Antiracist Constitution

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the movie Amadeus, a post about Affirmative Action and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

Note: American Renaissance is having its annual conference in August at the usual location in Tennessee. It is a great event and anyone who is interested in the sort of politics discussed here should make it there at least once. You can sign up for the event at the American Renaissance website.

When the typical person thinks about the law, he thinks about it as a list of behaviors that are prohibited. You cannot fish during certain months, for example. You are not allowed to drive over a certain velocity. The law is a list of limitations on what you can do as well as a list of things others cannot do to you. This is largely true as a practical matter, but the law is more than a list of prohibitions. It is a moral system that turns those limitations into a habit of mind for the citizenry.

Although the law often looks chaotic and self-contradictory, it is a system made of properties and methods. The properties are things like constitutional rights, precedents, and legislation. These are statements that are treated as facts. Your First Amendment right to assembly is assumed to be a fact of nature. The Court’s decision that the First Amendment does not permit you to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is now assumed to be a truth in the Constitution.

The methods are the rules that govern how the people inside the law interact with those properties as well as the other people inside the legal system. The courts have processes for adjudicating disputes between citizens, for example. The government has to meet certain conditions when they infringe on the rights of a citizen. All of us exist inside the legal framework, as it is the implementation of the moral framework of our society and the framework determines how we interact with one another.

This is the starting place for reading this new booklet titled How We Got Our Antiracist Constitution: Canonizing Brown v. Board of Education in Courts and Minds, which is part of the Claremont Provocations Monograph Series. The author is Jesse Merriam, who teaches government at Patrick Henry University. His focus is on the history of the famous Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which has transformed not just the law by the Constitution itself.

The author starts with a short history of the famous case. This is one of those things that will be a revelation for most readers. Even though the case was decided in 1954, the process started a generation earlier when a young communist radical received a million-dollar inheritance from his father. He was going to reject it, but the founder of the ACLU convinced him to use the money to fund left-wing causes. This was in 1922, long before normal Americans thought about civil rights.

This money was used to start the Garland Fund, which gave the NAACP $100,000 to begin the litigation that eventually led to the Brown decision. The author does not spend a lot of time on it, but the point is clear. The civil rights movement was not something organic and spontaneous. It was a long-term project organized and financed by wealthy and important individuals. They set out to change the moral framework of the country and committed their lives to the cause.

That brings us to the heart of the topic. The author walks the reader through the process by which a legal decision becomes canonical and then how that status in the law warps everything that comes after it. In the law, “canonization” is “the process by which a single Supreme Court decision comes to control constitutional theory, debate, and interpretation.” A case can become so important that it changes the methods by which the Court views the Constitution itself.

This is a three-step process that starts with the construction phase. This is when the new moral principles are introduced to the moral framework or old moral principles are challenged as antithetical to the core principles. Brown was the end point of the construction phase where two new principles were added. One is that diversity is a constitutional good. This is why diversity is a strength. The other new principle was that discrimination, private or public, is always unconstitutional.

The next phase is what the author calls submission, which is the process “whereby critics of the initial decision capitulate to the new paradigm.” The author provides data on how conservatives changed over this phase. He counted negative stories in National Review before and after Rehnquist was nominated to the Court. He also looks at opinions on Brown during this period and notes that they went from uniformly hostile to neutral and then accepting.

The submission phase with regards to Brown is a great primer on what lies behind the internet meme “the conservative case for…” These new moral claims are first embraced by the people with control of the institutions. That power is then used to select against critics, which has the desired effect of selecting for those willing to bend their knee to the new moral paradigm. What has shaped conservatism over the last several generations is this process of submission to the Left.

The final phase of canonization is weaponization. This begins “when the former critics marshal the decision and its values for their own legal and political agenda.” As the former critics incorporate the moral principles in their own arguments, the case then becomes a controlling moral authority. Those former critics of the new morality transform themselves into its champions, often trying to stake out positions that are more extreme than those of the original advocates.

Again, the author dives into the writings of conservatism to provide examples of how they now embrace the moral claims of Brown. This is the origin of another well-worn internet meme, “democrats are the real racists.” For a generation after Brown, opposition to this decision was central to conservative arguments. Over the last thirty years Brown has taken center stage in conservative arguments in favor of diversity and opposition to discrimination.

The final result of this process is that the original Constitution has been hollowed out and in place of the rights-based moral order we now have the twin moral demands that have come from the logic of the Brown decision. Not only are your enumerated rights subject to the “Brown test”, but the federal system established by the Constitution has collapsed in order to comply with the new moral paradigm, leaving us with what the author calls the antiracist Constitution.

The author does not get into this, as it falls outside the scope of the essay, but the new legal framework created by Brown reflects the new moral framework that has come to dominate the thinking of the ruling elite. Diversity as the primary good and discrimination as the primary bad haunt every aspect of modern life. Not only must you avoid discriminating against members in the league of the oppressed, but you must also swear allegiance to diversity.

This is fundamental to the new religion which imagines the end point of social progress as the open society. If all people are inherently equal, then the differences we see must be due to social structures, which means that people are infinitely malleable. This is the universal truth of mankind. Thus, we have the holy trinity of the new religion, equality, the blank slate, and universalism. The logic of Brown reflects this spiritual sensibility as well as the ultimate goal of the open society.

This is a topic of critical importance for dissidents, so this booklet on the Brown decision and its canonization in the law is an important entry point. As the author notes, the road forward is not in fighting the tentacles that have grown out of Brown, but to understand how we got to this point. In order to remove the tentacles of Brown v. Board of Education from the neck of society, the moral claims that lie behind the decision must be understood and then defeated.

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. The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. 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.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

154 thoughts on “Antiracist Constitution

  1. “. It is a moral system that turns those limitations into a habit of mind for the citizenry.”

    It is called “official religion”. We live in a liberal theocracy

  2. The reaction of other Europeans to what is happening in France will be very interesting. Whites are the only group on the planet who like to pride themselves on having an out group preference.

    If this race war was happening in a non white part of the planet, not only would the response be harsher, people in the neighboring countries would be reevaluating their policies to avoid the same happening in their country.

    With whites it isn’t so clear. I see the 4 possible outcomes:

    1. Nothing changes. Just like whites are good about not noticing things like the poor track record of climate predictions, they may be careful to avoid learning from the war in France. Only white women, in particular, would rather have their children raped than advocate something that will not be met with likes on social media.

    2. They learn from the war on France and start sinking the boats. There is almost no chance of this happening because the elite and it’s judiciary won’t allow it and adopting forbidden ideas is not something Europeans are likely ready to risk.

    3. They learn from France, vote for alt right candidates who pledge to stop immigration them quickly dump that agenda upon being elected

    4. European women and bugmen decide that what is happening in France is due to racism and they double down on censorship and immigration

    • 5. Migration and multiculturalism stays the same but the State gets more totalitarian: more restrictions to social networks, dissidents and reality

    • 3. They vote for the based and redpilled AfD with the lesbian leader married to a Sri Lankan woman. The AfD immediately offers a German woman to every Turkish man to promote integration efforts. To prove that the socialist party is the real racist party, they import even more syrians.

    • Option 4 easily. People deeply infected with mind virus cannot be helped. They’d support it all if their own child was killed.

      • It will be interesting. Normally I would expect a division between big city and safe, affluent suburban left and the rest of the country. That may be what happens here.

        However, the race war (that only one side is fighting) has enriched the suburbs as well as the cities. The suburbs in America were largely unaffected by the vibrant mourning for St Floyd.

