subset of re-makes of the stories that were inverted to denigrate us would be good to make as well.

        We need to get organized and serious and build our army. Because every other tribe has built theirs and laughed while we were in denial that they had declared and waged war on us.

        In short, we need to add sites and organizations to the ones that necessarily point out the problems and daily assaults on our people hood – ones that merely speak the truth about who our ancestors were, who we are and who we can be. This is very important for our people aged 3 – 40.

        I am done with the ramble. Very important topic.

        • Amen!

          A big part of our task is to create a counter-narrative to the narrative which progressive media, academia, Hollywood, and the entire progressive establishment are pushing— one which reminds people of the truth of who it was who gave us the foundations of our civilization— a founding narrative for White people— one which will inspire upcoming generations of legacy Americans to embrace their past, and resist the efforts of those attempting to demonize us by rewriting history.

          • Yes. The tools of production and distribution are very inexpensive, and empower a single person to make high quality powerful pieces.

            If one person on this site has these skills and will make the time, this site could also act as a starting distribution point in the comment section.

            We have such an unbelievably rich heritage. We can draw on that and help our people remember themselves and in so doing, visualize becoming that again.

          • Protecting our heritage is an enormous part of this endeavor. As the damage done to art and architecture in this past decade has shown our people are slow to protect that which was entrusted to them.

        • “We need to highlight the greatness of our people in 5-7 minute segments from The Iliad to the moon walk and the digital revolution.”

          A bit too long, but I understand your passion. I therefore simply pick the first point I stumbled upon. Do we highlight such–alone–when such is being usurped by those who have no right to it? Or do we explain that such usurpation is unfounded—even libelous?

          Quick example, you mentioned the accomplishment of White men going to the moon. Yet there is a repulsive movie produced which purports that three Black women were essential to the NASA’s space program of the 60’s.

          That is propaganda that needs addressing, otherwise touting the glory of space flight is in essence to promote Black contribution and equality in the effort.

          Perhaps not the best example, but I’m betting the readers here have many of their own they could contribute.

          • I had that movie in mind as a good example. Here is what you do.

            You make short movies about space flight and going to the moon. You show the history of who invented the rockets. Who invented the math and physics. You show who invented the sattelite systems. You show the history of who developed computers and who developed and wrote the onboard guidance systems.

            Those three women were 3 of hundreds of people doing standard math equations and redundancy checks in boiler rooms, because computers couldn’t do it at that scale then.

            It is my understanding that there were people who were at NASA who were upset by that movie, because there were a couple of, (surprise! white men), who did actually develop some math that was important to fulfilling the mission. That movie made it seem that 3 of hundreds of boiler room equation solvers and redundant verifiers who were thoroughly replaceable got us to the moon.

            Make a film about the guy who did have the breakthrough, but make it clear that his contribution was still secondary compared to the titans.

            I would focus on positive identity for, 90% of these. Then I would address the lies in select documentaries or shorts.

            For example, Who were the African women warriors? Then you can do a short documentary telling the truth that they were African women whose tribe was warring and enslaving other African tribes. Then, you could show that they were massacred in minutes because, well they were women who stood no chance against men, by white men trying to restore the peace. You could show that this tribe sent women out because all of their men were killed enslaving, so they used the women as a last ditch effort to keep their slave trade economy going. That could be done in 3 minutes.

            You could a reverse Ken Burns series of documentaries on, “What happened to the Great American City?” Then you show the truth about what happened – sort of a video version of what Gregory Hood is doing in a blog series.

            So, yes, I agree with your point. It has to be selective and it has to be intentional as a program. I think it is exactly what Siliconollywood and the Museum and Heritage docent industry are doing with “black history” and European/American history today.

            Ours would be coordinated programming and would spread by video. I think it would be wildly popular and very successful. Another idea would be to do a debunking historical fallacy every time one of these ahistorical movies comes out or a POC replaces a white character. Just have at the ready a 3 minute fact check video of the real history of our people. We need to inform our people. The clock is ticking.

            Positive identity is first and foremost. The worst thing we could do is become like other groups and develop a negative identity.

      • If you have not noticed we are in a blood feud.

        Just most whites refuse to admit it, hence they are getting fucked in their own homelands.

        Its stupid to keep dancing around it.

        • It’s almost as focus is directed to a genocide seventy-plus years ago to distract from an ongoing genocide conducted by the victims of the older one.

          • Genociding an entire continent of 500 million people is a criminal abomination of such greater magnitude there is no precedent.

      • Given how much better off Africans-in-America have always been than their cannibal cousins in De Muddaland, and the enormous burdens they impose by their presence, if anything they should be the ones paying de repa-ma-rations to the White taxpayers who have been giving them all a free ride through life since time out of mind. Call it “civilizational rent.”

