The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Derb At the Mencken Club: Am I Alt Right?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
MenkenProhibition

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

At last weekend’s tenth-anniversary conference of the H.L. Mencken Club in Baltimore, I participated in a panel event with Keith Preston and Paul Gottfried. We each spoke for about half an hour. The title of the panel: “The Alternative Right.”

When, a few days before heading to Baltimore, I sat down to prepare my remarks, I realized I had no idea what to say, nor even much of a clue about what the Alt Right is. It was too late to ask Paul to change the conference schedule, though, so I took it as a challenge to transmute my ignorance into something that would keep a critical audience’s attention for thirty minutes. (A surprising proportion of Mencken Club attendees are credentialed academics.)

It didn’t go too badly. The Z Man, at any rate, who does not please easily, says that I “did a good job presenting the broad strokes.” Thanks, pal.

As always I prepared more than I delivered, so there’s more here than appeared in the talk.

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. My title is “The Alt Right Perspective.” I assume this means that I should tell you what the Alt Right is, and how Alt Righters see the world.

That’s unfortunate because I don’t actually know what the Alt Right is. Casual acquaintances—neighbors and such—sometimes ask me if I am Alt Right. I never know what to say. Am I? Pass.

Some of this is just temperamental. I’m not by nature a joiner. I don’t feel strong affinity with any sports team or church. I’m not an Elk or a Shriner. I’m just not a herd animal—not well-socialized. I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes. (Although I’ve always thought that story would be more true to life if the little boy had been chased down and lynched by a howling mob of well-socialized Goodthinkers.)

The rest is Englishness. We English don’t do ideology. We leave that stuff to our more erudite continental neighbors. In matters social and political, we default to compromise and muddle. The nearest thing I have to an ideological hero is George Orwell, whose ideological position could fairly be described as reactionary-Tory-patriotic-socialist.

There’s some overlap between the last two paragraphs. I have utmost difficulty following any kind of ideological script. Sooner or later I always bang my shins against the boundary fences of ideological orthodoxy.

On race, for example, I get incoming fire from both sides. Goodthinkers point’n’sputter at me for my negative comments about blacks; race purists snarl at me as a race traitor because of my marriage choice.

Has my email bag familiarized me with the expression “mail-order bride”? Oh yeah.

It doesn’t help that I’m a philosemite, although I don’t much like that word. It sounds a bit cucky and patronizing. I prefer “anti-antisemite.” On any terminology, though, many self-identified Alt Righters would consider me off-reservation on this point alone.

So it’s no use looking to me for exposition of an ideological program. To present my assigned topic honestly, I therefore thought it best to seek out someone who believes he does know what the Alt Right is, and who has spelled out his knowledge clearly but concisely.

I settled on the blogger Vox Day who, in August last year, put forth a 16-point Alternative Right manifesto that has been much discussed, and translated into umpteen languages.

Here are Vox Day’s 16 points, embroidered with my comments

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

No argument from me on that, although I don’t know what a Marxian is. Typo for “Martian”?

2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russell Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

I’m fine with that one, too; and I’m glad to have been prompted to re-read Kirk’s principles. He was big on prudence: the word, or its derivatives, occurs nine times in the ten points, which Kirk included in a book titled The Politics of Prudence. This inspired a section of my Radio Derb podcast last week.

I liked Vox Day’s batting away of libertarianism, too, though I think at this point it’s kind of superfluous. My impression is that libertarianism has succumbed to an intellectual version of the Aspidistra Effect. That is to say, it has moved down-market. (The aspidistra is a potted plant that decorated wealthy households in Victorian England. By the time Orwell used it in the title of a novel a generation later it had been taken up by the lower-middle classes, and of course abandoned by the gentry.)

It used to be that if someone told you, “I am a libertarian,” it was at a gathering of conservative intellectuals, perhaps even at the Mencken club. You could then get into an interesting conversation about what kind of libertarian he was: Classical, Objectivist, Paleolibertarian, …

Nowadays if you hear those words it’s probably some smart high-schooler speaking; and if you try to drill down further he freezes.

3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

That’s OK, except for the word “philosophy.” Let’s not get ideas above our station here. Aristotle had a philosophy. Descartes had a philosophy. Kant had a philosophy. What the Alt Right has is an attitude.

4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them. That’s a kind of fielder’s-choice point, though.

5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism? Does it do so even if only half of Catalans wish to separate from Spain?

That kind of nitpicking doesn’t belong in a manifesto, though. For these purposes, Point 5 is fine.

6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Again there are nits to pick, though again this isn’t the place to pick them. When the slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, or an asteroid hits, or a supervolcano pops, we shall all become globalists overnight.

7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

Yes-s-s-s.

8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.

ORDER IT NOW

I tried digging for etymologies, but got lost in a thicket of possibilities. Greek hodos, a path or way; so “the way of science”? Or perhaps eidos, a shape or form, giving us the “-oid” suffix (spheroid, rheumatoid); so “science-like”? Then there’s aoide, a song, giving … what? “Harmonizes like science”? Or maybe it’s the Latin root odor, a smell; “smells like science.”

In any case, all three of the “understandings” here are gibberish.

a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision.

Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.

I promise Vox Day there will be no future revisions of these facts, at any rate not on any time span he or I need worry about. (I add that qualification because there are conceivable astronomical events that could alter the sequence of planetary orbits—a very close encounter with a rogue star, for example. Those are once-in-a-billion-year occurrences, though.)

b) “Scientistry”? Wha?

c) The scientific consensus is unscientific? Huh? And why is the consensus “so-called”? There usually—not always, but usually—is a scientific consensus. It occasionally turns out to have been wrong, but it’s a consensus none the less, not a “so-called” consensus.

9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?

10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10.

11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence.

I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent. Small minorities of Others can then be accommodated with friendly hospitality and accorded full equality under law. (I don’t say they necessarily will be; but they can be.)

That’s the kind of country I grew up in, 1950s England. It’s the kind of country the U.S.A. was in 1960, just barely: ninety percent European-white, ten percent black, others at trace levels.

Vox Day is using the word “diversity” in its current sense, though: as a code word for massive, deliberate racial replacement. In that sense his equation, and the embedding sentence, are both correct.

12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

Yee-hah!

13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

I doubt there is an existential threat to white people. I’d be content to secure the existence of a racially self-confident white race—one not addled by ethnomasochism—and by a future for white children free of schools, colleges, and authority figures telling them they are the scum of the earth.

15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. As Greg Cochran points out, though: “innate superiority at obsolete tasks (a born buggy-whip maker?) doesn’t necessarily translate to modern superiority, or even adequacy.”

What do the “unique strengths” of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in? On the plain evidence it looks very much as though some “races, nations, peoples, or sub-species” are better able to cope with modernity than others. The less-able seem to agree. Great masses of them prefer not to dwell in their native culture, but in someone else’s. Boats crammed with such people have been crossing the Mediterranean from Africa for the past few years. The revealed preference of these people is not their native culture.

16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

I get the point and agree with it; but again, reality is knottier than this allows. “If you desire peace, prepare for war,” said the Romans, who knew a thing or two about human affairs.

That’s Vox Day’s sixteen-point definition of the Alt Right. There have been other Alt Right manifestos from other quarters; here for example is Richard Spencer’s.

Supposing this is a fair picture of the Alt Right perspective, am I on board with it? Do I belong to the Alt Right?