        I have no hope for the city residents but I am curious if vibrancy visiting them will move the suburbs to the right. Already suburban mayors are urging crackdowns

  3. I mentioned this a while back, but I have a book called American Constitutional Development by Carl Brent Swisher. The original volume was published in 1943 and the one I have was published in the early 50’s to include cases through Truman’s presidency — right on the cusp of Brown v. Board.

    Plessy v. Ferguson is mentioned once, in a footnote on page 1047, as the book gets around to discussing ‘Rights of Minorities’ during the Truman administration. In other words, even at that late date the case hadn’t taken on its mythical status as the root of all evil in the Jim Crow south. It was only after its looking glass doppelganger was decided in 1954 that it suddenly became invested with the notoriety it enjoys today. As Brown v. Board became deified, Plessy was chosen for the role of Satan.

  4. Today’s story of a 69 year old white male Rhode Island state senator keying a car that had a “Biden Sucks” bumper sticker on it is one more reminder that we are way past the point where it was productive to argue law, precedent etc. At this late date, the camps have been staked out, friends and enemies identified, and to some extent even, the armies formed.

    Yes the old white shitlib boomers like him won’t be around much longer, but looking at the mills and Z, who are worse, of whom I’m sure the majority would think such a thing is justified, means we are looking at close to three quarters of a century before there is any chance of a preponderance of white people in or near power who are able to even begin to approach a reassessment of Brown. About the year 2100. By which Z’s progeny, if any, will be in their 60s and 70s.

    • Jeffrey Zoar you are spot on. I have regular interactions with 16-30 year olds raised in top-tier suburbs, top rated high school and college, (albeit it low tier). I see a level of self-absorption, absolute and total ignorance couple with an absolute and total ignorance of anything outside of TikTok trivia and no ability to make any qualitative judgment that is astounding.

      I think intellectual pursuits are for an internal circle, for civilizational preservation and reaching consensus within closed ranks. Otherwise they are not only futile, but harmful pursuits. For the rest, separate as far as you can, elect yourself sheriff, make your known buddies local judges get your tribe on the local political bodies and dig in. What is coming is going to make the current batch of shitlibs look like a Leave It To Beaver episode.

      • Something that people have overlooked, but not all black people, is that Brown has done great harm to black students..Having done some serious teaching, white schools have very lax discipline, because they don’t need anything more…The segregated black schools, with black teachers and administrators, had very harsh discipline–because they knew they needed it..And many black students were pretty well educated, because the disrupters and criminals were ejected summarily..Thomas Sowell noted that he and some other notable blacks went to a high school in DC that actually outperformed the two white high schools…These issues were dealt with quite a bit in The Wire….But black students in white schools, or under white governance, perform terribly, because the discipline is far too lax….

        • pyrrhus: Do you truly care about how this has ‘harmed’ black students? Why? How about the White students whose lives have been destroyed by those jogger scholars you are so concerned about? Why is there ALWAYS someone who has to play the jogger empathy card?

          • Rather odd for a chap who has an IQ over 150 and has successfully litigated constituational cases before the SCOTUS…

          • You should care because it means those students remain dangerous destructive barbarians.

        • Brown has done great harm to black students

          just as welfare destroyed the negro family.
          Its almost like its not an accident.

          • cg2: There was no jogger family to destroy in the first place. There were loose matriarchal bonds, like in Africa. Any mimicry of the European nuclear family was just that – mimicry. The rate of jogger illegitimacy was always massive, and the rate of genuine ‘family formation’ miniscule.

            Welfare simply exacerbated a pattern that was already there; it didn’t create one.

            Next you’ll tell me dr3.

        • pyrrhus was just pointing out the obvious.

          Talking to one black, I got the same answer I got from a thousand more.

          “You can’t just beat the little niggas!” I said.

          He chuckled and smiled, saying, “It works, it really does.”

          Another said, “I’m from the South! My mama raised me with Bible in one hand and a belt in the other!”

          White kids are like dogs. Beating the white kids because you’re bored and stupid often just makes them stupid and mean.

          (To our credit, often, abuse does not beat the good out of a good person.)

          Blacks, though- beatings are like water off a duck’s back. It doesn’t seem to eff them up like it does us.

          Pyrrhus is making an observation based on reality:

          Priority #1 is get the black kids OUT of our schools.

          They are a simpler, more physical people.

          They can’t do differential equations but they can do Bible stories.

          And the first thing they go to is the beating. It’s nature as much as nurture.

          GET THEM OUT.

          And F*** that possessed, genocidal shabbos tool and murderous traitor, Ike Eisenhower!

      • 3g: Ouch! Not the DR3

        But there was a time that mimicry as you call it allowed some semblance of order. I once noted that coloreds could make some very nice pop music, and Mr. Ostei K. noted that was because they were forced by society to conform to some western standards of music. They also a lot fewer ferals around. Part of being an adult is to recognize that we arent going to get to any kind of white nationalist utopia, but look for what worked in even living memory to make this country livable.

        • cg2: I expect no White nationalist utopia, much as I like to dream of one. I see a beaten, defeated people. If Whites could again force blaqs to conform to any western standards, those same Whites could force segregation and ultimately separation.

          I will make no compromises with soulless savages; the idea of coming to some ‘livable’ arrangement is how we got here in the first place. They are at your throat or at your feet. If they are at your feet you don’t courteously offer them a hand up – you kick them out.

    • Don’t discount the possibility of a catastrophic black swan event. We are overdue for a civilization-killing strength solar storm (search “Carrington event”). Worse. there’s a very good chance the magnetic poles will complete their flip within the next 10-20 years. Meaning more EMP storm, with volcanoes and tsunamis. When either one of those happens, make sure you have a year’s food laid in, lots of camping gear and some warm clothes. You’re gonna need ’em.

      You will no longer be worried about the youngsters’ political views – the few that are still breathing will become overnight conservatives.

  5. At Northrup Grumman, they are hammering on diversity. Full on globo-homo imagery and feel good videos. You can show up to work as your authentic self. And:

    “Approximately 1/4th of Northrop Grumman’s 90,000 employees self-identifies as veterans,”

    You can self-identify as a veteran. WTH!?!? Note the grammar error in that phrase too.

    And I thought we had hit peak absurdity.

    • No, it’s a long way down, I am afraid.

      Verb/subject fail? I sense HR/Diversity Officer competence…

    • All the big MIC firms are wielding the vibrant hammer.

      Eventually they’ll realize they need to call up those uninspiring white guys.

    • The “self identify” category isn’t woke, it’s because you disclose the fact that you’re a veteran on your application. Some applicants , for whatever reason, don’t choose to make that information available to their employer.

      The grammar part is screwed up, though.

      • You don’t self-identify as a military veteran. You are either a military veteran or you are not. In the case of a form, you say, “If you are a military veteran, please select box ‘X’ in section ‘Y’ on the form”

        Stop supporting the degeneracy and the lunacy. I don’t have preferred pronouns. The English language designates our pronouns.

        My God Gambit. Let’s hold a minimum standard.

        • This “self identify” language *does* sound like they’re hinting that people need to start suing DOD saying “I worked around the military – gimme mah pension!”

  6. I’m a whole lot less offended by Brown v. Board than the cases that followed it. Yes, the whole argument citing sociological studies with black and white dolls was ridiculous. But it seems to me that the 14th Amendment rather clearly prohibits government from creating separate policies based solely on race.

    It’s one thing to say that the government shall not enact race-based policies, and quite another to say that the government can force people to integrate, as it did on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and Heart of Atlanta Motel. The latter are clearly violations of the First Amendment right to free association. And Griggs v. Duke Power was an attack on the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the company. It’s absurd for the courts to tell a company that it must not hire people with a certain level of education because not enough blacks have obtained it.

    A LOT of people have been suckered by the bait-and-switch from “government shall treat everyone equally” to “government can disfavor whites and openly discriminate in favor of blacks.”