        They have no legitimate grievances with us. None. None whatsoever, nor did they ever have any, even as slaves–maybe less then than now, as then they had supervision and were prevented from having access to dangerous things with which they would otherwise harm themselves, like alcohol, guns, drugs, and the vote. Now, I suppose the case could be made that they have a legitimate grievance with Mother Nature for making them so stupid, violent, and shiftless. For some reason they are resistant to the only thing that could fix this–only permitting that tiny, statistically negligible fraction who have both an IQ over 90 and no history of violent behavior to breed. I believe this would involve sterilizing around 98% of them, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for the good of civilization.

        If we were as clever as we think we are, we’d be encouraging them to claim “African citizenship” whenever they are charged with a crime, and offering them a one-way trip back instead of prison time. Let them take their EBT cards with them, and encourage their babymommas to renounce their citizenship and join them. The money would surely go further in Liberia, and it’d still be a bargain for us, even if we paid for first class air fare for every one of them. I hear Monrovia is lovely this time of year.

  27. Put that in your pipe and smoke it . Great post today here and taki. I used to send you some scratch in the mail occasionally. It was fun to hear LA. Mentioned on mail call. I’ve gotten lazy with the support lately. Joined Substack yesterday. Man I’m glad I did before I read today’s offerings. Guilt free enlightenment…. Say hi to postcard man for me. And thanks Zman. Still waiting to hear from the Red Lion guys. Beers on me if your still interested.

  28. “How should we defend ourselves from this assault on our very nature?”

    The correct answer is “Kill ’em all, and let God sort ’em out.”

    • I can’t say I am opposed, any idea how we implement your idea when we have zero access to any institution, especially the military, that would make this possible? Furthermore, cna you think of anybody in a position of power who is remotely on our side? Unti lthen maybe the fedpoasting should be kept to yourself, not because of possible trouble from the feds, but because it is cringe as hell.

    • At the very least, make the friend/enemy distinction and call them what they are, our enemies. Then we can proceed.

  29. On the evolutionary time scale, who are we and where are we are synonymous. Adaptation to the local environment creates unique traits that “work” and then ultimately define a people. The USA was an untapped wilderness when the original Europeans arrived, and they were largely self-selected based upon a belief in self reliance, hard work, overcoming difficult challenges, and building something of value to pass on to their heirs. And all of this was enabled by the expanse of freedom to be found in the native wilderness. Virgin America was not England and when King George III attempted to tame and restrict that freedom, Americans responded with justifiable violence in the Revolutionary War.

    We are once again at a turning point in history. A small cadre of cancer cells dominates American government and power centers. As referenced in today’s post, they proscribe fundamental freedoms in the same way that a slave is whipping into a bloody pulp. The purpose is to show who is boss and the consequences of rebellion.

    And so, the challenge that faces is not one of pansy-assed words and voting harder, but of muscle and tangible action. The cancer cells must go.

    • One of the worst aspects of the cancer is the inversion of rights that is happening. The right to watch porn and debauchery is sacrosanct, but while there is theoretically freedom of political speech, cops will find some nonsense to charge you with for all sorts of speech, like burning a pride flag. Also, heaven help you if you commit a legitimate act of self defense against diversity and they find your twitter account where you said mean things about black people

      Freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures has basically gone completely out the window in the electronic age, and the right to a speedy trial is a complete joke. How anyone says we have this right when people can rot in jail for a year before a court date is nuts.

      Of course, the greatest victim is the tenth amendment, which was the only one capable of creating a treatment against federal overreach. It would allow some states to go to hell, but would not allow the federal government to take everyone down with them.

      The best the bill of rights does now is gum up the bureaucracy and require more resources to take down a bad-thinker. It can’t be understated how useful this is when done right though, as a handful of people who play their cards right can grind entire departments down to a crawl.

  30. Probably beginning in the middle of the last century, when jews began gaining more power throughout society, the old moral codes started changing – all for the worse, but couched in terms like “it’s not fair”, or “the old ways are to restrictive”, etc.

    Thus we get civil rights and AA for blacks, porn and vulgarity throughout society, notably in cinema and literature, no consequence sex, no fault divorce, vast numbers of women in the workplace and queer marriage, among others.

    It’s not too strong a statement to say that jews were the driving force behind all this degradation. Now, when some are finally beginning to mention it, tying together the what and the who, even if it’s a couple of moronic joggers, well, that just can’t be. However, the absurd overreaction will cause more people to sit up and take notice.