As you can see from my comments, I have plenty of quibbles, and I’d prefer to get my manifesto from someone acquainted with the elementary principles of scientific inquiry.

Still, it’s not bad. I can sign up to most of Vox Day’s points.

Yes, I’m on board … until I bang my shins against a fence post.

2010-12-24dl[1]

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 196 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    No, you are not Alt-Right.

    You identify the problems affecting Whites, but you refuse to name the opponent who is creating these problems. You won’t engage with the JQ.

    Fighting an opponent with no name is akin to tilting at windmills. it is too transparently double-think to be taken seriously. It is a stance that has no future as the noose tightens around the White world’s neck.

    I know why you do it. You are old enough that you were able to amass wealth in the USA while the White sun was still shining. You do not engage the JQ so that you might maintain what you have earned, lest the Chosen take it from you.

    And yet you have lost so much potential wealth taking the path you have taken, even though it is a half measure… why come up short in your words when you surely know the truth?

    Perhaps you really agree with the left, in your heart of hearts, that racism is bad. You are, to be frank, an immigrant and a race-mixer, yes? These actions speak too loudly to be papered over with even the choicest of words.

    I accept that you would rather watch the fight from afar. So be it. Just don’t stand in our way when we do what must be done.

    Steve Sailer, on this very website, is willing to engage with the JQ in a much more forthright manner. Steve, in my mind, therefore can be considered Alt-Right… a gateway to the Alt-Right, even.

    Read More
    • Disagree: NickG
    • Replies: @Cluebat
    The "JQ" focus outs you as the old Alt-Right. The new Alt-Right has other more pressing issues.

    But I also agree that John is not Alt-Right. He strikes me more as a Civic-Nationalist. And it is not like there is a club which can be joined. It is a philosophy which has more to do with the preservation of Western Civilization and the preservation of our national culture than anything else. And this is why PDT's message resonated with so many people.

    If you view what the Alt-Right truly holds dear and ignore media libels, you probably would also become one of us (gobble gobble). But it would need to be your secret identity, since it would be hard on your career to embrace an admittedly selfish (from a national perspective) ideology.

    The Alt-Right is just a bunch of people who a few decades ago were mainstream, and woke up one morning as villains. Now they follow the only path available to them. It is not a choice consciously deliberated by a group of hateful racists. Mostly, it is composed of white Christians who, over the course of a few short years have found that all they believe is now sinful in the eyes Caesar, and they are being persecuted for it.

    PS. I agree with Vox that Zman totally blew the science question.
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-failure-to-grasp-obvious.html

    , @Dieter Kief

    Steve Sailer, on this very website, is willing to engage with the JQ in a much more forthright manner. Steve, in my mind, therefore can be considered Alt-Right… a gateway to the Alt-Right, even.
     
    I undertand that you have reasons to think so - about Steve Sailer, too; but the thing is, he opposed or resented the notion he'd be part of the Alt-Right (more than once).
    , @geokat62

    You identify the problems affecting Whites, but you refuse to name the opponent who is creating these problems. You won’t engage with the JQ...

    I know why you do it... You do not engage the JQ so that you might maintain what you have earned, lest the Chosen take it from you.
     

    Close, but not quite right.

    He wishes to go a little beyond what he has already earned.

    Excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:


    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    , @Dr. X
    Derb is "Old Right."

    As a Briton, he is the product of an imperial culture into which the Jews had comfortably assimilated into the power structure -- Disraeli became Prime Minister in the 1880s, and modern Israel wouldn't have existed without the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s.

    While Jews were accepted by British imperial culture, Negroes were regarded as absolutely inferior, and Asians (Orientals) occupying a sort of racial middle rank making them higher than blacks but not-quite-whites. This view of Negroes was accepted as "plain as day" conventional wisdom in all Western and Commonwealth nations until the 1960s or so.

    Derb basically clings to the old Victorian racial hierarchy.

    Given the fact that the contemporary culture is practically a cult of Negro worship, his willingness to speak plainly about the Negro makes him appear "alt" (and indeed, "out") of today's "conservative" movement, but certainly not an alt-righter as commonly understood.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/derb-at-the-mencken-club-am-i-alt-right/#comment-2070573
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Realist says:

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”

    You’re short on situational awareness.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter, Rurik, Clyde
    • Replies: @DreadIlk

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”
     
    Trivially true if you mean "all white people, everywhere". There's a lot of us to kill.

    Arguably false if it is shorthand for "Western Civilization is under attack, from within and without, to the extent that it will be changed beyond recognition to the detriment of white people". But that's awfully wordy for a manifesto.
    , @Clyde

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”

    You’re short on situational awareness.

     
    I am very worried about this. Just look at South Africa where the whites, many of them have been driven down into rural trailer park type poverty and worse. The farm murders. Given enough time (decades) this is what happens here and in Europe.
    I am paranoid about this and "only the paranoid survive"
    And not just our internal race problems within the US. China gets more powerful each year and they are anti-Caucasian in a broad sense. Whites as a proportion of the world's population are half or worse of what they were in 1900 before we invented and spread modern sanitarian, modern medicines and antibiotics and modern well drilling. You will die from no water long before you die of (starvation) no food and populations are limited by access to potable water. But no more, as we whites invented and spread modern well drilling techniques.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. unit472 says:

    Attacking Derbyshire because he married an Asian women is to micromanage people’s lives in an unacceptable way. While I understand the concern that whites marrying blacks seem to only create more negroes not a better hybrid I don’t think that applies to Eurasians.

    The why of this may just reflect my own prejudices or the biological-cultural attributes of the respective races but something is going on with black race mixing that doesn’t happen with others. There is not an outbreak of social pathologies common to the negro when other races mingle.

    I suspect if Barack Obama had grown up in Chicago he would have been indistinguishable from other mulattoes in that city. More likely to have a criminal record than a college degree. Only the almost complete isolation from negro culture and influence in Hawaii gave him his veneer of race neutrality. He was a young adult before he arrived in the mainland and had to ‘learn’ the ways of the negro and never really adopted them but his sooty exterior still got him 95% of the black vote and he ‘governed’ as a negro for which we should give thanks. His was naturally lazy and content with putting other negroes in government posts and enjoying the perks of office rather than using the power of the presidency for any substantive purpose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "Attacking Derbyshire because he married an Asian women is to micromanage people’s lives in an unacceptable way."

    Managing anybody else's life is unacceptable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. dearieme says:

    “I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.”

    I disagree: only a moron could fail to know that Christianity started as a Jewish cult established in the name of a Jewish preacher/magician. The only Jewish influence of much consequence on western civ, until recent times, was through Christianity. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to leave the importance of the Jews as implicit within the singling out of Christianity. After all, we can mention the the Graeco-Roman legacy without feeling any need to point out that Roman civilisation learnt quite a lot from the Etruscans.

    What’s missing from the pillars is any implication of the importance of the ages of, or should I say movements of, Renaissance, Exploration, Reformation, Enlightenment, Romanticism. But maybe these aren’t pillars: who knows what phenomena a metaphor is meant to include? Presumably a stationary pillar can’t include a movement.

    Talking of “pillars”: the early Christians apparently talked of the pillars of their movement being James, Peter, and Paul. Is the use of “pillars” here intended as an allusion to that?

    The inclusion of “the European nations” as a pillar should invite a lot of debate. So many of them are so recent, so many so fleeting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The only Jewish influence of much consequence on western civ, until recent times, was through Christianity.
     
    Only? That's gonna be a hard sell in my neck of the woods.