    • I’d say it’s a personnel problem; the government is composed of people who hate America and Americans.

  7. The “deep state” or whatever you want it has existed in this country (and others) from at least the inception of the Central Bank. And it gained a decisive victory of course after WWII.

    I look at Axis Germany and Japan with sympathy now. I don’t know, but I imagine as Nationalist states they were fighting against the kind of globalist corruption and decay that we are against today. I’m sure they were f’ed up in plenty of ways, as are all governments and groups of people, but they *certainly* weren’t the cartoon supervillains we’re brainwashed into thinking they were. If they had won, I’m sure they’d have taken the wheel of a different form of globalism.

    Regardless, these were ancient countries of extremely high culture and elegance and they were just eviscerated, flattened, and NUKED! Somehow, Japan has been able to maintain it’s border and population integrity, but I really don’t know why. Anyone here know this one?

    But my point is, the people who really control this country and the world just are not going to go quietly; they control EVERYTHING. There’s no doubt they will implement food and travel controls and whatever else in the coming years. I don’t know know that any sort of “collapse” will wrest much power away from them. They used nukes to take it all. It might well take nukes flying, the end of the world, for them to drop the power.

    • Present-day Japan, which is still approximately what America left there after WWII—an odd partial imitation of the America of *that time*, living out a strange version of America’s lost future—has evaded the wrath of current_America by being tiny and inoffensive.

      The generation of Americans taking leadership now are psychotically offended by Japan, especially by its reputation for resisting current_America, so it’s being re-conquered.

      Two canaries in the coalmine: Japan’s obesity stats suddenly shot up within the last couple years. They are no longer free of “goyslop.” And when Abe was murdered, nothing else happened. They don’t really remember him.

    • ” I’m sure they were f’ed up in plenty of ways, as are all governments and groups of people, but they *certainly* weren’t the cartoon supervillains we’re brainwashed into thinking they were.”

      It is pretty amazing how there is probably not a single American alive today who don’t know the name Adolph Hitler and 6 million Jews. While at the same time, the US was backing the only man alive worse than Hitler in every conceivable way. Very few (comparatively) know the name Stalin or what he did. Even using the fake 6 million number, Stalin killed way more people and he did it in the Soviet Union and to his own people. Hitler was killing non-German foreigners in the occupied territory.

      Now today, in pretty much every Occidental country the government hates its own people and are led by traitors and foreigners trying to dispossess them.

      Almost anything is better than the status quo. Just look at what is happening in France in the last week. Not only is it on fire, but the traitors in the government and media (and probably the corporations too) are all on the side of the arsonists burning civilization. Some lowlife foreign criminal wins a Darwin award and cities all over the country are burning, including a large 160 year old library full of irreplaceable books. Any random book off any random shelf in the library is worth way more than this little degenerate invader. Books survived hundreds of years and many wars, but not diversity and the horrific post-war leadership class.

      • “Any random book off any random shelf in the library is worth way more than this little degenerate invader.”


      • “Those who burn books will in the end burn people.”

        — Heinrich Heine

      • “While at the same time, the US was backing the only man alive worse than Hitler in every conceivable way.”

        Franklin Delano Roosevelt? XD

    • “They used nukes to take it all.”

      That, THAT right there.

      What makes it worse, is that they would never have invented or built them on them on their own.

      They used us to do it, to create for them the ultimate weapon.

    • Can’t recommend “Battle for Europa (Europe?)” highly enough. It may or may not be propaganda, but it makes more sense of WW II than the Allied propaganda, and far more believable.

  8. Hey, I know Patrick Henry College. Most (maybe) all of its students were homeschooled. Indeed, I think it’s also the home of a homeschool defense fund or something like that.

    The college has a great debate team and sends a bunch of kids to law school, presumably where some get trained to fight for homeschool topics.

    Not a lot of keggers on the weekend at Patrick Henry.

  9. There is a bourgeoning discussion below concerning the trope “Diversity is Our Strength,” which begins with the statement that those who utter the phrase can never explain why this is so. There follows a retinue of impassioned but predictable comments which assume that the utterers are either disingenuous, or pecuniarily interested, or mindlessly parroting the elite prescriptions which they do not fully understand but adhere to for psychological security. Unfortunately, none of this is true. Were any of that the case, then support for the concept would have waxed and waned with the private trajectories of the principals. What we see, however, is a strong, persistent, almost fatalistic adherence to the idea over many decades which is held “come what may,” despite diversity’s manifest difficulties. There is a reason for this, but it is not to be sought in anyone’s material advantage. Rather, it lies deep in the founding mythology of the Modern West.

    If you have ever wondered why the Leftists continue to win victory after victory while the Traditional Right cannot find its footing and the Establishment Right inevitably capitulates, the answer is that the Left has the good conscience at its back. The Left feels very much that it is on “the right side of history” and that any advances it makes in its progressive agenda are justified and irrevocable. The Establishment Right eventually capitulates because its conservatism is linked to its social advantages; it “conserves” whatever garners it a place at the table, thus its principles follow in the train of popular fads, which at the moment happen to be Leftism. (This does not contradict what was said earlier about Leftism not being a mercenary interest, for the committed Leftists themselves have quite other motivations.) Finally, the Traditional Right, despite its high principles informed by the purest historical and philosophical scholarship, is able only by the most heroic efforts even to preserve itself a patch of unpolluted ground, let alone make any gains against the Leftist juggernaut. Traditionalists get no love or respect, without which it is impossible to do much in the field of politics. While we often criticize the Left for believing in “narratives” rather than “reality,” this misses the fact that perception largely is reality in human affairs, or at least the two overlap to a very high degree, hence the strength of narratives. You can overthrow a king simply by persuading enough people that he is illegitimate and not to be recognized, by “de-platforming” him. Then the helpless king, whose orders now fall dead from his lips, can be easily thrown into the dungeon, where the gaslighting can begin. “Of course, you were never really king. That is a figment of your imagination and a symptom of your oppressive will to dominate others. You must repent of all that and do penance.” That is exactly the situation of the Traditional Right today.

    This suffices to explain the motivational spectrum and the relative strength of the three groups, but we still must answer the question why does the Left have such a good conscience about its work. Why does it get the love and respect necessary for hard political slogging? Why is it so confident of its aims, so sure of its permanent position, so insistent upon the obedience of others? In short, why is the Left vested with authority in the first place? It is because, as I have answered before, alone among the three groups, it is the Progressive Left which, in a Ship of Theseus sense, is numerically continuous with Western Civilization, and not the Traditionalists.

    The Modern West was conceived in the passion of revolution against the first two estates, the nobility and the clergy, and this spirit has imbued it ever since. Like Antaeus the Giant, it has infinite strength so long as it stands on the revolutionary soil of its birth. No claim against priest or king, no matter how extravagant, is ever met with any real, heartfelt resistance. Quite the contrary, the full underlying program of Whig History—the unsullied good of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the freedom of man to everywhere do what he pleases and believe what he pleases—is sweepingly accepted as the revealed will of God and the moral arc of history.

    With this mighty theme at his back, no Leftist ever need fear pressing his case too far. Every new demand can be easily slid into the Whig Historical framework like a hand into a glove, from whence it reenacts the French Revolution and the Protestant Reformation in microcosm. “Who is to say that male crossdressers can’t use the women’s bathroom? Those priests with their silly rules? Those kings with their made-up titles? Off with their heads!” To take, for example, the “Diversity is Our Strength” trope, it follows immediately from the ideals built right into the Constitution itself. Freedom of Speech is presumed to be a good and desirable thing. Why? Not for the benefit of the speaker himself, you see, but for the benefit of everyone else, for the benefit of “the truth.” Because no one can claim to have the truth himself without becoming the dreaded king, the truth must be reduced to an impersonal process. Every idea must be allowed to shine, and once we’ve added some dither in the form of “diverse” opinion, the giant analog computer known as society will deliver us the truth of its own. In this cast of mind, delimiting diversity is a great impiety and may even impede the eschaton.

