The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / By Ronald N. Neff
 All Comments / By Ronald N. Neff
    Before I get going with my thesis, I have to discuss what it means to be racist. This is no easy matter, because most of the people who talk about racism (and in particular those who accuse others of being racists) do not bother to say what they mean. Let's start with a thought experiment....
  • Much ado about very little. Obviously it’s an empirical question whether there are differences between the races and obviously people have different motives for pointing them out. Obviously such differences are difficult to talk about. Who wants to think their group is innately deficient in some desirable trait? It is far from proven that talking about race and IQ has any bearing on important questions of public policy. No great changes resulted from publication of The Bell Curve. By contrast, the facts suggest that changing attitudes and policies about sex, childbearing, childrearing, divorce, and women’s role have very large effects on crime rates, joblessness, drug use, poverty, and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks a lot for this article. For many years, I have known that all anti-discrimination laws must be repealed. I self-identify as libertarian, but far too few so-called libertarians agree with me. And even those that are willing to say they agree with me, usually soft-pedal whatever they do say. I think this issue is extremely important. I even feel often that I wish to applaud raw racism or bigotry of whatever kind. People who think or act so should be defended. I often hear the phrase ‘freedom of association’ but hardly ever hear also of ‘freedom of disassociation’. What I have known for years that if I cannot discriminate, I am not free.
    I hope that many people read Mr. Neff’s post. It is quite lengthy, but also quite rewarding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Blacks generally exhibit disparate behavior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    But now let’s try this: If you agree with James Watson, are you a racist? That is, does anyone say of himself that he is a racist? Does your answer strike you as a little odd?

    'Racist' blurs race and ism and confused people. The proper spelling should be race-ist. That way, people are more aware of the true meaning. Race means race and Ism means belief. So, race + ism = belief in reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

    So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn't mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief. Now, race-ism can be radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Black Islam stuff or even certain extreme strands of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are.

    The big problem is 'racism' has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such a way, it negates the possibility of having a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because mere race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred, it's difficult to come up with any objective term about race reality. The term 'racism' was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term is near-impossible.
    Suppose I define heliocentrism as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such should be called helio-supremacism or helio-chauvinism. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It's a belief in objective fact based on science. But if heliocentrism is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term is impossible.
    Or take the term 'humanism'. It doesn't mean humans are the bestest thing in the cosmos and has supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have both limits and worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as humans on the planet.
    But suppose 'humanism' is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all must bow down to humans.
    Such an attitude should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for 'humanism' to mean anything extreme. As it happens, 'humanism' is defined properly. It doesn't carry supremacist meaning.
    But for some reason, 'racism' has been defined to mean 'my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated'. Since when does Ism mean something that extreme?

    Same goes for nationalism. It should mean belief and defense of one's nation. Nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as nationalism isn't extreme. It is belief in the right of one's nation to survive as territory, history, and identity. But the PC media have defined nationalism(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as 'far right'. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with imperialist Nazism.
    So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting other nations), they are compared with 'dark forces' of Nazism and extremism and 'far right'. When something normal as basic nationalism is defined in such extreme way, it sucks out all the air in the room. When mere nationalism is 'nazism', then it's impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it serves as a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been made extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term race-ism to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness.

    As 'racism' and 'antisemtism' are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. It also means daring to say NO to blacks or Jews or daring to notice negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence. So, if in the past, 'racism' and 'antisemitism' meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superior and Jews as the rightful masters. Today, 'racism' means the right of black superioirty, and 'antisemitism' means the right of Jewish supremacism.
    Same thing with 'homophobia'. What used to mean an extreme animus against homos just minding their own business has come to mean the refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos. So, if a bakery won't bake 'homo wedding' cake, it is 'homophobic'. If a politician refuses to march in the homo 'pride' parade, he or she is 'homophobic'. Or, if a church says NO to homo colors and banners, it is 'homophobic'. (Granted, even the original use of the term 'homophobia' was bogus since 'homophobia' doesn't exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological panicked fear of something harmless. While it's true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it's not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny penis or poon mutilation.)
    Those terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. Blacks, Jews, and homos have become difficult and arrogant because they've gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro gods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him Caitlyn.

    "it was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs"

    Again, the problem was the willful abuse of terminology. Ism was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
    From the start, it should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc. Extreme racial attitudes should not have been called 'racism' as it implies that ism, when applied to race, means just about all the negative connotations under the sun.
    Worse, it wasn't just the definition that did the trick. It was the 'idology' and 'iconology' of how the term came to be defined. While dictionaries offer definitions in words, the real power derives from the term's association with certain images and sounds. This is why 'racism' has power only in relation to blacks. Hollywood and PBS and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with 'racism'. There used to be some degree of that with American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians. (It's interesting that Tarantino's Western deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of the once most popular movie genre.) When people hear 'racism' in relation to non-blacks, there's just a faint sense that it's wrong but no great passion. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don't dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. This is why there is no sympathy for Palestinians among most Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba, Occupation, and now apartheid. While most Americans will theoretically agree that 'racism' against Palestinians is wrong, their minds haven't been instilled with iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of movies, TV shows, songs, and symbols of Palestinian victimhood. Things would change. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling "I will die for Allah" and blowing up people. ('Iconology' matter a tremendous deal. Consider ET. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend some boy. But Spielberg's movie made ET so lovable, and so many adults and children were made to weep over ET. So, even though there are so many 100s of millions of people suffering all over the world, more Americans felt more compassion and love for a fictional space creature than for fellow mankind. No less fantastical than ET is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as some divine god figure.)
    So, what matters is not just the control of terms but controls of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there's a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. That image is baked into my mind. It's like BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of 'black sheriff', the Negro's clever use of 'iconology' of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people's heartstrings. Even though I eventually grew out of Magic Negro Myth, it took some time and struggle since I got so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It took some effort to wean myself from Negropiate and see the Negro what he truly be: Crazy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

    What we need to do is rehabilitate the term 'racism' as 'race-ism' and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective or it can be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism on blacks would have to conclude that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to general intelligence, whites have superiority and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and masculinity, it's the blacks with superiority and advantage. So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won't respect men without manhood. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn't make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

    Proper rational 'race-ism' is still a work in progress. After all, consider how much racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know much happened. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.
    Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and led to horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it's a fallacy to say that because an -ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of 'scientific socialism' doesn't meant that socialism has NO value. Socialism has great value in right doses. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain attainments and guarantees.

    Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America notices race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

    It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It's not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter.
    It gets confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed 'anti-racist' and sometimes deemed 'racist'. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief in race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed 'anti-racist'?
    It all depends on context and tenor. 'Racism' in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, 'blacks are less intelligent', that is deemed 'racist'. But if someone says 'blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America', that is 'anti-racist'. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
    Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, "Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power", that is antisemitic. But if someone says or implies, "Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected", it's philosemitic. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised. Of course, it's like walking a tightrope, but there is an acceptable way to imply that Jews are indeed smarter as long as this reflects well on Jews as a wise, wonderful, and noble race.

    But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept. The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
    But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But 'iconologically' and 'idologically', their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
    No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do the most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone's child has to have brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got 4.0 thru grade inflation of a generous professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A's from an elite college, even most progs are gonna sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an 'affirmative' A.

    And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is 'nazi' or 'far right'. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But 'idologically' and 'iconologically', they behave with the full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don't listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. I mean even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
    Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow hookers. Now, ideologically, these people may say all the politically correct things, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
    And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellowd are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yibbity-yabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery.
    So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

    So, if we are honest, we can fix the terminology and we can prove that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It's just part of reality.
    Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he will be more confident in fending himself against nasty Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same.

    After reading your article, Priss, it just dawned on me what term best describes my beliefs: I am a racismist, plain and simple. Next time anyone asks if I am a racist, I will correct them accordingly. Thanks for all your great articles on this site.

    Regards,
    Palerider1861

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anon
    Bah. Another libertarian-bashing article from what looks like a crypto-commie. Most of the people he cites are maybe libertarian hanger-ons, but not formal Libertarians.

    Libertarians created the civil rights law, and correctly understand racism to refer to anti-rights legislation based on race or nationality--not attitudes.

    The only people who get confused are conservative commenters above who pay attention to this tripe.

    Do you acknowledge any form of welfare safety net for citizens ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    This is the result of ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs

    https://www.facebook.com/disgruntledmillennial/videos/1974616036145637/?hc_ref=ARTYJdXCsU0rQdFBjiVyPQNqBAw0YaNDfDb1U_SectxlBr2kltuQ5zMunRVUtEIiwlo&fref=gs&dti=267928420015011&hc_location=group

    Why should mulattoes respect whiteness? They grow up in a society that ideologically says whites are to blame for everything whereas blacks are noble and cool.

    And besides, their white mothers rejected white men as wussy inferiors and sexually served a black man as natural rightful lord over their wombs.

    Ideologically and iconologically, ACOWW is total defeat of the white race, and it is spreading all over US and EU.

    Every year, more and more white wombs are colonized to create mulatto wenches like this.
    And white Americans even elected Obama, a product of ACOWW when it still frowned up by society when he was born.

    every child of these couplings goes on to mate, and what happens then?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • America in a nutshell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The desire to be with ones own kind is a natural part of being human. There is nothing wrong with that. The idea that racism is bad is Western concept and it is used as a way to control people. Once you recognize that, then you can ignore all the BS about racism and move on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is the result of ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs

    https://www.facebook.com/disgruntledmillennial/videos/1974616036145637/?hc_ref=ARTYJdXCsU0rQdFBjiVyPQNqBAw0YaNDfDb1U_SectxlBr2kltuQ5zMunRVUtEIiwlo&fref=gs&dti=267928420015011&hc_location=group

    Why should mulattoes respect whiteness? They grow up in a society that ideologically says whites are to blame for everything whereas blacks are noble and cool.

    And besides, their white mothers rejected white men as wussy inferiors and sexually served a black man as natural rightful lord over their wombs.

    Ideologically and iconologically, ACOWW is total defeat of the white race, and it is spreading all over US and EU.

    Every year, more and more white wombs are colonized to create mulatto wenches like this.
    And white Americans even elected Obama, a product of ACOWW when it still frowned up by society when he was born.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    every child of these couplings goes on to mate, and what happens then?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Grandpa Charlie

    "Libertarianism's arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism." -- Neff
     
    I'm not sure how to parse it logically: I agree that libertarianism's arguments are worthless, but that has nothing to do with racism. So does that mean that I agree or disagree with whatever it is Neff is saying?

    I like my own idea of what libertarianism is: it is, or it should be, a political philosophy based on the love of individual liberty. But, for example, I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard. I even oppose the entire body of 'Austrian' economics as booshwah.

    To me, Neff's article is another one of those articles by self-styled libertarians that I can't read through thoroughly to the end, because ... how shall I put this? ... because it's of libertarians, by libertarians, and FOR (and ONLY FOR) libertarians). I know, I know, I need to study much more about Objectivism and about "Austrian" economics ... I need to study until I can follow the insane ravings of those who construct, in some hermetically sealed realm of reason, what is apparently known as 'libertarianism'.