    You are correct that the always increasing sub-cults of Christianity (now Paulinity, really) have their roots as you say, but people who identify themselves as members of one of the many other Jewish sub-cult, especially if you include JINOs, have had lot of influence in what's poorly labeled as Western civilization. The influence started at least as far back s Moses' influence with the Pharaoh a couple millennia ago and can be traced through the halls of power to the present day.

    Jewish influence can be seen n the writings of Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, to name only two,for instance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Tiny Duck says:

    People of Color are sick of whites treating them poorly and are not going to take it anymore. South Africa has tolerated the racists for far too long and is about to give the racists the business

    Your descendants will be People of Color

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Doubtful. What’s more certain is that you won’t have any descendants. Guys who spend their time merely mocking and undermining real men who are trying to raise families and perpetuate a nation, generally aren’t big with the ladies (at least, ladies who want to have children).
    , @Hank Rearden
    @ Tiny Duck: My descendants are already people of color, one red-haired and green-eyed, the other blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Fifty shades of mud don't count, see?

    @ The Derb: Vox Nye the Scientody Guy has doubled down, and writes that you should refrain from commenting on economy or politics. Like any gamma sjw would. Just be glad he didn't psychologically project and call you a liar, as he does regularly with people who disagree with him on points of religion.
    , @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    Mr. Duck has had his brilliant moments, here and elsewhere, but this sure ain't one of them
    , @the cruncher
    Presuming you're in the 1st world, well why are you still here if you think you've been mistreated? Africans flock to Europe. They'd flock to the US if they could get here. If you take our stuff, you'll be like Zimbabwe, asking for whites to come back and rule (https://www.amren.com/news/2017/11/need-whites-come-back-rebuild-country-current-government-failed-says-war-vets-leader/). Blacks seem to think wealth is just there, and whites have it. Well no, whites create it. You blacks seem to be really slow learners on the subject. No surprise, I guess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Tiny Duck
    People of Color are sick of whites treating them poorly and are not going to take it anymore. South Africa has tolerated the racists for far too long and is about to give the racists the business

    Your descendants will be People of Color

    Doubtful. What’s more certain is that you won’t have any descendants. Guys who spend their time merely mocking and undermining real men who are trying to raise families and perpetuate a nation, generally aren’t big with the ladies (at least, ladies who want to have children).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    My lack of success with the females doesn't change the fact that you racists are about to get smacked
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Randal says:

    A good discussion, although my own default position is basically that “there is no there, there” as far as trying to define “the Alt Right” is concerned. The Alt Right is not a party, nor any kind of organisation, nor does it have any philosophy as such. It’s surely best just defined as anyone who is on the right (and thereby hangs another long and complicated tale of definition) but not of the mainstream or establishment right, imo. That said, many desperately want to define it further, from Vox Day’s valiant effort here described to Richard Spencer and his enemies.

    A couple of my own quibbles with Derbyshire’s comments:

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.

    I think it’s vitally important to maintain a recognition of the basic foreignness of judaism in Christian countries, especially now that there is an explicitly jewish state, which creates around them the kind of problem Catholics constituted for England in the C16th-C19th. I don’t think of myself as meaningfully anti-Semitic, since I don’t hate jews, but as a result of putting that opinion forward I was accused of having perpetrated one of the worst antisemitic statements he’d ever seen, by a jewish identity lobbyist with whom the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for policing hate speech nationally apparently agreed about my general heinousness in this regard. The jewish lobbies’ attempts to promote the enforcement of this kind of speechcrime law is of course another strong reason to keep their basic foreignness in mind.

    That’s a kind of fielder’s-choice point, though.

    This appears to be a rather obscure reference to something derived from the American version of rounders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Randal, thanks, you have good sense here. I've only heard the expression "Alt-Right" on these pages. The best I can make out is that it refers to a jumble of ideas that really never went away, such as eugenics and dysgenics, and that have gained a bit of new life thanks in part to the excesses of the Black lobbies and Jewish-Zionist lobbies.

    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what's going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That's something worth defending.
    , @Che Guava
    Randal,

    I was thinking ynu were UsA person, your line about rounders and baseball, very good and to the point.

    In part of primary school education in Singapore, rounders was the game!
    , @Ivan K.
    Vox Day: Judeo-Christian is not merely anti-Christian propaganda, but as one rabbi points out, it is also antisemitic ....
    This is not an isolated example.
    The Jewish Press is even more straightforward .........

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/09/judeo-christian-is-antisemitic.html

    , @iffen
    meaningfully anti-Semitic, since I don’t hate jews

    Anti-Semitism is not restricted to just "hating" Jews.

    Do you hate all the individuals in any group?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. isn’t “alt-right” = not part of the traditional right? not that complicated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    No doubt that is an acceptable definition. I suspect “alt right” is related to the older term “alternative rock”, and shares with it a rebellious, edgy connotation, which is fun since the right is usually considered anything but rebellious or edgy. That’s what made the term appealing to me, long ago. Its recent conflation in the media with neo-nazis and racists is disappointingly narrow and reductive, oh well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_rock

    Anyway, detailing what might make alt right different from mainstream right is interesting

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Randal says:

    I posted this to one of Sailer’s threads the other day, but since it relates to an upcoming documentary billed by C4 as “Gary Younge meets Richard Spencer, the self-styled leader of America’s alt-right” (to be broadcast tonight, apparently), it seems more appropriate here.

    This is yesterday’s promotional extract from the Guardian showing their showpiece black (supposed) intellectual Gary Younge making an utter fool of himself trying to interview Richard Spencer:

    Gary Younge interviews Richard Spencer: ‘Africans have benefited from white supremacy’

    Perhaps the editing down to 3 minutes (done by the Guardian) of what was presumably a reasonably lengthy interview for the C4 documentary referenced in the piece did Younge no favours, but in it he repeatedly misunderstands or ignores Spencer’s points and fails to control his own emotional responses.

    Spencer asks him the perfectly legitimate question of why he would be against a white ethno-state, citing the example of Israel. Younge could easily have responded with arguments criticising Israel’s implementation of the ethno-state (it’s a pretty appalling precedent, after all), but instead completely misses the point and goes off on a rant of his own listing black anti-white historical grievances that are irrelevant – slavery etc.

    Spencer points out the benefits Africans have had from white supremacy (ie making the argument that American blacks are hugely better off than African blacks). Younge could have responded with the usual antiracist cant about fantasised and largely mystical harms done by racism and slavery, which would at least have contested Spencer’s point, but fails even to do that. Instead, he completely misses the point and goes off on another emotional anti-slavery rant. He also fails totally to even try to address Spencer’s assertion about African versus white achievement

    Ultimately Younge resorts to empty personal abuse and stomps off.

    All in all, the encounter (at least as cut by Younge’s own employers the Guardian) pretty much makes Spencer’s case for him – Younge (a high profile black “public intellectual” in British lefty politics) comes off as an over-emotional intellectual lightweight, presumably only holding the position he does because of antiracist (ie anti-white racist) affirmative action promotion.

    Then again (and this is presumably the Guardian’s intention), to the average indoctrinated lefty mainstreamer trained to run away or resort to violence at the first sign of “hate speech”, probably it comes across as Spencer producing points that are both incomprehensible to them and which sound shockingly evil, and since he is prevented from developing them or dealing with any attempted counter-arguments, perhaps it serves their propagandist purposes.