    It need only be stated to be seen at once that every social conflict of modern times, including the Civil Rights and Great Society legislation that primarily affects the nation today, has been fought out precisely in this Whig Historical pantomime. The bad guys are the stodgy old priests and nobles, the good guys are the young freedom fighters, and the revolution is the dialectical realization of the one true good. The ethic of the West is permanent revolution. The melodrama is intuitively obvious to everyone inwardly born as a citizen of the modern West, but not really to anyone else.

    Therefore, Leftism will continue as long as the West does, and its end is the end of the West. This is why Occidentalism is such a hindrance to dissidents today. It is necessary to be inwardly detached from the West in order to defeat it. The dialecticalism, Marxism, Darwinism, and postmodernism that define the West today was all present in germ in the Rights of Man and the 95 Theses. The antidote begins with the Council of Trent and the Summa Theologica.

    Also, this is why the recent Supreme Court ruling against Affirmative Action is a very big deal, for it actually countermands the whole spirit of modernity. Many here pooh-poohed it as ineffectual, as not being dramatic enough to bring about real change. However, in this day and age, these are the only kind of victories we will see—hidden in plain sight. The rebellious spirit has not relented nor will it, ut the eternal truth, the real truth has announced itself and marches towards us with a steady, firm step. Our duty is to make straight its paths.

    • “Well, you can’t say diversity has been a success.” Even the shitlib must concede that point, for his whole world view rests on it. His reply, “So we must continue to fight for it!”. Your rejoinder, “So diversity = endless strife.” Which is the truth, which they can’t refute.

      • It’s akin to the cognitive dissonance that committed communists experienced under Stalinism. Why hadn’t the workers’ paradise arrived as promised? It couldn’t be that the tenets of socialism as espoused by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Comrade Stain were flawed. No, the reason Soviet communism had not achieved perfection was due to various anti-revolutionary elements — wreckers, fascists, Trotskyites, kulaks, and so on. Once all of the enemies of the revolution were eliminated, then true socialism would be possible.

    • Knowing nothing of Council of Trent and the Summa Theologica, I presume you point this antidote only to the White West. It would be base (low) to accuse such a fine mind of universalism.

      That said, I saw that the Greek Orthodox don’t include Revelations in their Bible.

      The Roman West does; this provided the Dispensationalist gate to be thrown open.

      Thus, in the east, war communism was waged, open subjugation.
      In the west, infiltration and subversion, cultural razzia, raiding bases.

      Would this antidote include any defenses against foreign conquest?

    • “Therefore, Leftism will continue as long as the West does, and its end is the end of the West. This is why Occidentalism is such a hindrance to dissidents today. It is necessary to be inwardly detached from the West in order to defeat it.” The late Ted Kaczynski would concur with this conclusion. His “Industrial Society and Its Future,” connects the development of industrial civilization (what we may call the west) with leftism as one of the psychologically destructive outcomes of such development. His remedy of course is to call for a revolution against technological society, In effect, ending the west and thereby ending leftism. A post-civilization world would not support such “fine” ideas as diversity, inclusion and equity – in fact those practices would DIE, along with much of the superfluous population. The end of the west will not be a pleasant experience. Being inwardly detached from the west is akin to being a spectator at and rooting for the collapse of civilization. That’s what will finally defeat the leftist mind virus.

    • The left has been unstoppable in America because America has been a leftist construction since 1776. The political right in America is left wing too and just wants to move away a slower pace.

    • “ Many here pooh-poohed it as ineffectual, as not being dramatic enough to bring about real change. However, in this day and age, these are the only kind of victories we will see—hidden in plain sight.

      ID, as Reagan often said, “There you go again”. The SCOTUS decision on AA as little to do with a dramatic wording, it has *everything* to do with *explicit* wording such that cleaver people do not weasel out (find a work around) of its supposed/hoped for intent—the prohibition of racial consideration in any meaningful aspect of life by government and corporate institutions. In short, the goal is a “color blind” society.

      This is not rocket science. The Constitution is full of protections/prohibitions long since “interpreted” out of existence—ironically by former SCOTUS Courts ostensibly more “conservative” than today’s Court. You are naive to imagine that at this very moment there are not meetings of “diversity” committees and their lawyers devising workarounds especially in light of Chief Justice Roberts’ implicit support of racial considerations in selection.

      With regard to university enrollment, I’ve seen how these things operate. There will be no “coming to Jesus moment”, only discussion on how to change the process to continue the desired applicant proportions while avoiding sanctions. There will never be significant change in the enrollment division among racial lines. There will never be a Harvard with 25% Asians. It already has too many.

  10. It’s interesting at times to contemplate what this place could have been without blacks and the “usual suspects” (let alone all the other dross that’s flooded in, in recent decades) – but pretty discouraging as well. We would have prospered mightily had neither group existed here and further been allowed to debase and corrupt our society and culture. But it happened, either knowingly or due to lack of attention, and here we are. How or even if, it can be reversed at this point is the question.

    • First they came for the blaques, and I said nothing because I was not blaque;
      Then they came for the Jeaux, and I said nothing because I was not a Jeaux;
      Then they came for me, and we popped a bottle of champagne because 90% of our problems were gone.

    • The farm implements are here because of greed–one of America’s foundational traits–and the Finkels are here because…well…I really can’t explain that one.

      • The worship of Mammon has followed humanity everywhere. The tribe who carries the golden calf around seem involved.

  11. The Dobbs decision is on point.

    I did my law school honors thesis on Roe v. Wade of all things. At the time, I mentioned to my adviser that Roe v. Wade was clearly unconstitutional. He agreed. But with the passage of time, Roe v, Wade and its progeny (note the irony) became canonical. Two-thirds of Americans alive today are post-Roe.

    When Dobbs was handed down, my adviser, retired and now in his eighties, wrote, for the Sunday supplement, a blistering attack on Dobbs. With the passage of time, his changed mind had conformed to the Orwellian meme, “We’re at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.”

    • Fake news. Casey v PP supplanted Roe in 1992. Roe hasnt been good law for 30 years.

  12. blast furnace | ˈblast ˌfərnəs |
    a smelting furnace in the form of a tower into which a blast of hot compressed air can be introduced from below. Such furnaces are used chiefly to make iron from a mixture of iron ore, coke, and limestone.

    Or, in the case of our society, chiefly to make “equity” from a mixture of race, capability and initiative. Or something like that.

    • More a case of social alchemy than smelting. Just keep blending the imiscible under immense heat and pressure and hope that everybody melds together into one bland, gray human sludge.

  13. i’m of the view that Caldwell’s book is talking about bioleninism even though Caldwell himself has probably never heard of the word.

    • Let’s hope that Caldwell hasn’t heard of bioleninism, an explanation that conceals more than it reveals.

    • I emailed bioleninism to Claremont to fwd to Caldwell but didn’t hear back.
      In an interview he says “the functions of government changed from upholding laws, to providing services, to providing affirmation to say you’re valid, we care about you”
      So Caldwell gets it.

  14. It’s so much worse than this. The earliest public accommodation anti-discrimination law was passed in the 19th century. But the courts struct it down.

    But then FDR happened, radio happened, TV happened. School corruption happened. We now have a self-perpetuating problem. Progressivism is the water people swim in. It permeates their lives. Worse, they are self-aware enough to be intolerant to dissent. When normal people held the power, they did not guard against progressives. They were able to infiltrate and take over all the institutions. They will not allow this to happen again with normal people taking over the institutions.