    In other words -- so that 'libertarians' can understand me -- I am a'pseudolibertarian,' in their terms.

    Maybe I am a conservative, except there the problem is that there isn't much of the political world left that I want to conserve ... so here I am ... without an identity ... in this era of identity politics. Well, maybe there's enough left of a political world that I can positively say that I oppose the spread of nuclear weapons .... and I would argue that as a 'conservative' stance .... but to return to dykstra's comment:

    "I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    "I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    "I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    "The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content."
    -- jilles dykstra
     
    (1) I don't know what a 'social democrat' is anymore, it's like 'conservative' that way.
    (2) I too, dystra, am a racist because (Heavens help me) I am attached to the USA as a country and to its culture, and, even more so, because I am an unrepentant white man!
    (3) And, I too, dykstra, am an antisemite, because I condemn Israel for its attack on the USS Liberty, not to mention its dirty-dealings in such contexts as (per USMC General R.H. Barrow) that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon.

    However, as to 'racist' and 'antisemite', I would say that these words have acquired meaning, dykstra, thanks to the neocons and neoliberals who claim to own them. Just as the Objectivists and such have defined me, dykstra, as a mere 'pseudolibertarian' or as the neocons or corporate conservatives have defined me, as a mere 'paleocon' or maybe as a WN leftist.

    BTW: If libertarians are going to cite to eminent conservatives such as the late great Senator Robert Byrd, then I am going to cite a source for his biography

    https://www.biography.com/people/robert-c-byrd-579660

    and also, Byrd's fateful speech on the eve of the 2003 invasion of iraq, in opposition to the neocon government

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAFb5p2qX8

    That speech is known as the "I weep for my country" speech, as all true conservatives continue to weep for our country, when it's all over but the tears, and the tears, the tears keep flowing like a river ...

    hey Gramps,

    I only perused this article and comments lightly, until I saw the video, and watched it yet again

    I remember watching it when he made that speech, as I too was ‘weeping’ for my country, and have been doing so ever since that false flag horror on 9/11, and the subsequent atrocities and catastrophes the neocon Jewish Zionists and their Christian lickspittles have wrought all over the planet.

    I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard

    the problem isn’t monetarism per se, but rather our monetarism is being controlled by private, unaccountable international banksters for their own nefarious agenda$ at the direct expense of the republic and its people and economy.

    I need to study much more about Objectivism

    I wouldn’t

    Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand gave to her ‘philosophy’, and it’s not worth really studying, because for one reason, Ayn Rand in particular never lived by such a literal philosophy.

    Objectivism and Libertarianism are attempts at trying to encompass the real world requirements of politics and the exigencies of life- with a religious-like attempt at a motivating philosophy behind it all. Ron Paul is the person who has come closest to it’s messiah, as he alone seems to possess the character needed to embody the ideas, but then again, he too makes concessions and exceptions to the dogmas.

    I wouldn’t waste my time on them, except as a curiosity to find out what others are raving about.

    cheers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anon • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Bah. Another libertarian-bashing article from what looks like a crypto-commie. Most of the people he cites are maybe libertarian hanger-ons, but not formal Libertarians.

    Libertarians created the civil rights law, and correctly understand racism to refer to anti-rights legislation based on race or nationality–not attitudes.

    The only people who get confused are conservative commenters above who pay attention to this tripe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Do you acknowledge any form of welfare safety net for citizens ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @just sayin
    Would it be racist of me to point out that the first slaves in America were white Irish? And would that mean then that the Irish were racist because they had no blacks back then?

    No

    But it would be incorrect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @mp
    It was one thing to want to keep Jews out of your country club or to move out of a neighborhood into which blacks had recently moved; it was quite another to favor the gas chambers for Jews and lynchings for blacks.

    This is so moronic. Who is calling to kill Jews and blacks? Seriously? Who is calling for that? It is just another straw man argument. In any case, lynching was a form of justice used to correct a corrupt legal system, on the local level. It was punishment for both blacks and whites, who were criminals. And no Jews died in gas chambers. That is just a fantasy of Jewish propaganda. Of course it is difficult to investigate the claim, since Jewish influenced governments will throw you in jail if you try. But the forensic evidence is pretty clear on the point, just the same.

    Arthur R. Butz, ´The hoax of the twentieth century, The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry’, Costa Mesa CA, 1977, 1989

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Grandpa Charlie

    "Libertarianism's arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism." -- Neff
     
    I'm not sure how to parse it logically: I agree that libertarianism's arguments are worthless, but that has nothing to do with racism. So does that mean that I agree or disagree with whatever it is Neff is saying?

    I like my own idea of what libertarianism is: it is, or it should be, a political philosophy based on the love of individual liberty. But, for example, I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard. I even oppose the entire body of 'Austrian' economics as booshwah.

    To me, Neff's article is another one of those articles by self-styled libertarians that I can't read through thoroughly to the end, because ... how shall I put this? ... because it's of libertarians, by libertarians, and FOR (and ONLY FOR) libertarians). I know, I know, I need to study much more about Objectivism and about "Austrian" economics ... I need to study until I can follow the insane ravings of those who construct, in some hermetically sealed realm of reason, what is apparently known as 'libertarianism'.

    In other words -- so that 'libertarians' can understand me -- I am a'pseudolibertarian,' in their terms.

    Maybe I am a conservative, except there the problem is that there isn't much of the political world left that I want to conserve ... so here I am ... without an identity ... in this era of identity politics. Well, maybe there's enough left of a political world that I can positively say that I oppose the spread of nuclear weapons .... and I would argue that as a 'conservative' stance .... but to return to dykstra's comment:

    "I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    "I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    "I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    "The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content."
    -- jilles dykstra
     
    (1) I don't know what a 'social democrat' is anymore, it's like 'conservative' that way.
    (2) I too, dystra, am a racist because (Heavens help me) I am attached to the USA as a country and to its culture, and, even more so, because I am an unrepentant white man!
    (3) And, I too, dykstra, am an antisemite, because I condemn Israel for its attack on the USS Liberty, not to mention its dirty-dealings in such contexts as (per USMC General R.H. Barrow) that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon.

    However, as to 'racist' and 'antisemite', I would say that these words have acquired meaning, dykstra, thanks to the neocons and neoliberals who claim to own them. Just as the Objectivists and such have defined me, dykstra, as a mere 'pseudolibertarian' or as the neocons or corporate conservatives have defined me, as a mere 'paleocon' or maybe as a WN leftist.

    BTW: If libertarians are going to cite to eminent conservatives such as the late great Senator Robert Byrd, then I am going to cite a source for his biography

    https://www.biography.com/people/robert-c-byrd-579660

    and also, Byrd's fateful speech on the eve of the 2003 invasion of iraq, in opposition to the neocon government

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAFb5p2qX8

    That speech is known as the "I weep for my country" speech, as all true conservatives continue to weep for our country, when it's all over but the tears, and the tears, the tears keep flowing like a river ...

    The esence of social democracy is the belief that the goverment should redistribute income from the rich to the poor through taxes, and subsidies.
    This belief, conviction, still exists in NW European countries on the continent, GB is less social.
    In actual politics it is broken down, thanks to the EU.
    You are right that words as racism and antisemite have got a meaning, alas a not defined meaning.
    A racist is anyone who cares for his country and culture, an antisemite is anyone who criticises jews, for anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen Paul Foster
    "Those frequent calls you hear for an “honest discussion about race” are merely bait: answer them and lose your job, lose your social status, lose your friends, perhaps lose your family. It’s a way of sifting out the non-conformists in a society that wants an honest discussion about race no more than it wants an epidemic of German measles."

    Yes, the "honest conversation about race" is the American leftist version of Mao's "Let a hundred flowers bloom", a ruse to smoke out the hidden opposition and stomp them.

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2013/08/let-hundred-conversations-bloom.html

    The left-liberals always talk about needing to ‘have the conversation’. They could publish a book of the conversations that are allowed. Left-libs are like children; they think if they have a single reason then they possess truth. They can’t cope with debate, that’s not what ‘conversations’ are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    But now let’s try this: If you agree with James Watson, are you a racist? That is, does anyone say of himself that he is a racist? Does your answer strike you as a little odd?

    'Racist' blurs race and ism and confused people. The proper spelling should be race-ist. That way, people are more aware of the true meaning. Race means race and Ism means belief. So, race + ism = belief in reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

    So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn't mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief. Now, race-ism can be radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Black Islam stuff or even certain extreme strands of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are.

    The big problem is 'racism' has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such a way, it negates the possibility of having a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because mere race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred, it's difficult to come up with any objective term about race reality. The term 'racism' was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term is near-impossible.
    Suppose I define heliocentrism as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such should be called helio-supremacism or helio-chauvinism. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It's a belief in objective fact based on science. But if heliocentrism is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term is impossible.
    Or take the term 'humanism'. It doesn't mean humans are the bestest thing in the cosmos and has supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have both limits and worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as humans on the planet.
    But suppose 'humanism' is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all must bow down to humans.
    Such an attitude should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for 'humanism' to mean anything extreme. As it happens, 'humanism' is defined properly. It doesn't carry supremacist meaning.
    But for some reason, 'racism' has been defined to mean 'my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated'. Since when does Ism mean something that extreme?

    Same goes for nationalism. It should mean belief and defense of one's nation. Nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as nationalism isn't extreme. It is belief in the right of one's nation to survive as territory, history, and identity. But the PC media have defined nationalism(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as 'far right'. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with imperialist Nazism.
    So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting other nations), they are compared with 'dark forces' of Nazism and extremism and 'far right'. When something normal as basic nationalism is defined in such extreme way, it sucks out all the air in the room. When mere nationalism is 'nazism', then it's impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it serves as a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been made extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term race-ism to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness.

    As 'racism' and 'antisemtism' are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. It also means daring to say NO to blacks or Jews or daring to notice negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence. So, if in the past, 'racism' and 'antisemitism' meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superior and Jews as the rightful masters. Today, 'racism' means the right of black superioirty, and 'antisemitism' means the right of Jewish supremacism.
    Same thing with 'homophobia'. What used to mean an extreme animus against homos just minding their own business has come to mean the refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos. So, if a bakery won't bake 'homo wedding' cake, it is 'homophobic'. If a politician refuses to march in the homo 'pride' parade, he or she is 'homophobic'. Or, if a church says NO to homo colors and banners, it is 'homophobic'. (Granted, even the original use of the term 'homophobia' was bogus since 'homophobia' doesn't exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological panicked fear of something harmless. While it's true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it's not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny penis or poon mutilation.)
    Those terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. Blacks, Jews, and homos have become difficult and arrogant because they've gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro gods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him Caitlyn.