    Regardless, for the Guardian et al, the Alt Right is Richard Spencer and his fellows, no matter what speakers at the Mencken club might say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Regarding the response to Point 8:

    Scientody – the scientific method itself
    Scientage – the knowledge base; the conclusions of scientody
    Scientistry – the profession

    Scientody – It’s great. However many things that are factual and true, that sensible people believe are factual and true, and that are required for civilization, fall outside its scope. History, for example. Similarly philosophy, logic, mathematics, and various matters of religion.

    Scientage – Note that an observation is not the same as a conclusion–in particular, a conclusion drawn from a tested hypothesis which was formed on the basis of an observation. To merely observe is not to practice scientody. To practice scientody, one must draw hypotheses concerning the observations and then test those hypotheses. The conclusion of scientody, then, is not the observation, but rather the verified hypothesis.

    Therefore, it should not be controversial to notice that the validity of any given instance of scientage (conclusion of scientody) rests both on the assumptions and nature of the hypothesis and the accuracy, relevance, and completeness of the tests. Both of these points are, in principle, open to dispute and further revision. (Repeatable observations, of course, are not open to dispute.)

    Even in cases where a robust conclusion (‘scientific theory’) is developed, it is common for the theory to later be superseded and improved by the addition of novel observations.

    And in cases where the observations and tests are few, or where the hypothesis has only been partially tested, the scientage is dubious.

    Scientistry – This refers to the people who practice (or claim to practice) scientody: in other words, a joke. Scientistry typically engages in bluster, spin, and outright lies. The people who fund scientistry frequently have a vested interest in the claims of scientistry and happily pay for results, scientody be damned. Scientistry frequently disappears parts of scientage deemed insensitive to egalitarians, atheists, environmentalists, and the like. (Some segments of scientistry even disappear scientage deemed insensitive to Christians.) Scientistry ignores scientody when it is deemed appropriate.

    According to scientistry, a handful of trivial tests serve to validate all the assumptions and broad-reaching models of global warming. According to scientistry, the conclusions of the peer review method (a method which bears no resemblance whatsoever to scientody; peer review does not even bother to test the claims it is reviewing) naturally bear the same weight as scientage; to doubt them is to doubt scientody. In fact, according to scientistry, its own pontifications naturally bear the same weight as scientage, regardless of the subject matter, and to doubt them is to doubt scientody. According to scientistry, the claims of neo-Darwinism are as unassailable as scientody itself, despite consisting in large part of post-hoc observations and a set of untestable historical hypotheses. Even if we discard every neo-Darwinian claim that, by definition, falls outside the bounds of scientody, we are left with a set of tremendously broad-scoped hypotheses which have only been tested in small part. Yet scientistry tells us that to doubt neo-Darwinism is not merely to undermine all scientage, but to literally cast doubt on scientody itself. (This is why I fucking love science.)

    Meanwhile, according to scientistry, scientody is the sole basis of rational knowledge and anything outside the scope of scientody should be discarded as myth or fantasy. In other words, scientistry serves to reinforce the rule that Most People Are Idiots. It is easy to see why these distinctions are essential for understanding “science” and escaping various fallacies and sophistries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    Who coined these terms? Were they invented as part of a criticism of 'scientism'? Who else employs them?
    , @Che Guava
    Those are clownish neologisms, may as well throw scientophagy in.

    Thinking that I can seeing why somebody was making those stupid words (leftards who hate science and those educated in scientific method suddenly to ranting about 'settled science' on climate and human diversity), but inventing stupid words with no valid roots, sure the way to making yourselves look stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.

    Actually, close to 100% of the Bible is a record of Things Jews Said Or Did. However, following the incarnation of Christ, a portion of Jews ceased to identify as Jews. Those who continued to identify as Jews (and their descendants–biological or intellectual), represent a religion fundamentally opposed to Christianity.

    It does not make much sense to say that both Christianity and anti-Christianity are pillars of Western civ, particular when the anti-Christian religion in question was not a dominant or particularly influential religion in the West. One could perhaps argue that Islam had more influence on the West’s development than Judaism. All hail the Islamo-Christian pillar of Western civilization?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Truth says:

    LOL, hey, one will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the A(lt-right)merican public.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Says the African immigrant who, by his own admission, could not break 1000 on his combined SAT score....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. jamie b. says:

    “…the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody…”

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DissidentRight

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.
     
    Since 'scientific consensus' is merely the collective opinions of scientists and not in any way established by scientody, it really doesn't.
    , @Meimou
    jamie b

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.

    All this time I thought the burden of proof was on the claimant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Mark G. says:

    The Alt Right believes in biological based differences in the areas of race and gender. Libertarians believe in free market economics. Wouldn’t it be possible to believe in both of those two things simultaneously? They aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I think I believe in both and I have arrived at many policy positions that would be acceptable to both camps. For example, I support restricted immigration both because most immigrants are third worlders with low IQ levels and their descendants will be the same and so will never contribute to the economy and also because most immigrants lean socialist on economics and would drive the country in an anti-libertarian direction if they became citizens and got to vote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Well, one of those differences in the area of race is that whites seem to be far less tribal that most, if not all, other races. Libertarianism and tribalism conflict in many areas. Libertarianism may be an ideology that grows out of NW European DNA and may not work with other races who choose tribe over the individual.

    What use is economic and individual freedom if you lose your family, so to speak.

    However, you could shot for a "Tribal Libertarianism." An ethno-state with a very free-market bent. I'm all for free trade, tourism and exchange of ideas, but you can have all of that while maintaining an ethno-state.

    Japan comes to mind.
    , @El'geherg
    Within the Alt-Right universe you will find a lot of different economic positions from AnCap to National Socialism to neo-reactionary thought but all united on the reality of race.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Rurik says:

    I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes.

    no you’re not

    because as everyone with a brain and a shred of integrity knows by now, the 800 LB purple gorilla doing all it can to murder Western Civilization are the Jewish supremacists that you ‘prudently’ fail to mention, because mentioning ((them)) is exactly what the boy in the story would be doing.

    ‘But look at who owns the media and the banks and controls the courts and the universities and Western governments?!’

    ‘Look on whose behalf the West is trying to destroy so many Muslim nations and Europa in the process!’

    ‘Look at who is behind the immigration into England and N. America!’

    those are the things that the boy in the story would be pointing out, rather than doing all you can to obfuscate that fact, as you hail the sumptuous flowing raiments and glorious fabrics with golden stitching!

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them

    Knowing that doing so is pleasing to the ((emperor))

    a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision.

    Saturn is further from the Sun

    he wasn’t talking about the Sun, duh

    he was talking about how ‘science’ is so often hijacked by charlatans and scoundrels simply by injecting money to corrupt the “scientists’, who’re too often corruptible, being all too human. (like journalists ; )

    some glaring examples of that are ‘climate science’, which has been infused with billions of shekels in order to impose an anti-science agenda. You’d have to be Martian not to have seen that mockery of actual science play itself out on the world’s stage of late.

    Also the ‘science’ of Anthropology had been similarly debased and corrupted by ((their)) eternal agenda. With Franz Boaz and the rest of the charlatans and scoundrels telling us there’s no such thing as race.

    So I believe these are the kinds of things he’s talking about when he says to be skeptical of ‘science’, as it’s too often lies imposed by the PTB as ‘science’ in order to impose their agendas.

    basically the alt-right is simply the actual right as opposed to the liberal, progressive left, (as it’s currently manifested – anti-white)

    the alt-right is the alternative to the ((neoconservative right)), who demand eternal wars to bolster a Jewish supremacist Israel, while at the same time demanding open borders for all white nations. [Tony Blair, George Bush, Paul Ryan, John McCain, David Cameron, Sheldon Adelson, ad nauseam..]

    the alt-right is an alternative to this so-called genocidal “right”. And let me explain ‘genocidal’.