    We face a much more difficult task than the progressives faced when they were not in power. Nobody was guarding against the small victories they initially had. Nobody was preventing progressives from being hired in institutions. Progressivism never had the stench in wider society that our views have today. The one victory normal people had was economic communism. But economic communism is based entirely on the premises of progressivism. They killed the branches, not the roots.

    • Hence the admonition to “build our own institutions”. Seeking to undermine and retake our prior institutions is a fool’s errand. But more than that, probably more difficult than “going Galt”.

  15. When I took constitutional law in college, this was the first case that we studied.

    One important aspect of Brown is that it was the first big case in which social science informed the decision.

    There was a study that showed that little black girls found white baby dolls more attractive than black baby dolls. This was interpreted as showing that racist society was making little black girls hate their race.

    Leaving the crisis of replicability in social sciences aside, even if the result is true, there may be other explanations that don’t involve whites being evil. For example, just like it is true that africans can sprint faster than anyone, maybe the white race is simply the most attractive to everyone. When you look at whom rich black guys date, you wonder.

    • I don’t wonder in the least I know exactly which race is prettier. I’m not saying that there aren’t pretty black girls what I am saying is that there’s a whole lot more pretty white girls and that the black girls who are pretty avoid features generally. Of course beauty is subjective and that’s just my opinion.

      • Beauty is not subjective . Preference can be. But beauty can be varied within certain parameters (ie, symmetry, purity (in sense of lack of blemishes/disfigurement), proportionality).

        • That’s leaving out spiritual beauty, the something within.

          Why are animals drawn to us? Why are we kind to them, wishing them no ill will?

          They can sense it, that something within. It attracts them.
          Even animals with two legs.

          • I saw a video in which animals, wild mostly, would remember after many years a human who had help rescue or raise them, and would run to them in joy when reunited. Comment after comment gushed about how wonderful animals are that they maintain that love. But doesn’t it in fact prove that its humans who are uniquely invested with traits that call forth loyalty and affection across nearly all species?

          • KGB,

            I have been thinking about the arsonists in Canada, and how very many animals, and even insects that their ideologically-driven acts (aimed at proving the reality of “climate change”) have killed, maimed, or just plain dispossessed from their now destroyed habitats. Their depravity in so doing merits their execution in my book, as they have forfeited their right to live in this Creation.

          • Reminds me of my musings from many years ago when still young enough to work with my dogs—“…everything I learned of God came from my dogs…”

            No, I’m not being cleaver nor blasphemous.

            One of the older dogs developed cancer (don’t they all). She began to fade and whither due to the disease, but was always game to go out. Tired and weak, she slowed the rest of us down.

            The younger ones would run and nip at her rear to speed her along. They showed no *compassion* nor *empathy* toward one of their own.

            Later at home, I had to feed her alone and watch closely, as the other dogs would push her aside and eat her food. Later they even took her bed and she was often forced to sleep on the floor. They cared not and were completely *selfish* to their own needs.

            Finally, she would eat no more and the inevitable trip to the vet took place. When I returned home, there was no indication she was missed. No “morning/remorse”, which follows from love and guilt. The next day it was as if she never lived or was part of their (dogs) lives.

            It took awhile for me to come to an understanding of this. Then it hit me. All these behaviors I speak of are of human/Devine nature, not animal.

            As the Bible tells us, man was made in the spirit and likeness of God. Thus our difference (man vs animal) is proof of this and therefore also proof of a Devine Creator.

            This logic may not work for you, but it’s the closest thing I’ve ever had to a “religious” revelation.

          • Revealing comment, compsci, but revealing for its harshness. I usually think of dogs as having emotions like human children, but I doubt that human children would reject the dying.

            It’s a good reminder about how remorseless Nature is.

    • Only an elitist snob who lived their entire lives apart from any kind of vibrancy would conclude that the only reason black girls preferred lighter-skin dolls was due to internalized societal racism. Anybody who has spent more than 5 minutes around actual blacks will know that there is an entire hierarchy built around skin shade and those with darker skin tones are quite envious of the “light-skins” among the black community. And not just American blacks. Every race on the entire planet values fairer skin. That is a simple, objective fact, so obviously “smart”, “educated” disciples of The Enlightenment would necessarily dismiss it out of hand.

      • Mr Generic

        If you finna keep it real, you has to call them by they real name;

        “Light skinded”

        Also, “High steppin yella” is a derogatory term in da black community.

        Gnome sane?

      • Exactly- Nature signals
        with color; lighter tone and colors- our unique 124 alleles- instantly says “this person has a bit extra” of something.

        The real White Man’s Burden is that we are the fair flowers meant to be spread, by any means.

      • Everybody values light features in women. It’s the opposite with men, with darker guys being more attractive to all women.

        • Suntans, perhaps. But not fat, blubbery lips, blue gums and gaping nostrils.

        • “Tall, dark, and handsome” was a meme spread by the silent moviemakers, marketing Rudolph Valentino as if he were deBeers diamonds.

    • I’m not sure there is any wonder. Lots of research if I recall confirms such wrt dating pref’s. Dating sites have a lot of preference data in this regard.

      • True, but you can’t talk about it.

        Noticing, remember is a crime, which means reality is a crime.

  16. OK, so the pamphlet described in today’s posting is yet another attempt at magic words; which, when exposed to enough people, will create a groundswell of changed minds and . . . and . . . and . . . and what? A new Constitutional Convention, a new slate of elected politicians, a new political party, a new messiah to lead us to the promised land? How many times does this approach have to fail before the futility can no longer be ignored?

    The plates are wobbling. We don’t have several generations of leeway to “rally the masses” or take the slow road to redemption via either the courts or the voting booth. At least 5 million illegals have entered the country since Biden took office and the rioting in France is a harbinger of our future. Its going to get real soon and you better be ready for it with more than just clever rhetoric.

  17. “Thus, we have the holy trinity of the new religion, equality, the blank slate, and universalism.” – I have high hopes that all of this will be washed away. Not because of any political heavy lifting. Especially not because of religious arguments. But simply because we’re born into certain iron clad laws of nature that these “principles” completely contradict. You can go generations with these lies in-tact, but eventually, the way a stream eventually turns all of the rocks smooth and round, the same will happen here.

    Of course we will be a much much poorer nation at the end of all this. But this poverty won’t be undeserved.

    • My friend, this smoothing of the rocks only happens when there is a flowing stream, and not Their aspirational ideal of a stagnant swamp. That’s what all of the censorship, deplatforming, public schooling indoctrination aims toward; i.e., assuring that none of the frictional forces have the free play as we see in the gradual erosion of stones through those continual small-scale collisions driven by a flowing stream of discourse, “noticing” and sharing the observations that arise therefrom. The aspired to leftist world is comprised of stagnant pools, made largely unchangeable with each victory through unalterable ideologies, but always accumulative of more and more vile effluvia.

    • By the gods, if so, I hope it will be remembered. May our people speak of it only in whispers for a thousand years.

      Some clutch themselves and exclaim. “Why were the Aryans so violent?!”, they cry.

      Because the people our ancestors ran into were such retarded shits, is why. Bastards to themselves and each other.

      (My only apologies would be to the archaic Europeans; they were too kind, and thus too femininely weak, to deal with the rovers awaiting beyond Europa’s borders. They were a remnant of what we had been before.)

  18. One should not read Brown without also reading the works of Carleton Putnam, such as his book, Race and Reason, and his letter to Science magazine (13-December-1963). He demolishes the “factual” basis of the Brown decision and exposes the perfidy and lying of Franz Boas. The most amazing thing is that Science magazine back then would actually publish a dissenting view point such as his.