    "it was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs"

    Again, the problem was the willful abuse of terminology. Ism was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
    From the start, it should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc. Extreme racial attitudes should not have been called 'racism' as it implies that ism, when applied to race, means just about all the negative connotations under the sun.
    Worse, it wasn't just the definition that did the trick. It was the 'idology' and 'iconology' of how the term came to be defined. While dictionaries offer definitions in words, the real power derives from the term's association with certain images and sounds. This is why 'racism' has power only in relation to blacks. Hollywood and PBS and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with 'racism'. There used to be some degree of that with American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians. (It's interesting that Tarantino's Western deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of the once most popular movie genre.) When people hear 'racism' in relation to non-blacks, there's just a faint sense that it's wrong but no great passion. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don't dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. This is why there is no sympathy for Palestinians among most Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba, Occupation, and now apartheid. While most Americans will theoretically agree that 'racism' against Palestinians is wrong, their minds haven't been instilled with iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of movies, TV shows, songs, and symbols of Palestinian victimhood. Things would change. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling "I will die for Allah" and blowing up people. ('Iconology' matter a tremendous deal. Consider ET. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend some boy. But Spielberg's movie made ET so lovable, and so many adults and children were made to weep over ET. So, even though there are so many 100s of millions of people suffering all over the world, more Americans felt more compassion and love for a fictional space creature than for fellow mankind. No less fantastical than ET is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as some divine god figure.)
    So, what matters is not just the control of terms but controls of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there's a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. That image is baked into my mind. It's like BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of 'black sheriff', the Negro's clever use of 'iconology' of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people's heartstrings. Even though I eventually grew out of Magic Negro Myth, it took some time and struggle since I got so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It took some effort to wean myself from Negropiate and see the Negro what he truly be: Crazy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

    What we need to do is rehabilitate the term 'racism' as 'race-ism' and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective or it can be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism on blacks would have to conclude that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to general intelligence, whites have superiority and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and masculinity, it's the blacks with superiority and advantage. So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won't respect men without manhood. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn't make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

    Proper rational 'race-ism' is still a work in progress. After all, consider how much racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know much happened. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.
    Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and led to horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it's a fallacy to say that because an -ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of 'scientific socialism' doesn't meant that socialism has NO value. Socialism has great value in right doses. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain attainments and guarantees.

    Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America notices race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

    It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It's not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter.
    It gets confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed 'anti-racist' and sometimes deemed 'racist'. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief in race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed 'anti-racist'?
    It all depends on context and tenor. 'Racism' in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, 'blacks are less intelligent', that is deemed 'racist'. But if someone says 'blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America', that is 'anti-racist'. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
    Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, "Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power", that is antisemitic. But if someone says or implies, "Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected", it's philosemitic. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised. Of course, it's like walking a tightrope, but there is an acceptable way to imply that Jews are indeed smarter as long as this reflects well on Jews as a wise, wonderful, and noble race.

    But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept. The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
    But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But 'iconologically' and 'idologically', their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
    No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do the most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone's child has to have brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got 4.0 thru grade inflation of a generous professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A's from an elite college, even most progs are gonna sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an 'affirmative' A.

    And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is 'nazi' or 'far right'. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But 'idologically' and 'iconologically', they behave with the full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don't listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. I mean even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
    Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow hookers. Now, ideologically, these people may say all the politically correct things, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
    And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellowd are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yibbity-yabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery.
    So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

    So, if we are honest, we can fix the terminology and we can prove that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It's just part of reality.
    Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he will be more confident in fending himself against nasty Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same.

    There used to be two words – I remember a time in uk, prob 90s, when both were currency – racialism meant neutral categorisation, racism meant prejudice. One of them disappeared with the millennium fireworks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Thomm
    Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence, whites occupy both extremities of human quality.

    The hierarchy of economic productivity is :

    Talented whites (including Jews)
    Asians (East and South)
    Hispanics
    Blacks
    Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).

    That is why :

    1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites, and whites will never unite as a unified group (this is of no benefit whatsoever to successful whites).
    2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
    3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
    4) WNs (the minority that are straight) are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes sense based on the hierarchy above.
    5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine the worst of all worlds. Again, this is to be expected of creatures that nature has designated as wastebaskets.
    6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything to do with white trashionalists.
    7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets. This is also why WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan has pointed out).
    8) The first half of the 80s movie ‘Twins’ was in fact a good depiction of this. These two twins effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. Ignore the second half of the film because in reality, these two would never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.

    This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.

    Troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

    No, it does not. The fight for property in nature goes on all the time. And property keeps changing hands.

    I have also mentioned intellectual laziness. Try harder.

    “The fight for property in nature goes on all the time.”

    That comment reflects both the fact of animals not recognizing the property of other animals and your ignorance. Not to mention your apparent animal-like lack of recognition of the property rights of other people.

    Property behaviors in nature amount to “mine” and “ours” but not “yours”. It wouldn’t be nature, red in tooth and claw, if property of other animals were recognized. Instead they fight, both animals and so-called humans.

    Of course people can take such fighting to unimaginable levels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art
    “The truth shall get you fired,” versions of which appear on more than one site on the Internet.

    Some honest talk about libertarians and Jews and Israel.

    LewRockwell.com was the major outlet for libertarian prose. Every libertarian of note, needed to publish there. The money man for the site was a Jew. For twenty years NO libertarian writer who wanted to be publish on LewRockwell,com. could say anything negative about Israel. The least libertarian country of the West is Israel.

    For over twenty years ONE Jew distorted the whole libertarian intellectual political outlook regarding the ME and the world.

    This was an intellectual high crime.

    Clearly Jews are anti universal freedom of speech.

    Think Peace --- Art

    p.s. Lew and his writers all knew this - but did nothing.

    p.s. One must question their honest dedication to libertarian principles.

    Rockwell and Tucker sold out, and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Shocking, I know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TG
    Well that's quite a posting.

    I would suggest, however, that the problem with libertarianism is that it is, as a pure philosophy, incoherent.

    I have no problem with people wanting to increase personal freedom and responsibility. Sure. But to say that these principles can solve all human problems - ignoring morality and culture and ethics etc. - is I think a folly.

    "Libertarians" have argued for the freedom to choose to own or employ slaves. Yes really. Currently a lot of the peeled shrimp in the United States is peeled by leaves in Malaysia - and woe betide anyone who wants to put a stop to this trade, that's interfering with economic freedom! Libertarians also believe that big corporations have the freedom to ship factories to countries with the lowest possible labor costs - and also that they have the 'freedom' to restrict individuals from importing goods from countries where they are cheap! That the rich should have the 'freedom' to bribe public officials. You get the idea.

    So libertarian principles? Certainly, as long as these are not the only ones. Libertarianism as a pure philosophy? Without morals and ethics etc. pure libertarian logic is a pretzel that can be bent to be whatever you want it to be. As a stand-alone philosophy it's nonsense.

    Please name one libertarian who supports slavery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Would it be racist of me to point out that the first slaves in America were white Irish? And would that mean then that the Irish were racist because they had no blacks back then?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    No

    But it would be incorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    But now let’s try this: If you agree with James Watson, are you a racist? That is, does anyone say of himself that he is a racist? Does your answer strike you as a little odd?

    'Racist' blurs race and ism and confused people. The proper spelling should be race-ist. That way, people are more aware of the true meaning. Race means race and Ism means belief. So, race + ism = belief in reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

    So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn't mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief. Now, race-ism can be radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Black Islam stuff or even certain extreme strands of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are.

    The big problem is 'racism' has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such a way, it negates the possibility of having a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because mere race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred, it's difficult to come up with any objective term about race reality. The term 'racism' was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term is near-impossible.
    Suppose I define heliocentrism as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such should be called helio-supremacism or helio-chauvinism. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It's a belief in objective fact based on science. But if heliocentrism is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term is impossible.
    Or take the term 'humanism'. It doesn't mean humans are the bestest thing in the cosmos and has supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have both limits and worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as humans on the planet.
    But suppose 'humanism' is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all must bow down to humans.
    Such an attitude should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for 'humanism' to mean anything extreme. As it happens, 'humanism' is defined properly. It doesn't carry supremacist meaning.
    But for some reason, 'racism' has been defined to mean 'my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated'. Since when does Ism mean something that extreme?

    Same goes for nationalism. It should mean belief and defense of one's nation. Nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as nationalism isn't extreme. It is belief in the right of one's nation to survive as territory, history, and identity. But the PC media have defined nationalism(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as 'far right'. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with imperialist Nazism.
    So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting other nations), they are compared with 'dark forces' of Nazism and extremism and 'far right'. When something normal as basic nationalism is defined in such extreme way, it sucks out all the air in the room. When mere nationalism is 'nazism', then it's impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it serves as a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been made extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term race-ism to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness.

    As 'racism' and 'antisemtism' are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. It also means daring to say NO to blacks or Jews or daring to notice negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence. So, if in the past, 'racism' and 'antisemitism' meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superior and Jews as the rightful masters. Today, 'racism' means the right of black superioirty, and 'antisemitism' means the right of Jewish supremacism.
    Same thing with 'homophobia'. What used to mean an extreme animus against homos just minding their own business has come to mean the refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos. So, if a bakery won't bake 'homo wedding' cake, it is 'homophobic'. If a politician refuses to march in the homo 'pride' parade, he or she is 'homophobic'. Or, if a church says NO to homo colors and banners, it is 'homophobic'. (Granted, even the original use of the term 'homophobia' was bogus since 'homophobia' doesn't exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological panicked fear of something harmless. While it's true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it's not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny penis or poon mutilation.)
    Those terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. Blacks, Jews, and homos have become difficult and arrogant because they've gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro gods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him Caitlyn.

    "it was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs"

    Again, the problem was the willful abuse of terminology. Ism was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
    From the start, it should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc. Extreme racial attitudes should not have been called 'racism' as it implies that ism, when applied to race, means just about all the negative connotations under the sun.
    Worse, it wasn't just the definition that did the trick. It was the 'idology' and 'iconology' of how the term came to be defined. While dictionaries offer definitions in words, the real power derives from the term's association with certain images and sounds. This is why 'racism' has power only in relation to blacks. Hollywood and PBS and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with 'racism'. There used to be some degree of that with American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians. (It's interesting that Tarantino's Western deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of the once most popular movie genre.) When people hear 'racism' in relation to non-blacks, there's just a faint sense that it's wrong but no great passion. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don't dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. This is why there is no sympathy for Palestinians among most Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba, Occupation, and now apartheid. While most Americans will theoretically agree that 'racism' against Palestinians is wrong, their minds haven't been instilled with iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of movies, TV shows, songs, and symbols of Palestinian victimhood. Things would change. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling "I will die for Allah" and blowing up people. ('Iconology' matter a tremendous deal. Consider ET. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend some boy. But Spielberg's movie made ET so lovable, and so many adults and children were made to weep over ET. So, even though there are so many 100s of millions of people suffering all over the world, more Americans felt more compassion and love for a fictional space creature than for fellow mankind. No less fantastical than ET is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as some divine god figure.)
    So, what matters is not just the control of terms but controls of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there's a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. That image is baked into my mind. It's like BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of 'black sheriff', the Negro's clever use of 'iconology' of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people's heartstrings. Even though I eventually grew out of Magic Negro Myth, it took some time and struggle since I got so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It took some effort to wean myself from Negropiate and see the Negro what he truly be: Crazy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

    What we need to do is rehabilitate the term 'racism' as 'race-ism' and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective or it can be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism on blacks would have to conclude that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to general intelligence, whites have superiority and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and masculinity, it's the blacks with superiority and advantage. So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won't respect men without manhood. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn't make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

    Proper rational 'race-ism' is still a work in progress. After all, consider how much racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know much happened. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.
    Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and led to horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it's a fallacy to say that because an -ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of 'scientific socialism' doesn't meant that socialism has NO value. Socialism has great value in right doses. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain attainments and guarantees.

    Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America notices race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

    It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It's not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter.
    It gets confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed 'anti-racist' and sometimes deemed 'racist'. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief in race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed 'anti-racist'?
    It all depends on context and tenor. 'Racism' in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, 'blacks are less intelligent', that is deemed 'racist'. But if someone says 'blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America', that is 'anti-racist'. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
    Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, "Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power", that is antisemitic. But if someone says or implies, "Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected", it's philosemitic. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised. Of course, it's like walking a tightrope, but there is an acceptable way to imply that Jews are indeed smarter as long as this reflects well on Jews as a wise, wonderful, and noble race.

    But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept. The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
    But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But 'iconologically' and 'idologically', their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
    No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do the most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone's child has to have brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got 4.0 thru grade inflation of a generous professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A's from an elite college, even most progs are gonna sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an 'affirmative' A.

    And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is 'nazi' or 'far right'. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But 'idologically' and 'iconologically', they behave with the full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don't listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. I mean even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
    Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow hookers. Now, ideologically, these people may say all the politically correct things, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
    And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellowd are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yibbity-yabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery.
    So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

    So, if we are honest, we can fix the terminology and we can prove that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It's just part of reality.
    Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he will be more confident in fending himself against nasty Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same.

    So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy.

    Use the term race-realism. Words morph over time and change meaning. Often they change meaning purposefully. For example, ” Conspiracy Theorist and tinfoil hat nutters was made equal by CIA, especially post JFK murder.” Many conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts.

    Another example, Mexican can mean somebody from Mexico, or a Mestizo. So, when speaking of a Mexican, in order to not confuse, you have to say Mexican National. Mexican National is a citizen of Mexico, the country, and who may also be a Mestizo. If somebody is a Mestizo racially, that is more accurate than calling them a Mexican.

    So, hyphenated terms are what we have to use now, in order to be precise.

    One can be a race realist, and not be a racist. It is stupid to walk around with contradictory information in your head. It makes you malfunction. Don’t malfunction, life is too short.

    To see first hand, race differences and then agree with the “were all the same” narrative, implies cognitive dissonance.

    People that insult their own intelligence by believing in two contradictory things at the same time, are committing a sin against themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nowadays, racist means White. It doesn’t matter what you do or say, if you’re White, you’re a racist. A CUNY professor recently said women who had White children were racists. People have to just laugh at this word.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “The truth shall get you fired,” versions of which appear on more than one site on the Internet.

    Some honest talk about libertarians and Jews and Israel.

    LewRockwell.com was the major outlet for libertarian prose. Every libertarian of note, needed to publish there. The money man for the site was a Jew. For twenty years NO libertarian writer who wanted to be publish on LewRockwell,com. could say anything negative about Israel. The least libertarian country of the West is Israel.

    For over twenty years ONE Jew distorted the whole libertarian intellectual political outlook regarding the ME and the world.

    This was an intellectual high crime.

    Clearly Jews are anti universal freedom of speech.

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. Lew and his writers all knew this – but did nothing.

    p.s. One must question their honest dedication to libertarian principles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Rockwell and Tucker sold out, and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Shocking, I know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LauraMR
    The words "racist" and "antisemite" have no real meaning, colloquially speaking. They constitute no more than generic verbal weaponry.

    The same applies to "misogyny", "homophobia", and many, many other words.

    It is the case, however, that some of these words have formal meaning in, for instance, psychiatry. Unsurprisingly, whenever a formal meaning does exist, it is completely unrelated to its conversational use. And, to make matters worse, it remains unclear if, even in those domains, their meanings are able to stand to rigorous scrutiny.

    Someone observed correctly that in reality an antisemite is an individual hated by jews. You may not even know that jews exist, but if for some reason they don’t like you than that’s what you’ll be called.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Drapetomaniac
    "Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature."

    Total BS.

    It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

    In reality, almost everyone and all property belongs to some government. That is the default setting of the left and right - might makes right - which is part and parcel of the animal world.

    It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

    No, it does not. The fight for property in nature goes on all the time. And property keeps changing hands.

    I have also mentioned intellectual laziness. Try harder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    "The fight for property in nature goes on all the time."

    That comment reflects both the fact of animals not recognizing the property of other animals and your ignorance. Not to mention your apparent animal-like lack of recognition of the property rights of other people.

    Property behaviors in nature amount to "mine" and "ours" but not "yours". It wouldn't be nature, red in tooth and claw, if property of other animals were recognized. Instead they fight, both animals and so-called humans.

    Of course people can take such fighting to unimaginable levels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art Deco
    The real crime is noticing things.

    The 'noticing' on these boards is generally fantasizing.

    We notice that you’re a contemptible cuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Your supposed classic definition is peculiar because it reflects the use of the term today. That definition is generic as to be useless.

    The classical definition of racism — the practice of denying another equal services, protection and or opportunity guaranteed by law based on a benign trait, such as skin color, hair style, etc.

    How one felt, or even thought about them is inconsequential. I may not like you, but if I do nothing that prevents you access to the rights as citizen –

    It would not be a racism – bigotry is not racist. One can be a bigot and racist, but feelings, private thoughts have no bearing on what constitutes racist behavior. It was strictly a term that made discrimination manageable in reference to behavior not feelings. There may be some grey areas –

    But the definition I note was the standard understanding. Women have made the matter about feelings as well. This bleeding any meaning out of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TG
    Well that's quite a posting.

    I would suggest, however, that the problem with libertarianism is that it is, as a pure philosophy, incoherent.

    I have no problem with people wanting to increase personal freedom and responsibility. Sure. But to say that these principles can solve all human problems - ignoring morality and culture and ethics etc. - is I think a folly.

    "Libertarians" have argued for the freedom to choose to own or employ slaves. Yes really. Currently a lot of the peeled shrimp in the United States is peeled by leaves in Malaysia - and woe betide anyone who wants to put a stop to this trade, that's interfering with economic freedom! Libertarians also believe that big corporations have the freedom to ship factories to countries with the lowest possible labor costs - and also that they have the 'freedom' to restrict individuals from importing goods from countries where they are cheap! That the rich should have the 'freedom' to bribe public officials. You get the idea.

    So libertarian principles? Certainly, as long as these are not the only ones. Libertarianism as a pure philosophy? Without morals and ethics etc. pure libertarian logic is a pretzel that can be bent to be whatever you want it to be. As a stand-alone philosophy it's nonsense.

    TG is performing the commonest attack on libertarian thinking, to highlight the “extreme” example and use it to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    In general, libertarians invite this by the way the discuss their own philosophy, though I think this article largely avoids this error.

    TG claims to be in favor of increasing personal freedom and responsibility. This IS libertarian thinking, and the main goal of a lot of the weird theorizing that TG labels “nonsense” is simply speculation and argument about how far personal freedom and responsibility can go.

    Do you really have that much of a problem with it TG? A libertarian could make pretty compelling case about all your points. There are far too many in the world making the opposite argument, about how liberty simply has no place in the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Robert Dunn
    Both racism and anti-antisemitism are the results of research and pattern recognition. The real crime is noticing things.

    The real crime is noticing things.

    The ‘noticing’ on these boards is generally fantasizing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    We notice that you’re a contemptible cuck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • it has convinced half the world of universalism via its (((culture))) and (((academia))).

    j j dessalines version 2.0.

    the white version.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • very good.

    mssr dunn is correct.

    and the winner is…

    ???

    particularism.

    libertarianism is one among many universalisms.

    universalism is the unknown known, the secreted cudgel, that (((master))) beats us with.

    enough!

    the universal nation is not a nation at all.

    it has convinced half the world of universalism via its cutlure and academia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @jilles dykstra
    I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    The problem with both words is that they're just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content.

    The words “racist” and “antisemite” have no real meaning, colloquially speaking. They constitute no more than generic verbal weaponry.

    The same applies to “misogyny”, “homophobia”, and many, many other words.

    It is the case, however, that some of these words have formal meaning in, for instance, psychiatry. Unsurprisingly, whenever a formal meaning does exist, it is completely unrelated to its conversational use. And, to make matters worse, it remains unclear if, even in those domains, their meanings are able to stand to rigorous scrutiny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polaco
    Someone observed correctly that in reality an antisemite is an individual hated by jews. You may not even know that jews exist, but if for some reason they don't like you than that's what you'll be called.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Both racism and anti-antisemitism are the results of research and pattern recognition. The real crime is noticing things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The real crime is noticing things.

    The 'noticing' on these boards is generally fantasizing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    You should not be surprised by its popularity here at unz.com or anywhere.

    Libertarianism = selfishness+indifference+intellectual laziness
     
    Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature. We are in the process of undoing the Western civilization (Greek - philosophy, Roman - law and Christian - ethics) which strived to tame natural selfishness and indifference and which was intellectually demanding. By advocating selfishness and indifference the only way is down. If Ayn Rand project was the product of NKVD or CIA it would be considered the most successful ever psyop launched against the Western civilization.

    “Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature.”

    Total BS.

    It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

    In reality, almost everyone and all property belongs to some government. That is the default setting of the left and right – might makes right – which is part and parcel of the animal world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

    No, it does not. The fight for property in nature goes on all the time. And property keeps changing hands.

    I have also mentioned intellectual laziness. Try harder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Well that’s quite a posting.

    I would suggest, however, that the problem with libertarianism is that it is, as a pure philosophy, incoherent.

    I have no problem with people wanting to increase personal freedom and responsibility. Sure. But to say that these principles can solve all human problems – ignoring morality and culture and ethics etc. – is I think a folly.

    “Libertarians” have argued for the freedom to choose to own or employ slaves. Yes really. Currently a lot of the peeled shrimp in the United States is peeled by leaves in Malaysia – and woe betide anyone who wants to put a stop to this trade, that’s interfering with economic freedom! Libertarians also believe that big corporations have the freedom to ship factories to countries with the lowest possible labor costs – and also that they have the ‘freedom’ to restrict individuals from importing goods from countries where they are cheap! That the rich should have the ‘freedom’ to bribe public officials. You get the idea.

    So libertarian principles? Certainly, as long as these are not the only ones. Libertarianism as a pure philosophy? Without morals and ethics etc. pure libertarian logic is a pretzel that can be bent to be whatever you want it to be. As a stand-alone philosophy it’s nonsense.

    Read More
    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Greg the American
    TG is performing the commonest attack on libertarian thinking, to highlight the "extreme" example and use it to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    In general, libertarians invite this by the way the discuss their own philosophy, though I think this article largely avoids this error.

    TG claims to be in favor of increasing personal freedom and responsibility. This IS libertarian thinking, and the main goal of a lot of the weird theorizing that TG labels "nonsense" is simply speculation and argument about how far personal freedom and responsibility can go.