    -The ((neocon)) right (of cucks like Tony Blair) demands the hard genocide (by murder and ethnic cleansing of the Arabs of Palestine) and by infusing millions upon millions of non-whites into the white gene pool of historically white nations until ultimately there are no white nations left. Genocide.

    for the record

    and that’s basically what the alt-right simply are

    the sane elements of the white, Western world that aren’t beholding to the ((emperor)) and his kosher agenda to see Western civilization and its people march off into oblivion so that ((he)) can rule this planet absolutely.

    Duh

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Derb - I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes.

    Rurik - no you’re not

    because as everyone with a brain and a shred of integrity knows by now, the 800 LB purple gorilla doing all it can to murder Western Civilization are the Jewish supremacists that you ‘prudently’ fail to mention, because mentioning ((them)) is exactly what the boy in the story would be doing.
     

    Good stuff, Rurik.

    This is indeed the real litmus test: anyone who refuses to discuss the 800 lb gorilla in the room should be called out for being the phony cuckservative they are.

    And this guy has the nads to suggest he is like the little boy pointing out the emperor has no clothes, when he has openly admitted his cringing fear of the emperor:


    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    Not sure why this guy still has a following after admitting something like that.

    His followers are like the frogs in that boiling pot of water who are oblivious to the fact that they are being cooked alive since he quickly reassures them there is no need to get out as everything is just fine.... the empower is just wanting a little snack.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. jamie b. says:
    @DissidentRight
    Regarding the response to Point 8:

    Scientody - the scientific method itself
    Scientage - the knowledge base; the conclusions of scientody
    Scientistry - the profession

    Scientody - It’s great. However many things that are factual and true, that sensible people believe are factual and true, and that are required for civilization, fall outside its scope. History, for example. Similarly philosophy, logic, mathematics, and various matters of religion.

    Scientage - Note that an observation is not the same as a conclusion–in particular, a conclusion drawn from a tested hypothesis which was formed on the basis of an observation. To merely observe is not to practice scientody. To practice scientody, one must draw hypotheses concerning the observations and then test those hypotheses. The conclusion of scientody, then, is not the observation, but rather the verified hypothesis.

    Therefore, it should not be controversial to notice that the validity of any given instance of scientage (conclusion of scientody) rests both on the assumptions and nature of the hypothesis and the accuracy, relevance, and completeness of the tests. Both of these points are, in principle, open to dispute and further revision. (Repeatable observations, of course, are not open to dispute.)

    Even in cases where a robust conclusion (‘scientific theory’) is developed, it is common for the theory to later be superseded and improved by the addition of novel observations.

    And in cases where the observations and tests are few, or where the hypothesis has only been partially tested, the scientage is dubious.

    Scientistry - This refers to the people who practice (or claim to practice) scientody: in other words, a joke. Scientistry typically engages in bluster, spin, and outright lies. The people who fund scientistry frequently have a vested interest in the claims of scientistry and happily pay for results, scientody be damned. Scientistry frequently disappears parts of scientage deemed insensitive to egalitarians, atheists, environmentalists, and the like. (Some segments of scientistry even disappear scientage deemed insensitive to Christians.) Scientistry ignores scientody when it is deemed appropriate.

    According to scientistry, a handful of trivial tests serve to validate all the assumptions and broad-reaching models of global warming. According to scientistry, the conclusions of the peer review method (a method which bears no resemblance whatsoever to scientody; peer review does not even bother to test the claims it is reviewing) naturally bear the same weight as scientage; to doubt them is to doubt scientody. In fact, according to scientistry, its own pontifications naturally bear the same weight as scientage, regardless of the subject matter, and to doubt them is to doubt scientody. According to scientistry, the claims of neo-Darwinism are as unassailable as scientody itself, despite consisting in large part of post-hoc observations and a set of untestable historical hypotheses. Even if we discard every neo-Darwinian claim that, by definition, falls outside the bounds of scientody, we are left with a set of tremendously broad-scoped hypotheses which have only been tested in small part. Yet scientistry tells us that to doubt neo-Darwinism is not merely to undermine all scientage, but to literally cast doubt on scientody itself. (This is why I fucking love science.)

    Meanwhile, according to scientistry, scientody is the sole basis of rational knowledge and anything outside the scope of scientody should be discarded as myth or fantasy. In other words, scientistry serves to reinforce the rule that Most People Are Idiots. It is easy to see why these distinctions are essential for understanding “science” and escaping various fallacies and sophistries.

    Who coined these terms? Were they invented as part of a criticism of ‘scientism’? Who else employs them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    Vox Day seems to have coined these odd and hard-to-parse terms based on a 3-part description of science by science blogger PZ Myers. He gives details in his 2008 polemic against famous atheists Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins, The Irrational Atheist, which seems to be readable in its entirety in Google Books:

    https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=5kYOcqb06EEC&pg=PT28&dq=scientody+scientage+scientistry

    The book was recommended by Derbyshire himself in National Review’s 2007 Christmas shopping list:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/222880/christmas-shopping-2007-nro-symposium

    , @DissidentRight
    1. Vox Day, as far as I know.
    2. As far as I know, they were invented to distinguish between three independent concepts which are interchangeably referred to as 'science'.
    3. I don't know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Cluebat says:
    @Anonymous
    No, you are not Alt-Right.

    You identify the problems affecting Whites, but you refuse to name the opponent who is creating these problems. You won't engage with the JQ.

    Fighting an opponent with no name is akin to tilting at windmills. it is too transparently double-think to be taken seriously. It is a stance that has no future as the noose tightens around the White world's neck.

    I know why you do it. You are old enough that you were able to amass wealth in the USA while the White sun was still shining. You do not engage the JQ so that you might maintain what you have earned, lest the Chosen take it from you.

    And yet you have lost so much potential wealth taking the path you have taken, even though it is a half measure... why come up short in your words when you surely know the truth?

    Perhaps you really agree with the left, in your heart of hearts, that racism is bad. You are, to be frank, an immigrant and a race-mixer, yes? These actions speak too loudly to be papered over with even the choicest of words.

    I accept that you would rather watch the fight from afar. So be it. Just don't stand in our way when we do what must be done.

    Steve Sailer, on this very website, is willing to engage with the JQ in a much more forthright manner. Steve, in my mind, therefore can be considered Alt-Right... a gateway to the Alt-Right, even.

    The “JQ” focus outs you as the old Alt-Right. The new Alt-Right has other more pressing issues.

    But I also agree that John is not Alt-Right. He strikes me more as a Civic-Nationalist. And it is not like there is a club which can be joined. It is a philosophy which has more to do with the preservation of Western Civilization and the preservation of our national culture than anything else. And this is why PDT’s message resonated with so many people.

    If you view what the Alt-Right truly holds dear and ignore media libels, you probably would also become one of us (gobble gobble). But it would need to be your secret identity, since it would be hard on your career to embrace an admittedly selfish (from a national perspective) ideology.

    The Alt-Right is just a bunch of people who a few decades ago were mainstream, and woke up one morning as villains. Now they follow the only path available to them. It is not a choice consciously deliberated by a group of hateful racists. Mostly, it is composed of white Christians who, over the course of a few short years have found that all they believe is now sinful in the eyes Caesar, and they are being persecuted for it.