    • That is covered indirectly in the book. Lots of publication, Left and Right, published critiques of Brown. But then the wheel slowly turned and eventually the critics submitted. He used the Rehnquist nomination as an example.

  19. You should read Gangs of America by Ted Nace. It does a great job of explaining how corporations in the US were able to get the same rights as individuals.

    Specifically the 1886 ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This case declared corporations to be “persons,” and gave them access to the same rights as human beings.,14th%20Amendment's%20Equal%20Protection%20Clause.

  20. O say does that star spangled banner yet wave oer’ the land of….”diversity as the primary good and discrimination as the primary bad haunt every aspect of modern life. Not only must you avoid discriminating against members in the league of the oppressed, but you must also swear allegiance to diversity”….and the home of the brave.

  21. There is at least one more step in the evolution process of the open society. It’s adherents sadly come to the conclusion that, as much as they have tried, they are unable to convince many whites of its’ beauty and logic. They tried to de platform them, they will try to de bank and impoverish them for their own good. But, in the end there must be a massive purge for the good of all society. After all, if you want to make an omelet you must break a few eggs.

    The “conservatives” will come around to the same conclusion eventually. “The conservative case for white genocide.” Coauthored by Candace Owens.

      • They tried that in Haiti. French Enlightenment philosophy+ Bantu.
        Gobineau predicted in 1800s that Haiti would be a barren wasteland failed state. The anti racists at the time dismissed him as a bigot.

    • The intractable problem is that there are just too many whites to make it feasible. Maybe even 100 million “bad whites,” in AINO alone. So they’ve had to settle for genocide on the margins, the mix of deindustrialization, opiods, meth etc. Which, combined with the GR (and some census rigging), has helped produce the desired electoral effect, but it’s a slow process, and there is no easy, obvious or quick way forward to the next step.

  22. It’s crazy how the dominoes fall once you get one bad precedent in the books. The logical conclusion to Brown vs. Board was forced integration, and the added bonus of Griggs v. Duke Power made DEI inevitable.

    I’m pretty convinced that the Supreme Court sandbagged the University ruling last week because they knew a more radical move would just be ignored, which is a death knell for the highest court of the land. Ike was willing to send the National Guard to comply with insane Supreme Court dictates, how likely is a right wing ruling to achieve the same mobilization? As nice as tanks on Harvard Square sounds, there’s not enough will on the right to execute it.

    • Internet quote:
      “”No policeman has been killed during any of the last periods of mass social unrest, not a single one.”

      You have identified the problem with the peaceful protesters. They keep getting beat down by the morons in costume and take it.””

      Notice, “immigrants” don’t seem to have that little problem.
      Police won’t go there, only the girls in the case office offering to keep the lights on and the water flowing.

      Police isolate a white person and beat them at will.
      We can have bombings at Aria Grande concerts and find the butchered remains of little white girls…

      and whites are told to lay flowers and candles, as appeasement offerings to their conquerors.
      Whispering prayers to them that they might accept this latest sacrifice, and beat us less severely.
      We’re really sorry for making them do it.

  23. The Age of Entitlement by Christopher Caldwell also touches on this subject. I think the Z mentioned it in a past podcast or post. I found this book to be helpful in understanding how we got here.

    • Rather surprised this was written by some Claremont guys, as this seems to contradict their Jaffaist “second founding” mythos. Though it could be they just pay lip service to him now.

      I remember in college when Hare Krishna members would share pamphlets that size for their religion on campus. Maybe some guys could grab a few copies and get together to spread the good news to passerbys.

      • My sense of the Claremont crowd is that they know exactly what is going on. Every once in a while you hear it slip. But, they will never violate their principles. They will die to uphold their principles, and perhaps to stay in the conversation. I suspect that includes the Lincoln myth they hold at or near the core.

        I think they live in denial that the dying in dying for your principles is literal and not figurative.

        • It’s interesting to wonder how many of the writers employed by conservative think tanks strongly doubt the mission statement of their employer.

          I imagine that when they feel some doubt, they remember their nice home in Northern Virginia and condo in Hawaii and get back to work.

          • Very few got into the field with genuine politics. They go into politics for the same reason pretty girls get off buses in Hollywood every day. They think they can one day be famous and popular with the lifestyle that comes with it. They may may not even understand this at first, but if they avoid career ending mistakes, they figure it out. This is why pro9fessional conservatism is so cynical. Everyone in it has had to make the same deal.

        • Per YouTube video w Yarvin on USA becoming a monarchy, Anton obviously knows the constitution has nothing to do with what goes on in USA but is forbidden from advocating for anything contrary to it by employer

  24. This is an excellent and important post by Zman, as is the essay by Merriam. Hopefully, people will read both despite the holiday.

  25. “Diversity is our strength”

    But those who utter that phrase can never explain why.

    • Muh, better restaurants. Some will trash “white culture” or what they claim is a lack thereof. When they can bother to look up from their smart phone, they had home to stream whatever trash entertainment Hollywood is producing now and listen to hip hop made by people who would prefer they were dead.

      • Back in the nineties the euphemism was “cultural enrichment”. One journalist asked the Danish minister of culture if she could name an example of said culture. She had opened her mouth to answer when the journalist, with immaculate timing, added “something that’s not fast food.”

        And there she was, mouth agape and frozen like a deer in the headlights.

        • Oh, that is delicious, Felix. Thanks for sharing that revelatory anecdote.

    • And if you ask them to explain how diversity is our strength they will look at you with x-ray vision and call you a racist for asking. Diversity is strength is self evidently true to those sheep.

      • But they won’t explain it. That’s the point. You call them out, then ignore them.

        They hate being ignored.

    • Yes they can. They imagine everyone of all walks of life, skin color, sexual orientation, and socio-economic class living and working together in harmony. No friction nor prejudice. Everyone working together for a common good. It’s modern post-national utopianism. My problem is explaining to people why this isn’t a good thing.

      I mean, why don’t you want to meet people from other backgrounds, and why wouldn’t you want to have friends and associates from all over the world? Why have sandwiches and casseroles all day every day when you can have pad thai, pho, or hummus?

      Even foreigners like diversity. Bougie Vietnamese for example are attracted to Ho Chi Minh City precisely because they can get foreign stuff, and meet foreign people.

      I’m not advocating for diversity. But our problem as dissidents are finding a good way to dissuade people to invite the world without sounding like bigoted provincials.

      • Marko

        Your second sentence explains it all.

        “They imagine”

        They have little or no experience in the real world regarding other cultures, other than assorted restaurants.

        And therein lies the rub.

        It happens less and less, but if confronted with the diversity is our strength trope, I usually direct the moron to move to Englewood on the south side of Chicago.

        Interestingly, no one ever wants to go.

        • Here’s another approach. Ask the Leftist if there is any limit he would place on diversity. If a little diversity is good, isn’t more diversity better, and maximal diversity the best of all? How many whites would exist in maximally diverse society? Given that diverse effectively means non-white (another brutalization of language by the Left), their ideal society is one in which there are no whites. Sound bloody genocidal to me.

          • The limit I would place on diversity is the same I would place on seasoning – only to the extent it may enhance/complement the flavor of the dish, not overpower it to the point you don’t know what you’re eating. In diversity terms, for the US, this basically breaks down to 60-70% Northern European, 30-20% Non-northern European, 10% the rest. After that, the US is no longer an American dish.

        • Well nobody said that bougie diversity fantasists were based in reality.

          Diversity- and immigration-lovers just assume that everyone acts like an intelligent and civilized person who’s gainfully employed. In the first wave of immigration, that’s who you see. Ergo, diversity works!!