    Do you really have that much of a problem with it TG? A libertarian could make pretty compelling case about all your points. There are far too many in the world making the opposite argument, about how liberty simply has no place in the world.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Please name one libertarian who supports slavery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • no. libertarians are inherently autistic. and there’s nothing they can do about it.

    until they stop being libertarians.

    a country of nothing but superior people is necessarily more socialist than norway.

    there’s no excuse for poverty or gross inequality when everyone is superior.

    drrr.

    if i were a dictator the first people i’d send to the GULAG would be the men with toupees. then i’d send the libertarians…

    if i hadn’t already sent them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Grandpa Charlie

    "Libertarianism's arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism." -- Neff
     
    I'm not sure how to parse it logically: I agree that libertarianism's arguments are worthless, but that has nothing to do with racism. So does that mean that I agree or disagree with whatever it is Neff is saying?

    I like my own idea of what libertarianism is: it is, or it should be, a political philosophy based on the love of individual liberty. But, for example, I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard. I even oppose the entire body of 'Austrian' economics as booshwah.

    To me, Neff's article is another one of those articles by self-styled libertarians that I can't read through thoroughly to the end, because ... how shall I put this? ... because it's of libertarians, by libertarians, and FOR (and ONLY FOR) libertarians). I know, I know, I need to study much more about Objectivism and about "Austrian" economics ... I need to study until I can follow the insane ravings of those who construct, in some hermetically sealed realm of reason, what is apparently known as 'libertarianism'.

    In other words -- so that 'libertarians' can understand me -- I am a'pseudolibertarian,' in their terms.

    Maybe I am a conservative, except there the problem is that there isn't much of the political world left that I want to conserve ... so here I am ... without an identity ... in this era of identity politics. Well, maybe there's enough left of a political world that I can positively say that I oppose the spread of nuclear weapons .... and I would argue that as a 'conservative' stance .... but to return to dykstra's comment:

    "I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    "I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    "I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    "The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content."
    -- jilles dykstra
     
    (1) I don't know what a 'social democrat' is anymore, it's like 'conservative' that way.
    (2) I too, dystra, am a racist because (Heavens help me) I am attached to the USA as a country and to its culture, and, even more so, because I am an unrepentant white man!
    (3) And, I too, dykstra, am an antisemite, because I condemn Israel for its attack on the USS Liberty, not to mention its dirty-dealings in such contexts as (per USMC General R.H. Barrow) that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon.

    However, as to 'racist' and 'antisemite', I would say that these words have acquired meaning, dykstra, thanks to the neocons and neoliberals who claim to own them. Just as the Objectivists and such have defined me, dykstra, as a mere 'pseudolibertarian' or as the neocons or corporate conservatives have defined me, as a mere 'paleocon' or maybe as a WN leftist.

    BTW: If libertarians are going to cite to eminent conservatives such as the late great Senator Robert Byrd, then I am going to cite a source for his biography

    https://www.biography.com/people/robert-c-byrd-579660

    and also, Byrd's fateful speech on the eve of the 2003 invasion of iraq, in opposition to the neocon government

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAFb5p2qX8

    That speech is known as the "I weep for my country" speech, as all true conservatives continue to weep for our country, when it's all over but the tears, and the tears, the tears keep flowing like a river ...

    While I agree with most of what Senator Bryd states in this video I would never call him an eminent conservative. Anything but, as he was the Prince of Pork directing huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to West Virginia when he was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think it was a good article, but curiously a good number of the commenters don’t seem to be getting the point of what the author is saying.

    I always enjoy the “dog eat dog” characterizations of libertarian thinking. Just saying it wouldn’t be libertarians drafting your children or taking your income at the point of a gun. And further, I have some amount of faith in the empathy and love of average people, which is to say there is nothing about libertarian thinking prevent voluntary charity or uncoerced hiring to help out a disadvantaged group. Wouldn’t it be interesting if all the average joes were taking care of each other. It would change the world for the better.

    The author’s breakdown of how racism has become a bludgeon is good insight. I’ve recently been wondering why racism is such a big deal–I mean real racist thinking. So what, people unfairly judge others all the time for all kinds of things, right, including income level, diet and weight, personal appearance, politics, religion, the list is long. So why is race so different. I mean, if someone judges me based on my skin color, it doesn’t bother me that much, but if they steal my gym shoes, now that’s a problem. Obviously, race is a political organizer tool, but there’s just not much there, there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Is anti-semetic a bad thing, like racism….just hollow words meant to manipulate the culture into accepting jewish rule and subjugation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AndrewR
    Did a "WN wigger" steal your girl?

    Judging by the hysterical response, your comment most likely hit somewhere close to the mark.

    Read More
    • LOL: AndrewR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What can libertarians do about this? Very little, I’m afraid. They have tied themselves into a knot worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan comedy. The problem is that in adopting disparate impact as their standard for racism, they have accepted the terms of the discussion set by collectivists. It would help if they could bring themselves to eschew using the disparate impact standard, if they would cease to reduce mental acts to external numbers. It would help if they de-legitimized the term entirely, not only in their own writing, but wherever they encountered it, insofar as it is possible at this late date.

    This seems too complicated.

    As it happens, I have lived for 30 years+ in one of the most diverse places in Europe (the Spanish Mediterranean coast) with large communities of North African Arabs, Black Africans, British, Germans, Belgians and now Russians and Eastern Europeans. New arrivals join their respective communities, speak their own languages, don’t mix much with other communities, and are generally happy to be here, with almost no friction at all between these different races and cultures.

    After reading articles like this, and looking at the situation in the US, I have to ask myself how this is possible, with my best guess being;

    1) Immigrants having the same rights as the Spanish to schooling, healthcare, job opportunities BUT NOT HAVING POLITICAL RIGHTS OR THE RIGHT TO SPANISH NATIONALITY. Actually most of them are here for economic and other reasons, and have no interest in politics, and are not planning on becoming Spaniards.

    2) The acceptance among immigrants that this is NOT THEIR COUNTRY and their Foreign Resident status is OK and doesn’t interfere with what they want to do.

    The key point seems to be that there is no political or ethnic challenge to the Spanish. It’s accepted that this is Spanish territory run by Spaniards.

    If this is right, then the mistake in the United States, right from the start, was to not explicitly define the US as an Anglo society and restrict political power (citizenship) to this founding group. The US could still be fully multicultural, but with immigrants, foregoing political power and accepting that they live (through choice) in a tolerant Anglo society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @jilles dykstra
    I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    The problem with both words is that they're just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content.

    “Libertarianism’s arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism.” — Neff

    I’m not sure how to parse it logically: I agree that libertarianism’s arguments are worthless, but that has nothing to do with racism. So does that mean that I agree or disagree with whatever it is Neff is saying?

    I like my own idea of what libertarianism is: it is, or it should be, a political philosophy based on the love of individual liberty. But, for example, I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard. I even oppose the entire body of ‘Austrian’ economics as booshwah.

    To me, Neff’s article is another one of those articles by self-styled libertarians that I can’t read through thoroughly to the end, because … how shall I put this? … because it’s of libertarians, by libertarians, and FOR (and ONLY FOR) libertarians). I know, I know, I need to study much more about Objectivism and about “Austrian” economics … I need to study until I can follow the insane ravings of those who construct, in some hermetically sealed realm of reason, what is apparently known as ‘libertarianism’.

    In other words — so that ‘libertarians’ can understand me — I am a’pseudolibertarian,’ in their terms.

    Maybe I am a conservative, except there the problem is that there isn’t much of the political world left that I want to conserve … so here I am … without an identity … in this era of identity politics. Well, maybe there’s enough left of a political world that I can positively say that I oppose the spread of nuclear weapons …. and I would argue that as a ‘conservative’ stance …. but to return to dykstra’s comment:

    “I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    “I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    “I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    “The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content.”
    – jilles dykstra

    (1) I don’t know what a ‘social democrat’ is anymore, it’s like ‘conservative’ that way.
    (2) I too, dystra, am a racist because (Heavens help me) I am attached to the USA as a country and to its culture, and, even more so, because I am an unrepentant white man!
    (3) And, I too, dykstra, am an antisemite, because I condemn Israel for its attack on the USS Liberty, not to mention its dirty-dealings in such contexts as (per USMC General R.H. Barrow) that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon.

    However, as to ‘racist’ and ‘antisemite’, I would say that these words have acquired meaning, dykstra, thanks to the neocons and neoliberals who claim to own them. Just as the Objectivists and such have defined me, dykstra, as a mere ‘pseudolibertarian’ or as the neocons or corporate conservatives have defined me, as a mere ‘paleocon’ or maybe as a WN leftist.

    BTW: If libertarians are going to cite to eminent conservatives such as the late great Senator Robert Byrd, then I am going to cite a source for his biography

    https://www.biography.com/people/robert-c-byrd-579660

    and also, Byrd’s fateful speech on the eve of the 2003 invasion of iraq, in opposition to the neocon government

    That speech is known as the “I weep for my country” speech, as all true conservatives continue to weep for our country, when it’s all over but the tears, and the tears, the tears keep flowing like a river …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    While I agree with most of what Senator Bryd states in this video I would never call him an eminent conservative. Anything but, as he was the Prince of Pork directing huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to West Virginia when he was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
    , @jilles dykstra
    The esence of social democracy is the belief that the goverment should redistribute income from the rich to the poor through taxes, and subsidies.
    This belief, conviction, still exists in NW European countries on the continent, GB is less social.
    In actual politics it is broken down, thanks to the EU.
    You are right that words as racism and antisemite have got a meaning, alas a not defined meaning.
    A racist is anyone who cares for his country and culture, an antisemite is anyone who criticises jews, for anything.
    , @Rurik
    hey Gramps,

    I only perused this article and comments lightly, until I saw the video, and watched it yet again

    I remember watching it when he made that speech, as I too was 'weeping' for my country, and have been doing so ever since that false flag horror on 9/11, and the subsequent atrocities and catastrophes the neocon Jewish Zionists and their Christian lickspittles have wrought all over the planet.

    I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard
     
    the problem isn't monetarism per se, but rather our monetarism is being controlled by private, unaccountable international banksters for their own nefarious agenda$ at the direct expense of the republic and its people and economy.

    I need to study much more about Objectivism
     
    I wouldn't

    Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand gave to her 'philosophy', and it's not worth really studying, because for one reason, Ayn Rand in particular never lived by such a literal philosophy.

    Objectivism and Libertarianism are attempts at trying to encompass the real world requirements of politics and the exigencies of life- with a religious-like attempt at a motivating philosophy behind it all. Ron Paul is the person who has come closest to it's messiah, as he alone seems to possess the character needed to embody the ideas, but then again, he too makes concessions and exceptions to the dogmas.

    I wouldn't waste my time on them, except as a curiosity to find out what others are raving about.

    cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AndrewR
    Did a "WN wigger" steal your girl?

    Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence, whites occupy both extremities of human quality.

    The hierarchy of economic productivity is :

    Talented whites (including Jews)
    Asians (East and South)
    Hispanics
    Blacks
    Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).

    That is why :

    1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites, and whites will never unite as a unified group (this is of no benefit whatsoever to successful whites).
    2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
    3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
    4) WNs (the minority that are straight) are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes sense based on the hierarchy above.
    5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine the worst of all worlds. Again, this is to be expected of creatures that nature has designated as wastebaskets.
    6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything to do with white trashionalists.
    7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets. This is also why WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan has pointed out).
    8) The first half of the 80s movie ‘Twins’ was in fact a good depiction of this. These two twins effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. Ignore the second half of the film because in reality, these two would never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.