    PS. I agree with Vox that Zman totally blew the science question.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-failure-to-grasp-obvious.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    [If you make absolutely no effort at proper capitalization, spelling, or punctuation, your comments may just get trashed.]

    see a lot of alt right you know before breitbart and the tea party got it into their heads it was they hilary was referring to type alt right, would pretty much consider you a cuck for being a christian.and certainly for cucking up for jews whether you were a hard core anti semite or just a skeptic first rule of alt right is no enemies to the right so cucking up for jews makes you a cuck, Unless you specifically state youre a alt right jew and blah blah blah then you'd probably be directed to nrx unless a very stubborn jew that didnt mind constant insult and suspicion. Now there were some alt righ christians but most went nrx when the schism came when the nazis claimed to be alt right cause the channers claimed to be alt right and the channers were so funny and successful, and not long after that it became impossible to say wtf was alt right or wtf it meant. It definitely doesnt mean disaffected tea party sorry
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Rurik says:

    The “JQ” focus outs you as the old Alt-Right. The new Alt-Right has other more pressing issues.

    LOL

    first the conservative became ((neo-conservatives))

    and now the Alt-Right can become new or ((neo-Alt-Right))

    too f’n funny

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cluebat
    Funny or not- it has outgrown the stormer movement.

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. I am really surprised Day’s cult followers haven’t made it over yet. Theodore has been doing his superiority dance all morning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Byzantine_General
    Oh, I was here, just tryin' to put some information, before VD chimed in.

    Now that there's been ample time for reflection does anyone want to compare and contrast "axiom" and "hypothesis" in the context of the scientific method? It's a chance to display your mastery of epistemology, after all.

    Extra points for compare and contrast inductive with deductive epistemology. You can stop short of Goedel's theorem. I'm pretty sure that would make your heads hurt.

    Then again, you could fling poo. That's my hypothesis; this is my experiment.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. You should read J.P. Hogan’s ‘Kicking the Sacred Cow’. He is a Hard SF author who won the Hugo back when it mattered. He’s also an empiricist who started out writing books in support of evolution, but then out of sheer curiosity picked up a few creationist books. Unfortunately, he did not transition to a creationist before he died. As he put it, he did not think the butler did it, but neither did he think the chauffeur did it. Quite a fine gentleman; I met him a couple times.

    There is no Science, there is only Engineering and Guesses is one of his ideas from this book.

    He also spent some time smacking Evolution around.

    Currenly, we have a Consensus created by gov’t cheese, firings of dissidents, the ten thousand or so children’s books that all have ‘millions and millions of years ago’ in them to get to those impressionable young minds, and a continual effort to keep blowing hot air to keep the Good Balloon Darwin floating. What happens when that gov’t cheese vanishes as it must (20 T in debt), and evidence gets more fairly evaluated?

    Preference cascade time.

    In my life I’ve seen the Berlin Wall fall, and the Velvet Revolution. I’ve seen the Towers fall and the GWOT. And with Trump we may be seeing the End of the National Left in America. Another big preference cascade is coming.

    Just like Lenin, all those statues of Darwin are going to be torn down by a liberated people. Its in the five to twenty year range. You’re spitting into the wind when you say evolution is a settled fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DissidentRight

    and a continual effort to keep blowing hot air to keep the Good Balloon Darwin floating. What happens when that gov’t cheese vanishes as it must (20 T in debt), and evidence gets more fairly evaluated? [...]

    Just like Lenin, all those statues of Darwin are going to be torn down by a liberated people. Its in the five to twenty year range. You’re spitting into the wind when you say evolution is a settled fact.
     
    Bingo! And what consequences will this have for atheism's intellectual high ground? What consequences will it have for popular religion? Welcome to New Christendom.
    , @CPEG
    Ah, James P Hogan... "Rockets, Redheads, and Revolution" included my first exposure to conspiracy theories and climate skepticism. Good memories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @jamie b.
    Who coined these terms? Were they invented as part of a criticism of 'scientism'? Who else employs them?

    Vox Day seems to have coined these odd and hard-to-parse terms based on a 3-part description of science by science blogger PZ Myers. He gives details in his 2008 polemic against famous atheists Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins, The Irrational Atheist, which seems to be readable in its entirety in Google Books:

    https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=5kYOcqb06EEC&pg=PT28&dq=scientody+scientage+scientistry

    The book was recommended by Derbyshire himself in National Review’s 2007 Christmas shopping list:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/222880/christmas-shopping-2007-nro-symposium

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Cluebat says:
    @Rurik

    The “JQ” focus outs you as the old Alt-Right. The new Alt-Right has other more pressing issues.
     
    LOL

    first the conservative became ((neo-conservatives))

    and now the Alt-Right can become new or ((neo-Alt-Right))

    too f'n funny

    Funny or not- it has outgrown the stormer movement.

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.
     
    I see

    so only skinheads believe there's a Jewish Question vis-a-vis the endless wars in the Middle East and the cultural rot promoted by our ((media)) and the neo-con [think Sheldon Adelson, other neoconservative Jews) demand that we keep our borders open.

    nothing Jewish about any of that eh?

    LOL, it is funny

    so let me ask you, what exactly is a "white nationalist"?

    are the Germans who're questioning the wisdom and prudence of millions of Middle Easterners and Africans moving in.. "white nationalists"? Perhaps there's another word you'd like to call them?

    what about the Swedes who're not allowed to go into the burgeoning 'no-go' areas for whites in Sweden. Are they too 'white nationalists"?

    are the whites of Zimbabwe, whose homes and farms have been violently seized by the black, racist government.. "white nationalists"?

    you tell me, eh?

    what is a "white nationalist" as opposed to an Alt-Right-er?

    I suspect that what you (and others ; ) would like to do is use terms like 'white nationalist' the way the left uses terms like 'racist'. As a vague pejorative that demonizes anyone the invective is hurled at in order to silence them, without ever defining what the expression means. Huh?

    I suspect that it's a tiresome ploy, to smear otherwise reasonable people, who don't want massive immigration or Eternal Wars for Israel as = swastika-tattooed morons with bald heads who're dumber than posts, and hollering about 'fags' and 'niggers', so as to paint them all with the same brush, huh?

    that's why they call people racists, who simply notice that the races are different, and should not be forced to integrate

    by calling such people 'racists' you're able to demonize them and therefor silence and "defeat" their otherwise sound arguments.

    this is the same agenda people use when they call reasonable people "white nationalists", or "white supremacists". Doing so is usually at attempt to demonize anyone who doesn't want their white nation to lose it's character, and descend into a Zimbabwe-type of hell on earth.

    which is what most of the people who use those pejoratives want. But they've decided the best way to accomplish their agenda is to pretend to be 'one of us', and then try to steer the conversation into directions that they find accommodating to their (anti-white, pro-Jewish) agenda. Huh?

    I suppose there really are some skin-head types that really do want to have a 'white supremacist' world where they can lord it over other races. (as some Jews are obviously obsessed with). But I've never met such a creature, and am not even aware of any presence of such people even on the Internet. But that doesn't stop certain sectors from trying to defame reasonable people as "white nationalists" or "white supremacists', simply for pointing out the obvious. That Jews are the only real and fundamental enemy that the white, Western world has. Indeed, a very real and very existential enemy, to the core. Not all Jews of course, but many.