          If everyone were intelligent and civilized and gainfully employed, diversity would work beautifully.
          But liberals fail to see how birthrates and HBD factor in. Being a liberal is eternally living in the past or present, not the future.

          • So true. The unemployment rate among young minority men is nearing 30%. Instability and riots begins north of 15%.

            One fallacy (among many) on the left is pretending that everyone is suitable for and wants to work.

      • Diversity and acceptance of all humanity stops at Thanksgiving dinner where the dread overtakes millions of nitwits from being with their own extended family.

      • “I mean, why don’t you want to meet people from other backgrounds, and why wouldn’t you want to have friends and associates from all over the world?”

        The simple response to this is the great retort: “Why would you?”.

        Then, if pressed, you can simply respond to their question with “I like my own people and culture.”.

        It is an interesting fact of life that, despite what many people – particularly Leftists – may say, they in fact do enjoy meeting carbon copies of themselves. For example, my ideal neighbour would in fact be… me.

        “But our problem as dissidents are finding a good way to dissuade people to invite the world without sounding like bigoted provincials.”

        Not sure I’m with you here, Marko. My direct problems as a Dissident, Christian and white male include: inculcating the Lord’s word into my children and pointing out Evil to them. This is followed by giving them the spiritual tools to survive this fallen world as well as the material skills to best themselves as well as possible. All-the-while on the lookout for Evil.

        In my opinion, whilst we may meet a handful of people who can be receptive*, the majority simply are not in the correct spiritual state to accept what is happening. This means that we must focus on Ourselves and Ours, and the handful we can save – opticks be damned! I’ll not be giving two hoots if I’m deemed a bigoted provincial because I say the naughty words and have the naughty thoughts.

        Put simply: In this fallen world, where can I expend my effort such that the rewards will be maximal?. I’m not sure that dissuading others from obviously Evil things is a good return of investment.

        *: I did meet a taxi driver the other day and had a very frank conversation. He broached to me the fact that he no longer trusted nor watched any news media. This was music to my ears! How few the men are who take even this step! God bless him.

        • “I mean, why don’t you want to meet people from other backgrounds, and why wouldn’t you want to have friends and associates from all over the world?”

          I can visit them over there so I don’t have to live with them over here.

      • One counter to the “restaurant” and “school dances and holidays from different cultures” is that the people with xenophilia of this type actually *know* nothing about those cultures. They can’t speak the language, talk about its authors or history, current events in that country, or in any way give more than a one-sentence overview of why it is “good” (to them, because their food tastes good). True diversity requires knowledge of the whole of things and its variations. American shitlibs know nothing except their own need to have their stupidity passing as moralism validated, and an essential part of that process is by contrasting themselves with “racists.”

        • You nailed Peter Wood.

          They know nothing of the other cultures, and they know nothing of their own culture. It is a badge they wear with zero self awareness. To them, the badge says I am cultured and wonderful. In fact, because they are un-cultured, de-racinated, credential wielding, consumers who are intellectually lazy, the food truck emporium and brochures where nobody looks like them is a cheap and easy substitute. In addition, the progenitors of this project apply immense psychological pressures on them to comply.

          They are so vaccuous that they can’t see the obvious reality that there is no multi-cultural aspect of this. A black ballerina. A carbon copy of any American genre of pop music in an Asian language or Spanish. A black portraying the whitest of all Gods, Heimdahl, or Achilles. A trans priest in a Christian church. Of course for whites the greatest good is larping as a white sherpa or ceremonial medicine healer…

          It is all fundamentally culture that comes from the West, albeit the West at its most degenerate, with racial substitution. For, “Hispanics”, the language is even European and ultimately Greco-Roman. It is a thin veneer of a mono-culture all delicately resting on the ruins of The West that calls race substitution and role playing multicultural. It is grotesque. It is an abomination.

          Given all that, plus the endless piles of anti-white genocidal language, you have to conclude that the real aim is to get rid of European man, or at a minimum reduce him to an insignificant speck – deprived of his homeland, identity and who is treated as the pariah of the world.

          There are ethnos that have survived pogroms. One such group has a foundational myth that they are the ones chosen by the one and true God to be his emissaries of light, and that one day he will grant them dominion over the world.

          You can see how that promise would keep a people organized and motivated for thousands of years.

          Western man is so committed to a higher good, that I wonder what we have that we can cling to in order to survive what is unfolding. Perhaps survival is enough to rally around to smash the genocidally anti-racist regime, (that is also suicidal on the parts of myopic whites). On the other side of that, I think we’ll need something else to hold us together in North America as we are dispossessed of our homeland. We need some chauvinistic existential myth that is compatible with our spirit as a race whose greatness is directly related to our pursuit of a higher good. If Europe can’t arrest its dispossession, they will need the same.

          The West must destroy Christianity’s rapture myth. We must erect what surely the Romans had in their deep commitment to themselves and their civilization.

          • “You have to conclude that the real aim is to get rid of European man, or at a minimum reduce him to an insignificant speck – deprived of his homeland, identity and who is treated as the pariah of the world.”

            This is exactly correct.

          • “The West must destroy Christianity’s rapture myth.”

            Rapture is an American Protestan invention.

      • It’s really quite simple. Diversity is the source of division, or conflict. How could it be otherwise? Conflict does not sprint from sameness, it springs from difference. And human group difference, what’s more, stems largely from genetics.

        This is not a difficult argument to make. And regardless of what argument you make, you will sound like a bigot to them. So what? They are also bigots. Anti-white bigots. But at least our bigotry is rational. There’s is not.

        • What “bigotry” really means is to place oneself on a moral pedestal above one’s neighbours (pharisaism, essentially). The people most likely to call you a bigot are themselves the most flagrant bigots, ironically enough.

      • Marko: The Whites most advocating ‘diversity’ have generally experienced it via college and/or restaurants. The non-White and non-Americans have no experience of genuine diversity but claim expertise based on their epidermis. They are the actual provincials.

        I’ve lived in half a dozen countries and visited a dozen more, and that’s how I learned to loathe diversity. Yet I’m now the provincial. Convincing any of the NPC and conservacuck rabble of anything? Zero Fs to give.

        • Yes, diversity-lovers have only experienced diversity where it works: college, white collar jobs, the armed services, or whatever high-achieving slice of the world you bounce around in.

          Excuse my Marxism, but I think there’s something to be said for class over race. I have no trouble getting along with any race of person who’s intelligent and civilized. Problem is the percentage of those races who are intelligent or civilized is variable. Condemning this bit of truth is the central issue.

          • In isolation I concur with this Marko. However, the events of the past ten years show that this just will not work.

            Once you reach a tipping point where there is no dominant culture overseen by the dominant racial group that creates it, then human nature takes over and groups vie for dominance.

            I don’t see how any whites in the white collar world could now go along with that viewpoint. In 2010, it started with women, women women. That was a major smelling salt moment. It was a clear inversion of the entire legal foundations of The West and a clear break with the idea of meritocracy. Then a year or two later it became overtly anti-white in the corporation.

            Now everyone can see that you can get ahead by stepping on white men. Once that genie is out of the bottle all of the status and financial incentives are to trample on the out group and promote your specific in group. Too many white people think it is a trend that will end, so they tolerate it. They do not understand that it will only intensify as their position gets weaker and their numbers dwindle.

            In any case, it works until it doesn’t – a cool arrangement until it isn’t.

          • Marko: I’m going to disagree. Yes, I’ve known my share of IKAGOs, but I’ve still recognized that:

            1. They are the extreme, very shallow right hand of their race’s bell curve, and
            2. However they may behave in mixed race gatherings, their private feelings and demeanour are still racially distinct from their public face.