    This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.

    Read More
    • Troll: AndrewR, Randal
    • Replies: @Lurker
    Troll.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AndrewR
    Did a "WN wigger" steal your girl?

    Quite the opposite in fact.

    We all know that WN wiggers rank at the absolute bottom of any ranking of any desirable human trait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The Anti-Gnostic
    Not "tried and failed" so much as "never gets off the ground," despite libertarian assurances that it is mankind's default state.

    Most recently, central state control was rolled back from large areas in the Middle East. Other armed groups promptly began fighting for the monopoly on punitive force left by retreating State agents. No Galt's Gulches so far as I can tell. Now the central States of Iraq and Syria--better armed and more popular--are taking those areas back.

    The entire libertarian project needs to check its premises if it is to be salvaged.

    “Salvaged” but never tried.

    That’s a good one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mulegino1
    So called "racism" and antisemitism are both reality based reactions to observable patterns of behavior.

    The former is not based upon some irrational fear of pigmentation, but upon an aggregate of verifiable empirical observations, which would lead any impartial observer to conclude that blacks- as a collective (and certainly not all blacks) - are far more likely to commit crimes of violence and property crimes than are whites.

    In like manner, "antisemitism" is the immunological response of any healthy society or culture to the encroach of "the Jews" upon it and is also based upon the empirical observation of societal phenomena, in this case extending back over a thousand years. The Jews (again, as a collective and not all individual Jewish individuals) have proven to be a toxic, even fatal (once their numbers achieve critical mass) pathogen in their host cultures.

    It is odd that modernity, which prides itself upon being a child of the Enlightenment and the scientific world view (grounded in empirical observation and the experimental method) should reject, prima facie, such common sense reactions.

    agree

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheOldOne
    Libertarianism is a FAILED position; I'm quite surprised to see so much support for it on this site.

    You should not be surprised by its popularity here at unz.com or anywhere.

    Libertarianism = selfishness+indifference+intellectual laziness

    Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature. We are in the process of undoing the Western civilization (Greek – philosophy, Roman – law and Christian – ethics) which strived to tame natural selfishness and indifference and which was intellectually demanding. By advocating selfishness and indifference the only way is down. If Ayn Rand project was the product of NKVD or CIA it would be considered the most successful ever psyop launched against the Western civilization.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    "Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature."

    Total BS.

    It is nature that lacks the concept of the property of others.

    In reality, almost everyone and all property belongs to some government. That is the default setting of the left and right - might makes right - which is part and parcel of the animal world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So called “racism” and antisemitism are both reality based reactions to observable patterns of behavior.

    The former is not based upon some irrational fear of pigmentation, but upon an aggregate of verifiable empirical observations, which would lead any impartial observer to conclude that blacks- as a collective (and certainly not all blacks) – are far more likely to commit crimes of violence and property crimes than are whites.

    In like manner, “antisemitism” is the immunological response of any healthy society or culture to the encroach of “the Jews” upon it and is also based upon the empirical observation of societal phenomena, in this case extending back over a thousand years. The Jews (again, as a collective and not all individual Jewish individuals) have proven to be a toxic, even fatal (once their numbers achieve critical mass) pathogen in their host cultures.

    It is odd that modernity, which prides itself upon being a child of the Enlightenment and the scientific world view (grounded in empirical observation and the experimental method) should reject, prima facie, such common sense reactions.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @druid
    agree
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wally
    Where has it been tried & "failed"?

    Not “tried and failed” so much as “never gets off the ground,” despite libertarian assurances that it is mankind’s default state.

    Most recently, central state control was rolled back from large areas in the Middle East. Other armed groups promptly began fighting for the monopoly on punitive force left by retreating State agents. No Galt’s Gulches so far as I can tell. Now the central States of Iraq and Syria–better armed and more popular–are taking those areas back.

    The entire libertarian project needs to check its premises if it is to be salvaged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Salvaged" but never tried.

    That's a good one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @BozoB
    Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

    >> Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

    Since you ask: Yes — for it and for the other points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The race cards are more often than not misused, either intentionally or out of ignorance. Many attempt to use the race cards, when in fact they should be using the ethnicity cards.

    source: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race

    The racial classifications of humans, are Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Therefore only three race cards exist, and if played they need to be played properly.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid
    source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

    On the other hand, there is a large variety of ethnicity cards.

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

    Think about it. If someone doesn’t agree with Muslims or maybe Mexicans, they’re not a racist, they’re an ethnicitist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheOldOne
    Libertarianism is a FAILED position; I'm quite surprised to see so much support for it on this site.

    Where has it been tried & “failed”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Not "tried and failed" so much as "never gets off the ground," despite libertarian assurances that it is mankind's default state.

    Most recently, central state control was rolled back from large areas in the Middle East. Other armed groups promptly began fighting for the monopoly on punitive force left by retreating State agents. No Galt's Gulches so far as I can tell. Now the central States of Iraq and Syria--better armed and more popular--are taking those areas back.

    The entire libertarian project needs to check its premises if it is to be salvaged.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @mp
    It was one thing to want to keep Jews out of your country club or to move out of a neighborhood into which blacks had recently moved; it was quite another to favor the gas chambers for Jews and lynchings for blacks.

    This is so moronic. Who is calling to kill Jews and blacks? Seriously? Who is calling for that? It is just another straw man argument. In any case, lynching was a form of justice used to correct a corrupt legal system, on the local level. It was punishment for both blacks and whites, who were criminals. And no Jews died in gas chambers. That is just a fantasy of Jewish propaganda. Of course it is difficult to investigate the claim, since Jewish influenced governments will throw you in jail if you try. But the forensic evidence is pretty clear on the point, just the same.

    said:
    ” And no Jews died in gas chambers. That is just a fantasy of Jewish propaganda. Of course it is difficult to investigate the claim, since Jewish influenced governments will throw you in jail if you try. But the forensic evidence is pretty clear on the point, just the same.”

    Nailed it!

    The ‘Nazi gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible.

    If the ‘holocaust’ was proven fact there would be no laws against scrutiny of it, there would be no persecution of Revisionists who exercise their right to free speech.

    For a thorough demolition of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers & alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process see analysis at:

    http://forum.codoh.com/search.php?keywords=model&t=10798&sf=msgonly

    http://www.codoh.com

    The tide is turning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jake
    The Left Libertarians always have been ready to drop any pretense to being other than Leftists the very second they sense that traditional conservative culture might have a chance to rise. And when the Left Libertarians get going, such as when they decided that everything to do with honoring anyone who is white and Southern, not only do they quickly sound and act like Marxists, but they manage, easily, to get almost all Libertarians who are not seen as Left-Libertarian to go silent.

    In Russia before and after the 1917 Revolutions, virtually 100% of Libertarians fist backed the overthrow of the Tsar and then backed the Bolsheviks out of fear that a counter-revolution could re-install the Tsar and re-establish the Orthodox Church.

    That is the reality of the ideology of Libertarianism.

    Proof?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Thomm
    Actually, it is Nationalist-Leftists who are openly anti-semitic, racist, and socialist.

    Untalented people tend to be leftists. WN wiggers tend to be no exception.

    Did a “WN wigger” steal your girl?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    Quite the opposite in fact.

    We all know that WN wiggers rank at the absolute bottom of any ranking of any desirable human trait.
    , @Thomm
    Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence, whites occupy both extremities of human quality.

    The hierarchy of economic productivity is :

    Talented whites (including Jews)
    Asians (East and South)
    Hispanics
    Blacks
    Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).

    That is why :

    1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites, and whites will never unite as a unified group (this is of no benefit whatsoever to successful whites).
    2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
    3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
    4) WNs (the minority that are straight) are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes sense based on the hierarchy above.
    5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine the worst of all worlds. Again, this is to be expected of creatures that nature has designated as wastebaskets.
    6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything to do with white trashionalists.
    7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets. This is also why WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan has pointed out).
    8) The first half of the 80s movie ‘Twins’ was in fact a good depiction of this. These two twins effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. Ignore the second half of the film because in reality, these two would never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.

    This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.
    , @Randal
    Judging by the hysterical response, your comment most likely hit somewhere close to the mark.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Libertarianism is a FAILED position; I’m quite surprised to see so much support for it on this site.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Wally
    Where has it been tried & "failed"?
    , @utu
    You should not be surprised by its popularity here at unz.com or anywhere.

    Libertarianism = selfishness+indifference+intellectual laziness
     
    Libertarianism is the lowest common denominator to which people will spiral down. Eventually reaching the state of nature. We are in the process of undoing the Western civilization (Greek - philosophy, Roman - law and Christian - ethics) which strived to tame natural selfishness and indifference and which was intellectually demanding. By advocating selfishness and indifference the only way is down. If Ayn Rand project was the product of NKVD or CIA it would be considered the most successful ever psyop launched against the Western civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If you refuse/object to your child partnering with a white drug dealer, thats good advice. If you object to your child partnering with black drug dealer thats racism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The use of the term ‘anti-Semite is bandied about so much it has lost it’s meaning,

    The Palestinians are Semites so what does that make the Jews ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It was one thing to want to keep Jews out of your country club or to move out of a neighborhood into which blacks had recently moved; it was quite another to favor the gas chambers for Jews and lynchings for blacks.

    This is so moronic. Who is calling to kill Jews and blacks? Seriously? Who is calling for that? It is just another straw man argument. In any case, lynching was a form of justice used to correct a corrupt legal system, on the local level. It was punishment for both blacks and whites, who were criminals. And no Jews died in gas chambers. That is just a fantasy of Jewish propaganda. Of course it is difficult to investigate the claim, since Jewish influenced governments will throw you in jail if you try. But the forensic evidence is pretty clear on the point, just the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    " And no Jews died in gas chambers. That is just a fantasy of Jewish propaganda. Of course it is difficult to investigate the claim, since Jewish influenced governments will throw you in jail if you try. But the forensic evidence is pretty clear on the point, just the same."

    Nailed it!

    The 'Nazi gas chambers' are scientifically impossible.

    If the 'holocaust' was proven fact there would be no laws against scrutiny of it, there would be no persecution of Revisionists who exercise their right to free speech.

    For a thorough demolition of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers & alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process see analysis at:
    http://forum.codoh.com/search.php?keywords=model&t=10798&sf=msgonly

    www.codoh.com

    The tide is turning.

    , @jilles dykstra
    Arthur R. Butz, ´The hoax of the twentieth century, The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry’, Costa Mesa CA, 1977, 1989
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I ask you: if your best friend agrees with James Watson, is he a racist? Your answer is probably, Yes.

    Guess again. “No.”

    If a “racist” is someone who doesn’t ignore genetics and doesn’t hide their informed, honest, opinion because other people don’t like it, then the word “racist” really doesn’t mean much, does it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Thomm
    Actually, it is Nationalist-Leftists who are openly anti-semitic, racist, and socialist.