    The “chosen people” have been in the sweet spot for a long time, calling most of the shots for society – and it’s about time that comes to an end, before they bring about the end of western civilization.

    • The elite at the time mistakenly thought that control of the institutions was entrenched and failed to recognize that control of mass pervasive moving media and academia made this inconsequential.

      They failed to see where the post war power was concentrated in the electronic age.

      The media and academia became a wrecking ball to all avenues of institutional promotion, and now here we are back at the weimar republic.

    • And the solution is…what? Separation? Expulsion? Cattle cars? Since they will never assimilate, we’re stuck with these dirtbags.

  31. About ten years ago, Paul Kersey of VDare used to describe our country as “Black Run America.” Other people countered Kersey by saying that there is a more powerful group who really runs our country and simply employs blacks as a weapon against whites.

    To those who don’t want to see, ask yourself which specific group did these two powerful black men offend? To those who think that blacks are the most powerful group in our country, ask yourself which group is destroying these powerful black men and why?

    “To know who rules you, determine who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    What we are seeing with Kayne and the other guy is about as close to irrefutable evidence as we get in politics about which group is really controls of our society.

    • Probably the best example is Nick Cannon. Cannon had a show where he sat and talked to people. In it, he made anti-white and anti-semitic comments. He and his show got cancelled. He eventually apologized for the anti-Semitic comments (but not the anti-white ones), and Voila! He’s been uncancelled and is on tv again.

      His anti-white comments are actually hilarious in their stupidity. He opined that soul and culture comes from melanin, therefore because whites have less/no melanin, they are “less than” blacks. The lack of melanin makes us more prone to evil. Welcome to the genius of black intellectualism.

      • Oxymoron, a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. “black intellectualism”)

    • The West/Irving hilarity has really put the Step-‘n-Fetchits on the Tribal propaganda organs in uncomfortable, cringy positions. It’s been a joy to watch the likes of Joy Reid furiously pick cotton for ol’ Massa Schlomo. Whites mostly avert their eyes, but blacks are taking note. To get back on my hobby horse, redpilling Hispanics on the JQ is to be commended although they are getting there on their own. Our people will be the last to swallow the pill but will be the ones who take corrective and protective actions. This will be widely popular although you will be unable to tell from the propaganda, which will invert reality as long as it can.

      • Its obvious and telling how silent the civnat sites have been on this.

        They have no line of thought already laid down by the media matrix so are completely unsure how to report upon it.

        It just shows how much capture the media has over the allowed processes of the so called right that the civnat right crows about on the left. They cannot even see the thought prison they exist in.

        the see no color vs the see no antisemitism leaves them no where to stand without prior approval of what to say.

        • The Silence of the CivNats in this matter is darkly funny. The Left, particularly the dullest portions like blacks, are handed a script and told to read it, and they do. The CivNats will get their script once it is composed and do the same.

  32. There’s a group of people you cannot criticize in the USA. We all know that. A couple of blacks who thought they had special privilege with regard to speaking whatever comes into their heads are finding out the hard way that there are limits even for them.

    There are no principles involved here. Only straight power. This group has the power.

    • They have power only as long as Goodwhites hold on to the belief that criticizing or even disliking Jews makes you the Devil.

      Once Jews start getting treated like any other human group then we’ll all be better off.

      The Ashkenazi are also replacing themselves, as Z-man wrote on Taki. And they are being replaced by an even more ethno-centric people, Hindus, in certain markets.

      The Jews of the future will be the Brahmin Hindus. Someone’d better tell the NJP.

      • Gonna be tricky to just change your name and blend in. Marrano is not going to work if you look very different.

        But then at that point who will they be blending in with?

      • In the initial waves of Twitter firings the Brahmins were all fired and the most powerful Jew got deferential praise from Musk. If they aren’t bothering to reproduce what is their long term plan? Will it eventually get like Hispanics where we will have politicians and public figures who are less than 5% Jewish running around claiming to be a persecuted minority?

  33. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Moral Divide

  34. The reason the acronym “AINO” is on the mark is we no longer enjoy:
    — freedom of speech
    — freedom of religion
    — freedom of association
    — freedom from unlawful search and seizure
    — the right to self defense
    — double jeopardy is now the SOP of the Feds
    — there is no right to privacy
    — right to a speedy trial, I laugh

    So the premise of the host is that AINO went through three phases, we are now in the 4th. What to call it, pray tell?

  35. “They refuse to uphold our morality, the thing that defines us as a people, so they are in effect making war on us. How should we defend ourselves from this assault on our very nature?”

    Well, there was a guy back in the 1930s who wrote a book about this very thing before becoming Chancellor…


Comments are closed.