    [deleted picture to avoid designated spam]
    , @U. Ranus
    > Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time. That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    Calm down. It's okay to be white.

    My understanding has been that to obtain Alt-Right, you start with Right and remove the Cuck.

    Lots of people working hard to put the Cuck back. I don't think it can be done.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @jamie b.
    "...the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody..."

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.

    Since ‘scientific consensus’ is merely the collective opinions of scientists and not in any way established by scientody, it really doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    Merely employing terms like “scientody” doesn’t provide a direct pipe-line to Truth. Even if everyone were to adopt your terminology, there’d still be debate (after all, few scientists would agree that evolution is not scientific). Short of some form of authoritarianism, I don’t see how you could avoid resorting to consensus at some point.

    The argument usually made is that the majority doesn’t determine what is true. By saying that consensus isn’t “established by scientody” (i.e. consensus itself isn’t scientific, yes?) you seem to be making the same argument. Maybe ‘establish’ is too strong a word, but this really is just a practical matter of deciding when to move on to new issues, rather than endlessly re-inventing the wheel. Using consensus to establish where the burden of proof lies is not itself 'scientific' per se, but it is fair and practical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @jamie b.
    Who coined these terms? Were they invented as part of a criticism of 'scientism'? Who else employs them?

    1. Vox Day, as far as I know.
    2. As far as I know, they were invented to distinguish between three independent concepts which are interchangeably referred to as ‘science’.
    3. I don’t know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. DreadIlk says:
    @Realist
    "I doubt there is an existential threat to white people."

    You're short on situational awareness.

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”

    Trivially true if you mean “all white people, everywhere”. There’s a lot of us to kill.

    Arguably false if it is shorthand for “Western Civilization is under attack, from within and without, to the extent that it will be changed beyond recognition to the detriment of white people”. But that’s awfully wordy for a manifesto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    White people are vastly outnumbered the world over.
    Western Civilization is under attack and is vastly outnumbered as I said.

    It isn't necessary to kill whites, but genocide can be accomplished by invasion and out reproducing whites, which is already happening on a gigantic scale. This is being done by the help of or acquiesce on the part of stupid whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Astuteobservor II
    isn't "alt-right" = not part of the traditional right? not that complicated.

    No doubt that is an acceptable definition. I suspect “alt right” is related to the older term “alternative rock”, and shares with it a rebellious, edgy connotation, which is fun since the right is usually considered anything but rebellious or edgy. That’s what made the term appealing to me, long ago. Its recent conflation in the media with neo-nazis and racists is disappointingly narrow and reductive, oh well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_rock

    Anyway, detailing what might make alt right different from mainstream right is interesting

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Tiny Duck says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Doubtful. What’s more certain is that you won’t have any descendants. Guys who spend their time merely mocking and undermining real men who are trying to raise families and perpetuate a nation, generally aren’t big with the ladies (at least, ladies who want to have children).

    My lack of success with the females doesn’t change the fact that you racists are about to get smacked

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ScFNsnWp14
    , @Realist
    So you admit you have no success with women?
    , @Wally
    It seems to me that blacks & browns are the ones in line for a smacking.

    Without whites there's no one to pay their bills.

    Be careful what you wish for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Eric Ashley
    You should read J.P. Hogan's 'Kicking the Sacred Cow'. He is a Hard SF author who won the Hugo back when it mattered. He's also an empiricist who started out writing books in support of evolution, but then out of sheer curiosity picked up a few creationist books. Unfortunately, he did not transition to a creationist before he died. As he put it, he did not think the butler did it, but neither did he think the chauffeur did it. Quite a fine gentleman; I met him a couple times.

    There is no Science, there is only Engineering and Guesses is one of his ideas from this book.

    He also spent some time smacking Evolution around.

    Currenly, we have a Consensus created by gov't cheese, firings of dissidents, the ten thousand or so children's books that all have 'millions and millions of years ago' in them to get to those impressionable young minds, and a continual effort to keep blowing hot air to keep the Good Balloon Darwin floating. What happens when that gov't cheese vanishes as it must (20 T in debt), and evidence gets more fairly evaluated?

    Preference cascade time.

    In my life I've seen the Berlin Wall fall, and the Velvet Revolution. I've seen the Towers fall and the GWOT. And with Trump we may be seeing the End of the National Left in America. Another big preference cascade is coming.

    Just like Lenin, all those statues of Darwin are going to be torn down by a liberated people. Its in the five to twenty year range. You're spitting into the wind when you say evolution is a settled fact.

    and a continual effort to keep blowing hot air to keep the Good Balloon Darwin floating. What happens when that gov’t cheese vanishes as it must (20 T in debt), and evidence gets more fairly evaluated? [...]

    Just like Lenin, all those statues of Darwin are going to be torn down by a liberated people. Its in the five to twenty year range. You’re spitting into the wind when you say evolution is a settled fact.

    Bingo! And what consequences will this have for atheism’s intellectual high ground? What consequences will it have for popular religion? Welcome to New Christendom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eric Ashley
    To me, they've lost the high ground some years back. Confessing to being an atheist is like saying 'I be reel smaht.' Now, that's IMO.

    I'd practice being condescending is my suggestion of doubtful value. Sigh in pity the next time some atheist talks to you. Me, I don't have to practice, I'm naturally talented at it.

    Good comment, DR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. CPEG says:
    @Eric Ashley
    You should read J.P. Hogan's 'Kicking the Sacred Cow'. He is a Hard SF author who won the Hugo back when it mattered. He's also an empiricist who started out writing books in support of evolution, but then out of sheer curiosity picked up a few creationist books. Unfortunately, he did not transition to a creationist before he died. As he put it, he did not think the butler did it, but neither did he think the chauffeur did it. Quite a fine gentleman; I met him a couple times.

    There is no Science, there is only Engineering and Guesses is one of his ideas from this book.

    He also spent some time smacking Evolution around.

    Currenly, we have a Consensus created by gov't cheese, firings of dissidents, the ten thousand or so children's books that all have 'millions and millions of years ago' in them to get to those impressionable young minds, and a continual effort to keep blowing hot air to keep the Good Balloon Darwin floating. What happens when that gov't cheese vanishes as it must (20 T in debt), and evidence gets more fairly evaluated?

    Preference cascade time.

    In my life I've seen the Berlin Wall fall, and the Velvet Revolution. I've seen the Towers fall and the GWOT. And with Trump we may be seeing the End of the National Left in America. Another big preference cascade is coming.

    Just like Lenin, all those statues of Darwin are going to be torn down by a liberated people. Its in the five to twenty year range. You're spitting into the wind when you say evolution is a settled fact.

    Ah, James P Hogan… “Rockets, Redheads, and Revolution” included my first exposure to conspiracy theories and climate skepticism. Good memories.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eric Ashley
    I think first time I met him, he was sitting at a big round table, and he mentioned R,R, and R to me and my then fiance' (now my wife of 17 or so years.) It was at some convention or something. I didn't read it, but I've read about a half-dozen of his other books.

    Good memories, indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. jamie b. says:
    @DissidentRight

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.
     
    Since 'scientific consensus' is merely the collective opinions of scientists and not in any way established by scientody, it really doesn't.

    Merely employing terms like “scientody” doesn’t provide a direct pipe-line to Truth. Even if everyone were to adopt your terminology, there’d still be debate (after all, few scientists would agree that evolution is not scientific). Short of some form of authoritarianism, I don’t see how you could avoid resorting to consensus at some point.