    Untalented people tend to be leftists. WN wiggers tend to be no exception.

    actually thats a cuck argument borrowed from your leftists (((masters))). The old ” the left are the real racists” As if ‘any means necessary leftists gave a shit about you fucking rationality. The fact that some high cog wits on the web are de-weaponizing Hitler/your’re raaacist through satire and parody doesnt actually make them socialists. nor does the fact that the white yeoman who have been carpet bagged bagged by jews and and elite race traitors; are just about up in arms about the frauds perpetrated on them, doesn’t make them equivalent to welfare niggers. The fact that not every one has completely figured out the complex good cuck bad cuck population replacement while monetizing the cost onto the displaced game, doesnt make them stupid it just makes them naive to trust jews and elite white traitors, and naive to play be the rules when clearly you all needed to be dragged into the street and hung in the fifties at the latest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @BozoB
    Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

    In no way to I think Libertarianism is an answer to our problems, in fact its precisely because of what you assert it is not. People who signal PC holiness while claiming to be libertarians are not libertarians, just like cucks that signal PC holiness while claiming to be enlightenment constitutionalist conservatives are not. True libertarianism is dog eat dog and one doesn’t lament the dead dogs one understands the dead dogs are food of the uberman. But in neither system can you prevent someone from claiming to be a muh constitution muh liberty, you can not arrest them for subversion of the system. for spreading demotism.Its said any institution not specifically right wing will eventually degenerate into leftism. Well I can think of many specifically right wing organizations that degenerated any way because the left targets them specifically. The maxim should be that any right wing institution that does not regularly give helicopter rides to the leftmost 5% of its members will eventually be cucked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FKA Max
    The last word is missing in this version of the article...

    ... I see a bright future here for the "humanitarian" and "thick" *libertarians.*

    Jeffrey Tucker Goes Full SJW

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpKEdOUHYKA

    Jeff Tucker is the epitome of a cuck. What a pathetic loser. (And he’s a really weird guy in person, too.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Left Libertarians always have been ready to drop any pretense to being other than Leftists the very second they sense that traditional conservative culture might have a chance to rise. And when the Left Libertarians get going, such as when they decided that everything to do with honoring anyone who is white and Southern, not only do they quickly sound and act like Marxists, but they manage, easily, to get almost all Libertarians who are not seen as Left-Libertarian to go silent.

    In Russia before and after the 1917 Revolutions, virtually 100% of Libertarians fist backed the overthrow of the Tsar and then backed the Bolsheviks out of fear that a counter-revolution could re-install the Tsar and re-establish the Orthodox Church.

    That is the reality of the ideology of Libertarianism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Proof?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “I ask you: if your best friend agrees with James Watson, is he a racist? Your answer is probably, Yes.”

    If you are reading this in UR, you will more likely than not draw the opposite inference or no inference at all without further information being presented.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • People convinced that they must ‘solve’ the ‘race problem’ for themselves will never be happy because it’s built as a insoluble construct. Time spent musing about it will be time you will, as they say, never get back. If the above piece doesn’t convince you that ‘overthinking’ is to be avoided, nothing will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Those frequent calls you hear for an “honest discussion about race” are merely bait: answer them and lose your job, lose your social status, lose your friends, perhaps lose your family. It’s a way of sifting out the non-conformists in a society that wants an honest discussion about race no more than it wants an epidemic of German measles.”

    Yes, the “honest conversation about race” is the American leftist version of Mao’s “Let a hundred flowers bloom”, a ruse to smoke out the hidden opposition and stomp them.

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2013/08/let-hundred-conversations-bloom.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    The left-liberals always talk about needing to 'have the conversation'. They could publish a book of the conversations that are allowed. Left-libs are like children; they think if they have a single reason then they possess truth. They can't cope with debate, that's not what 'conversations' are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So when a Left-Wing Antifa nutcase goes into a Texas church and kills 27 Christians, what kind of hate is that, anti-Gentilism?

    And why do these violent crazies never go into a synagogue and shoot up the place?

    Fomenting hatred of white Christians is a MUCH bigger problem than anti-Semitism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @BozoB
    Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

    Well, in fairness it is indeed a vitally important point for any who might consider libertarianism as a political position worth supporting, perhaps justifying some consideration at length.

    And, of course, it’s as easy to pick holes in a concise piece for omissions and failures of clarity or evidence as it is to criticise a comprehensively written political comment for being over-long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Actually, it is Nationalist-Leftists who are openly anti-semitic, racist, and socialist.

    Untalented people tend to be leftists. WN wiggers tend to be no exception.

    Antiracists are leftists. Commies, socialists, antifa…all leftist, all antiracist scum.

    No one need point out the connections between losers, leftism, and antiracism.

    Except maybe wogs with small dicks (redundant, I know).

    As for wiggers, Jews are famous for their wiggerism, love of blacks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A brave effort here from someone who evidently has taken the opposite approach to my own in response to the general libertarian kowtow to political correctness over the past couple of decades.

    As a younger man, I self-identified as a libertarian, even flirted with viewing myself as anarcho-capitalist. The individualist and anti-state stance seemed right for the problems of the late C20th, and the principles seemed eminently defensible. That changed when I watched a fairly dramatic purging of perceived “racists” from libertarian respectability. I responded to this, perhaps because my basic nature is conservative and not radical, as this writer says is inherent to libertarianism, by mostly ceasing to identify with libertarianism, since as a movement it had become part of the worst problems of late C20th/early C21st US sphere political culture.

    The completeness of the turn to dishonest political correctness was highlighted for me recently when I posted on antiwar.com a comment merely listing (in entirely temperate terms) political views formerly considered perfectly reasonable that are now routinely censored as “hatred”, and the supposedly libertarian comment editor there, Thomas Knapp, promptly deleted them as supposedly promoting hatred. His basic politically correct dishonesty – that of falsely conflating disapproval or dislike with “hatred”, was evidently perfectly acceptable to the supposedly libertarian management of antiwar.com, and this basically dishonest attitude is one I have encountered repeatedly throughout mainstream libertarianism for many years now.

    So I take the view, unlike this author, that libertarianism is basically flawed as a world-view, in that it lacks sufficient intellectual tools with which to address, in practice, issues that require an understanding of collective loyalties, such as nationalism, racism, and religion. The author here tries manfully to take the alternative view, that “real libertarianism” is not to blame for what its prominent adherents, by and large, have almost universally fallen to, but for me that is all too reminiscent of communists insisting that the communist regimes of the world do not represent “true communism”.

    I suppose when it came down to it I was never a true believer in the basic faith of libertarianism, but rather a political empiricist who formerly saw in libertarianism a useful counter to the problems of the day. When mainstream libertarianism chose to kowtow to political correctness on race in particular, it was impossible for me to ignore the falseness of my former position, and I was forced to end my loyalty to libertarianism. Libertarianism has been a contributory part of some of our worst problems, and no part of any solution to them, now, for decades. Can men like the author of the piece above change that? I hope so, but I doubt it. Such men (and make no mistake – I respect and admire his stand, and the above is an excellent piece) were pretty comprehensively routed and purged from mainstream libertarianism over the past few decades.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FKA Max
    The last word is missing in this version of the article...

    ... I see a bright future here for the "humanitarian" and "thick" *libertarians.*

    Jeffrey Tucker Goes Full SJW

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpKEdOUHYKA

    If you listen beyond he married a Nirobian and became a Muslim I applaud you because this nonsense shouldn’t be tolerated by any thinking person. Does this man have one Muslim friend? I doubt it, one wonders if he has one black friend. Jeff Tucker, does not represent Rothbardians, he’s off in some sjw world that he thinks works and let him have it. This social commentary with a supposed high brow is just lazy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I’m not sure how to respond to this article but with contempt. It seems like you’re making a case for the open admission of racial inferiority, and then trashing libertarians for wanting to abolish state welfare? Perhaps I’m missing something here, the disparate impact notion is one I’ve not thought much of until reading this, but do you really think in terms of groups of people like this? Any libertarian worth his salt will tell you culture and likeness are big factors in why people associate it’s not inherently racist to want to live in a white neighborhood, wanting to have
    something in common is a normal part of the human condition. So the question I’m asking after reading this screed is, are you really questioning inherent racism of libertarians, or is it just you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • But now let’s try this: If you agree with James Watson, are you a racist? That is, does anyone say of himself that he is a racist? Does your answer strike you as a little odd?

    ‘Racist’ blurs race and ism and confused people. The proper spelling should be race-ist. That way, people are more aware of the true meaning. Race means race and Ism means belief. So, race + ism = belief in reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

    So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief. Now, race-ism can be radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Black Islam stuff or even certain extreme strands of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are.

    The big problem is ‘racism’ has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such a way, it negates the possibility of having a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because mere race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred, it’s difficult to come up with any objective term about race reality. The term ‘racism’ was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term is near-impossible.
    Suppose I define heliocentrism as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such should be called helio-supremacism or helio-chauvinism. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It’s a belief in objective fact based on science. But if heliocentrism is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term is impossible.
    Or take the term ‘humanism’. It doesn’t mean humans are the bestest thing in the cosmos and has supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have both limits and worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as humans on the planet.
    But suppose ‘humanism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all must bow down to humans.
    Such an attitude should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for ‘humanism’ to mean anything extreme. As it happens, ‘humanism’ is defined properly. It doesn’t carry supremacist meaning.
    But for some reason, ‘racism’ has been defined to mean ‘my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated’. Since when does Ism mean something that extreme?

    Same goes for nationalism. It should mean belief and defense of one’s nation. Nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as nationalism isn’t extreme. It is belief in the right of one’s nation to survive as territory, history, and identity. But the PC media have defined nationalism(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as ‘far right’. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with imperialist Nazism.
    So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting other nations), they are compared with ‘dark forces’ of Nazism and extremism and ‘far right’. When something normal as basic nationalism is defined in such extreme way, it sucks out all the air in the room. When mere nationalism is ‘nazism’, then it’s impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it serves as a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been made extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term race-ism to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness.

    As ‘racism’ and ‘antisemtism’ are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. It also means daring to say NO to blacks or Jews or daring to notice negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence. So, if in the past, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superior and Jews as the rightful masters. Today, ‘racism’ means the right of black superioirty, and ‘antisemitism’ means the right of Jewish supremacism.
    Same thing with ‘homophobia’. What used to mean an extreme animus against homos just minding their own business has come to mean the refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos. So, if a bakery won’t bake ‘homo wedding’ cake, it is ‘homophobic’. If a politician refuses to march in the homo ‘pride’ parade, he or she is ‘homophobic’. Or, if a church says NO to homo colors and banners, it is ‘homophobic’. (Granted, even the original use of the term ‘homophobia’ was bogus since ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological panicked fear of something harmless. While it’s true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it’s not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny penis or poon mutilation.)
    Those terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. Blacks, Jews, and homos have become difficult and arrogant because they’ve gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro gods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him Caitlyn.