            As far as class goes, I strongly disagree. While I loved my college days discussing all sorts of theories and ideas and learning subjects that interested me, I’ve also learned to appreciate the common folk wisdom and experience of working class Whites. They may not know their ancient history, but they know their family lineage and the struggles they endured. They may not know all the various political ‘isms,’ but they know the virtue of hard work and Christian morality.

            As I’ve noted before, I’ve come to appreciate that everything I once attributed to my own intellect and efforts would have been worthless without the societal and civilizational structure within which I live. And that society and civilization was built by both Whites of the mind and of the body – one is useless without the other.

            Too many make class distinctions binary.
            Well, I may have a couple of (incomplete) masters degrees, but I find plenty to learn from and discuss with people who’ve worked with their hands all their lives. And I know who’s more likely to curl up and die when tough times occur. Life’s not genius PhDs versus methhead trailer trash.

          • There is a tribe in Africa that believes when a baby’s first teeth come in, if the bottom ones come in first, they throw the baby in the river for the crocodiles to eat.

        • There’s a lot of IKAGO going around. If one asks opinion of someone having a day to day interaction with the majority of these folk, one gets a different conception of the “strength” of diversity.

          Had these discussions with relatives before. When their arguments are broken down and analyzed, their response in always along the lines of IKAGO. The simply can not, will not, generalize. You’d think they expect one to judge every minority independently of the others in the group—which is fine—but you can’t make societal judgements efficiently in that manner.

      • My problem is explaining to people why this isn’t a good thing.

        You invite them to dinner, spike their drinks, bundle them up in a tarpaulin and ship them off to Nigeria. Once they’ve managed to find their way home, they’ll understand.

    • There is a logic to it. I will have a podcast on it this week. The very short version is that certain people can only prosper in a society that is without boundaries. Therefore, the perfect society is the open society. George Soros has been writing about this since the 1990’s. You go back further to guys like Popper who made the same arguments. The open society became a moral end point, thus diversity is the acid test. The more open a society, the more diverse, therefore, the more diversity you have, the more open your society.

      • George Soros Bet Big on Liberal Democracy. Now He Fears He Is Losing.

        But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew-unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

        Jewish and the morality of most societies is collectivist and is tribal, whatever is good for the tribe. European morality tends towards universalism.

        • That “unless” is the helluva caveat. So why not just live in Israel? Hell, I’d be perfectly cool with giving greater NYC, New Jersey and greater Philly to the Finkels as their own independent state. But they don’t want that any more than the nuggras want their own independent state. Their inmost desire is to destroy rather than to build or create. And the object of that desire is the civilization built by whites.

    • Yeah, while out in The Real World, that tune is going to change. Turns out in Mult-Culti land folks just aren’t joining hands and singing Kumbaya, the bastards.

      Turns out Dems have learned all those Muslim immigrants they brought in? Yeah, actively opposed to Pride Month and the whole transgender thing. Like marching on schools and protesting it. The Left has to treat them with kid gloves less things go all explody or stabby. So OF COURSE it’s the Republican mind control rays, and not a tenet of their religion.

      Meanwhile it turns out A Certain Demographic doesn’t like a New, Vibrant! demographic being bussed into their neighborhoods and getting their Gibs.

      I’m pretty sure the Vibrant! demographic doesn’t like and doesn’t care about A Certain Demographic cuz there’s more of us than you here, ese.

      And that’s just two examples. I’m sure the Indians and Chinese who come here each think THEY should be in charge and the other lot should get the Hell out of their way. And they look down their noses at the Vibrants and the Diversity and wouldn’t hire, less befriend any of them.

      Oh, it’s going to get spicy in the years to come folks. The Left better let Donald Trump run and win to focus everyone in The Coalition of the Fringes hatred on him and not each other.

      • Muslim immigrants were just supposed to be another Democratic voting block and bludgeon to be used by leftists on MAGA Americans. They were not supposed to have any ideas of their on.

      • A question of strategy:

        Should right wing groups work with non-white or progressive groups when the opportunity presents itself, like muslims opposing sexual perversity?

        Ramzpaul says yes, but I have a suspicion that I can’t clearly articulate, that we will regret it.

        • Well it is a risky business that has been tried throughout history with varying degrees of success. Usually ends up in carving up the original polis. The key to making it work when it did was maintaining physical separation. Various European tribes/groups would align with Saracens, then end up fighting them.

        • You’d have to be very clear that the cooperation is transactional, nothing more, and not let white altruism slip in allowing the other side to take advantage.

          As an example, Sherman used a pack of negroes to help him tear a swath through the South. Once it became untenable to drag them across a river with his troops, he ditched them to be captured by Confederate soldiers.

          That’s the mentality you have to have – you’re useful to us until you’re not.

        • There’s no problem with using them as a cat’s paw, setting off a muslim riot in a shitlib city clearly hurts the diversity coalition and thus helps dissidents.

          Cooperating with them is tricky because every freaking time a conservative group is trying to show they aren’t racist, they end up putting a nonwhite or ethnic lawyer in charge. Pretty soon things like Christianity become Judeo-Christianity…

    • The usual retort is that diversity offers us viewpoints from a different perspective and experience, thereby increasing our knowledge and understanding. What that “increased knowledge” actually is, or what we are now better understanding and how it actual benefits society is never quite explained much less demonstrated. You are just supposed to nod your head in agreement as if your question has been substantively answered.

      I suppose there could be circular answer in that it allows us to better understand how to interact with the “diversity,” but that begs the question of why do we have the diversity in the first place?

      • Japan sends chefs all around the world to learn different cooking.
        Between the internet and temporary work exchanges which have existed for hundreds of years there is no need to import people.
        Mass immigration destroyed this civilizational. Just like Rome.

      • Yes. This is a great point c matt. It effectively states that more diverse perspectives make us more innovative. Of course, it isn’t the perspectives that matter, what matters is that the race of the person matters. This is their big weakness, and it is good you point it out.

        Thinking of some good Socratic questions for when you get that:

        – What do you think makes a perspective diverse?
        – 17th through early 20th century Britain and America were the most innovative societies in all of human history. All of the invention came from the 100% white population. How do you explain that?
        – What if the diverse perspectives are all wrong and we waste our time entertaining or pursuing them?
        – What if the perspectives are not at all diverse, but the skin color of the person is the only thing that is different about the people mouthing the perspective?
        – In this situation, what tangible proof is there that a diverse perspective is beneficial?
        – As CEO, why don’t you abolish your position and pass your responsibility to a rotating group from the entire company? They will all be CEO for one month. Is that diverse enough or should we rotate one a week? In fact, how fast do we need to rotate to get every person’s perspective?
        – What perspective do you need from me to do my job?

        We could go on. In any case, that is the most maddening of them all to watch these imbiciles use this as their reasoning.

      • Yeah. As if the South Sudanese have a bloody thing to teach whites about physics, philosophy or well, anything except where to find the fattest grub worms.

    • Richard Hanania and regime psychopath “libertarians” like Bryan Caplan say it’s good that diversity lowers social cohesion because it allows the maximum extraction of profits from the peasants. Real libertarians like Hoppe support freedom of association

    • If “Diversity” really “is our strength” one wonders why it requires such a massive enforcement and propaganda apparatus.

      • Good point. I’d guess close to 15 percent of AINO’s adults hold jobs revolve, to a certain degree, around managing, administering, imposing and enforcing diversity. That’s a huge number. And it attests to the fact that diversity is one mother of an intractable problem.

    • Reading “One Nation Under Blackmail” by Whitney Webb.

      It lays out the rampant corruption that has plagued the west for the last century. Not for the faint of heart. The level of criminality in government and society is disappointing and depressing. It’s a good book worth reading.


Comments are closed.