    “it was once the case that being a racist had something to do with a person’s feelings or beliefs”

    [MORE]

    Again, the problem was the willful abuse of terminology. Ism was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
    From the start, it should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc. Extreme racial attitudes should not have been called ‘racism’ as it implies that ism, when applied to race, means just about all the negative connotations under the sun.
    Worse, it wasn’t just the definition that did the trick. It was the ‘idology’ and ‘iconology’ of how the term came to be defined. While dictionaries offer definitions in words, the real power derives from the term’s association with certain images and sounds. This is why ‘racism’ has power only in relation to blacks. Hollywood and PBS and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with ‘racism’. There used to be some degree of that with American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians. (It’s interesting that Tarantino’s Western deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of the once most popular movie genre.) When people hear ‘racism’ in relation to non-blacks, there’s just a faint sense that it’s wrong but no great passion. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don’t dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. This is why there is no sympathy for Palestinians among most Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba, Occupation, and now apartheid. While most Americans will theoretically agree that ‘racism’ against Palestinians is wrong, their minds haven’t been instilled with iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of movies, TV shows, songs, and symbols of Palestinian victimhood. Things would change. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling “I will die for Allah” and blowing up people. (‘Iconology’ matter a tremendous deal. Consider ET. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend some boy. But Spielberg’s movie made ET so lovable, and so many adults and children were made to weep over ET. So, even though there are so many 100s of millions of people suffering all over the world, more Americans felt more compassion and love for a fictional space creature than for fellow mankind. No less fantastical than ET is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as some divine god figure.)
    So, what matters is not just the control of terms but controls of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there’s a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. That image is baked into my mind. It’s like BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of ‘black sheriff’, the Negro’s clever use of ‘iconology’ of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people’s heartstrings. Even though I eventually grew out of Magic Negro Myth, it took some time and struggle since I got so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It took some effort to wean myself from Negropiate and see the Negro what he truly be: Crazy.

    What we need to do is rehabilitate the term ‘racism’ as ‘race-ism’ and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective or it can be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism on blacks would have to conclude that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to general intelligence, whites have superiority and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and masculinity, it’s the blacks with superiority and advantage. So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won’t respect men without manhood. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn’t make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

    Proper rational ‘race-ism’ is still a work in progress. After all, consider how much racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know much happened. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.
    Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and led to horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it’s a fallacy to say that because an -ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of ‘scientific socialism’ doesn’t meant that socialism has NO value. Socialism has great value in right doses. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain attainments and guarantees.

    Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America notices race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

    It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It’s not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter.
    It gets confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed ‘anti-racist’ and sometimes deemed ‘racist’. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief in race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed ‘anti-racist’?
    It all depends on context and tenor. ‘Racism’ in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, ‘blacks are less intelligent’, that is deemed ‘racist’. But if someone says ‘blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America’, that is ‘anti-racist’. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
    Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, “Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power”, that is antisemitic. But if someone says or implies, “Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected”, it’s philosemitic. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised. Of course, it’s like walking a tightrope, but there is an acceptable way to imply that Jews are indeed smarter as long as this reflects well on Jews as a wise, wonderful, and noble race.

    But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept. The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
    But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But ‘iconologically’ and ‘idologically’, their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
    No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do the most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone’s child has to have brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got 4.0 thru grade inflation of a generous professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A’s from an elite college, even most progs are gonna sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an ‘affirmative’ A.

    And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is ‘nazi’ or ‘far right’. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But ‘idologically’ and ‘iconologically’, they behave with the full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don’t listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. I mean even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
    Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow hookers. Now, ideologically, these people may say all the politically correct things, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
    And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellowd are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yibbity-yabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery.
    So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

    So, if we are honest, we can fix the terminology and we can prove that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It’s just part of reality.
    Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he will be more confident in fending himself against nasty Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    So, I say that I am indeed a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy.

    Use the term race-realism. Words morph over time and change meaning. Often they change meaning purposefully. For example, " Conspiracy Theorist and tinfoil hat nutters was made equal by CIA, especially post JFK murder." Many conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts.

    Another example, Mexican can mean somebody from Mexico, or a Mestizo. So, when speaking of a Mexican, in order to not confuse, you have to say Mexican National. Mexican National is a citizen of Mexico, the country, and who may also be a Mestizo. If somebody is a Mestizo racially, that is more accurate than calling them a Mexican.

    So, hyphenated terms are what we have to use now, in order to be precise.

    One can be a race realist, and not be a racist. It is stupid to walk around with contradictory information in your head. It makes you malfunction. Don't malfunction, life is too short.

    To see first hand, race differences and then agree with the "were all the same" narrative, implies cognitive dissonance.

    People that insult their own intelligence by believing in two contradictory things at the same time, are committing a sin against themselves.
    , @helena
    There used to be two words - I remember a time in uk, prob 90s, when both were currency - racialism meant neutral categorisation, racism meant prejudice. One of them disappeared with the millennium fireworks.
    , @Palerider1861
    After reading your article, Priss, it just dawned on me what term best describes my beliefs: I am a racismist, plain and simple. Next time anyone asks if I am a racist, I will correct them accordingly. Thanks for all your great articles on this site.

    Regards,
    Palerider1861
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Well, in fairness it is indeed a vitally important point for any who might consider libertarianism as a political position worth supporting, perhaps justifying some consideration at length.

    And, of course, it's as easy to pick holes in a concise piece for omissions and failures of clarity or evidence as it is to criticise a comprehensively written political comment for being over-long.
    , @Colleen Pater
    In no way to I think Libertarianism is an answer to our problems, in fact its precisely because of what you assert it is not. People who signal PC holiness while claiming to be libertarians are not libertarians, just like cucks that signal PC holiness while claiming to be enlightenment constitutionalist conservatives are not. True libertarianism is dog eat dog and one doesn't lament the dead dogs one understands the dead dogs are food of the uberman. But in neither system can you prevent someone from claiming to be a muh constitution muh liberty, you can not arrest them for subversion of the system. for spreading demotism.Its said any institution not specifically right wing will eventually degenerate into leftism. Well I can think of many specifically right wing organizations that degenerated any way because the left targets them specifically. The maxim should be that any right wing institution that does not regularly give helicopter rides to the leftmost 5% of its members will eventually be cucked.
    , @R. N. Neff
    >> Neff makes a good basic point, which is that many libertarians prefer to signal their PC-ness than to stick to their own (rather clear) principles. But did he really need 8,000 words to make it?

    Since you ask: Yes -- for it and for the other points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie

    "Libertarianism's arguments are worthless in the face of its inherent racism." -- Neff
     
    I'm not sure how to parse it logically: I agree that libertarianism's arguments are worthless, but that has nothing to do with racism. So does that mean that I agree or disagree with whatever it is Neff is saying?

    I like my own idea of what libertarianism is: it is, or it should be, a political philosophy based on the love of individual liberty. But, for example, I oppose any proposal to replace monetarism with a gold standard. I even oppose the entire body of 'Austrian' economics as booshwah.

    To me, Neff's article is another one of those articles by self-styled libertarians that I can't read through thoroughly to the end, because ... how shall I put this? ... because it's of libertarians, by libertarians, and FOR (and ONLY FOR) libertarians). I know, I know, I need to study much more about Objectivism and about "Austrian" economics ... I need to study until I can follow the insane ravings of those who construct, in some hermetically sealed realm of reason, what is apparently known as 'libertarianism'.

    In other words -- so that 'libertarians' can understand me -- I am a'pseudolibertarian,' in their terms.

    Maybe I am a conservative, except there the problem is that there isn't much of the political world left that I want to conserve ... so here I am ... without an identity ... in this era of identity politics. Well, maybe there's enough left of a political world that I can positively say that I oppose the spread of nuclear weapons .... and I would argue that as a 'conservative' stance .... but to return to dykstra's comment:

    "I am a social democrat, a racist and an antisemite.
    "I am a racist because I am attached to the Netherlands as a country, and its culture.
    "I am an antisemite because I condemn Israel as a brutal colonial power.
    "The problem with both words is that they’re just emotional, are not objective, do not have a well defined content."
    -- jilles dykstra
     
    (1) I don't know what a 'social democrat' is anymore, it's like 'conservative' that way.
    (2) I too, dystra, am a racist because (Heavens help me) I am attached to the USA as a country and to its culture, and, even more so, because I am an unrepentant white man!
    (3) And, I too, dykstra, am an antisemite, because I condemn Israel for its attack on the USS Liberty, not to mention its dirty-dealings in such contexts as (per USMC General R.H. Barrow) that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon.

    However, as to 'racist' and 'antisemite', I would say that these words have acquired meaning, dykstra, thanks to the neocons and neoliberals who claim to own them. Just as the Objectivists and such have defined me, dykstra, as a mere 'pseudolibertarian' or as the neocons or corporate conservatives have defined me, as a mere 'paleocon' or maybe as a WN leftist.

    BTW: If libertarians are going to cite to eminent conservatives such as the late great Senator Robert Byrd, then I am going to cite a source for his biography

    https://www.biography.com/people/robert-c-byrd-579660

    and also, Byrd's fateful speech on the eve of the 2003 invasion of iraq, in opposition to the neocon government

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAFb5p2qX8

    That speech is known as the "I weep for my country" speech, as all true conservatives continue to weep for our country, when it's all over but the tears, and the tears, the tears keep flowing like a river ...
    , @LauraMR
    The words "racist" and "antisemite" have no real meaning, colloquially speaking. They constitute no more than generic verbal weaponry.

    The same applies to "misogyny", "homophobia", and many, many other words.

    It is the case, however, that some of these words have formal meaning in, for instance, psychiatry. Unsurprisingly, whenever a formal meaning does exist, it is completely unrelated to its conversational use. And, to make matters worse, it remains unclear if, even in those domains, their meanings are able to stand to rigorous scrutiny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The last word is missing in this version of the article…

    I see a bright future here for the “humanitarian” and “thick” *libertarians.*

    Jeffrey Tucker Goes Full SJW

    Read More
    • Replies: @Schuey
    If you listen beyond he married a Nirobian and became a Muslim I applaud you because this nonsense shouldn't be tolerated by any thinking person. Does this man have one Muslim friend? I doubt it, one wonders if he has one black friend. Jeff Tucker, does not represent Rothbardians, he's off in some sjw world that he thinks works and let him have it. This social commentary with a supposed high brow is just lazy.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Jeff Tucker is the epitome of a cuck. What a pathetic loser. (And he’s a really weird guy in person, too.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Actually, it is Nationalist-Leftists who are openly anti-semitic, racist, and socialist.

    Untalented people tend to be leftists. WN wiggers tend to be no exception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    actually thats a cuck argument borrowed from your leftists (((masters))). The old " the left are the real racists" As if 'any means necessary leftists gave a shit about you fucking rationality. The fact that some high cog wits on the web are de-weaponizing Hitler/your're raaacist through satire and parody doesnt actually make them socialists. nor does the fact that the white yeoman who have been carpet bagged bagged by jews and and elite race traitors; are just about up in arms about the frauds perpetrated on them, doesn't make them equivalent to welfare niggers. The fact that not every one has completely figured out the complex good cuck bad cuck population replacement while monetizing the cost onto the displaced game, doesnt make them stupid it just makes them naive to trust jews and elite white traitors, and naive to play be the rules when clearly you all needed to be dragged into the street and hung in the fifties at the latest.
    , @AndrewR
    Did a "WN wigger" steal your girl?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.