    The argument usually made is that the majority doesn’t determine what is true. By saying that consensus isn’t “established by scientody” (i.e. consensus itself isn’t scientific, yes?) you seem to be making the same argument. Maybe ‘establish’ is too strong a word, but this really is just a practical matter of deciding when to move on to new issues, rather than endlessly re-inventing the wheel. Using consensus to establish where the burden of proof lies is not itself ‘scientific’ per se, but it is fair and practical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DissidentRight

    Merely employing terms like “scientody” doesn’t provide a direct pipe-line to Truth. 
     
    That’s true. It simply introduces more precise language.

    The argument usually made is that the majority doesn’t determine what is true.
     
    That goes without saying.

    but this really is just a practical matter of deciding when to move on to new issues, rather than endlessly re-inventing the wheel
     
    The decision to move onto new issues, and when to dwell, is the personal business of the researcher and whoever is funding his research.

    Short of some form of authoritarianism, I don’t see how you could avoid resorting to consensus at some point.
     
    Consensus and conformity serve absolutely no scientific purpose. Humanity does not require a mutually coherent body of scientage any more than it requires a mutually coherent body of history…or theology.

    Of course, given that the Federal government does significantly determine where grant money goes, those of us interested in dissident scientage really have no choice but to uniformly oppose all talk of "scientific consensus"...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Truth says:
    @Tiny Duck
    My lack of success with the females doesn't change the fact that you racists are about to get smacked

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Rurik says:
    @Cluebat
    Funny or not- it has outgrown the stormer movement.

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    I see

    so only skinheads believe there’s a Jewish Question vis-a-vis the endless wars in the Middle East and the cultural rot promoted by our ((media)) and the neo-con [think Sheldon Adelson, other neoconservative Jews) demand that we keep our borders open.

    nothing Jewish about any of that eh?

    LOL, it is funny

    so let me ask you, what exactly is a "white nationalist"?

    are the Germans who're questioning the wisdom and prudence of millions of Middle Easterners and Africans moving in.. "white nationalists"? Perhaps there's another word you'd like to call them?

    what about the Swedes who're not allowed to go into the burgeoning 'no-go' areas for whites in Sweden. Are they too 'white nationalists"?

    are the whites of Zimbabwe, whose homes and farms have been violently seized by the black, racist government.. "white nationalists"?

    you tell me, eh?

    what is a "white nationalist" as opposed to an Alt-Right-er?

    I suspect that what you (and others ; ) would like to do is use terms like 'white nationalist' the way the left uses terms like 'racist'. As a vague pejorative that demonizes anyone the invective is hurled at in order to silence them, without ever defining what the expression means. Huh?

    I suspect that it's a tiresome ploy, to smear otherwise reasonable people, who don't want massive immigration or Eternal Wars for Israel as = swastika-tattooed morons with bald heads who're dumber than posts, and hollering about 'fags' and 'niggers', so as to paint them all with the same brush, huh?

    that's why they call people racists, who simply notice that the races are different, and should not be forced to integrate

    by calling such people 'racists' you're able to demonize them and therefor silence and "defeat" their otherwise sound arguments.

    this is the same agenda people use when they call reasonable people "white nationalists", or "white supremacists". Doing so is usually at attempt to demonize anyone who doesn't want their white nation to lose it's character, and descend into a Zimbabwe-type of hell on earth.

    which is what most of the people who use those pejoratives want. But they've decided the best way to accomplish their agenda is to pretend to be 'one of us', and then try to steer the conversation into directions that they find accommodating to their (anti-white, pro-Jewish) agenda. Huh?

    I suppose there really are some skin-head types that really do want to have a 'white supremacist' world where they can lord it over other races. (as some Jews are obviously obsessed with). But I've never met such a creature, and am not even aware of any presence of such people even on the Internet. But that doesn't stop certain sectors from trying to defame reasonable people as "white nationalists" or "white supremacists', simply for pointing out the obvious. That Jews are the only real and fundamental enemy that the white, Western world has. Indeed, a very real and very existential enemy, to the core. Not all Jews of course, but many.

    [deleted picture to avoid designated spam]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cluebat
    While I do agree with much of what you are saying here, I think that it is not very productive to blame the Jews as a whole. They have been very influential in our foreign policy, but so also has been the House of Saud.

    By white nationalists, I refer to the most extreme flavors- of which there are many. They have generated some pretty terrible headlines recently and I do not want to be associated with them.

    We have been able to successfully integrate large numbers of immigrants in the past, but only because historically we reach a point where we seriously throttle back immigration and give them time to assimilate. I think that is where we are now.

    Anyway- these are only a couple of problems which we are faced with, while there are many others which need to be addressed if we stand any chance of saving our country. Replacing activists with originalists in SCOTUS would be a good start. Getting hung up on JQ is imo, not very productive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @jamie b.
    Merely employing terms like “scientody” doesn’t provide a direct pipe-line to Truth. Even if everyone were to adopt your terminology, there’d still be debate (after all, few scientists would agree that evolution is not scientific). Short of some form of authoritarianism, I don’t see how you could avoid resorting to consensus at some point.

    The argument usually made is that the majority doesn’t determine what is true. By saying that consensus isn’t “established by scientody” (i.e. consensus itself isn’t scientific, yes?) you seem to be making the same argument. Maybe ‘establish’ is too strong a word, but this really is just a practical matter of deciding when to move on to new issues, rather than endlessly re-inventing the wheel. Using consensus to establish where the burden of proof lies is not itself 'scientific' per se, but it is fair and practical.

    Merely employing terms like “scientody” doesn’t provide a direct pipe-line to Truth. 

    That’s true. It simply introduces more precise language.

    The argument usually made is that the majority doesn’t determine what is true.

    That goes without saying.

    but this really is just a practical matter of deciding when to move on to new issues, rather than endlessly re-inventing the wheel

    The decision to move onto new issues, and when to dwell, is the personal business of the researcher and whoever is funding his research.

    Short of some form of authoritarianism, I don’t see how you could avoid resorting to consensus at some point.

    Consensus and conformity serve absolutely no scientific purpose. Humanity does not require a mutually coherent body of scientage any more than it requires a mutually coherent body of history…or theology.

    Of course, given that the Federal government does significantly determine where grant money goes, those of us interested in dissident scientage really have no choice but to uniformly oppose all talk of “scientific consensus”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.

    Humanity does not require a mutually coherent body of scientage any more than it requires a mutually coherent body of history…or theology.
     
    That's there's no such thing as a meaningful consensus in theology is not surprising, since theology does not refer to anything empirical. But history does have standards, even if they're less than those of science.

    The decision to move onto new issues, and when to dwell, is the personal business of the researcher and whoever is funding his research.
     
    Agreed.

    ...the Federal government does significantly determine where grant money goes...
     
    (For all countries?) Consensus influences funding. Is there actual evidence for the reverse?

    ...those of us interested in dissident scientage really have no choice but to uniformly oppose all talk of “scientific consensus”
     
    Proving your case would be better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. D. K. says:
    @Truth
    LOL, hey, one will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the A(lt-right)merican public.

    Says the African immigrant who, by his own admission, could not break 1000 on his combined SAT score….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Dude, I'm happy that you read! Great memory.

    I think it was 998 if I remember right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Realist says:
    @DreadIlk

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”
     
    Trivially true if you mean "all white people, everywhere". There's a lot of us to kill.

    Arguably false if it is shorthand for "Western Civilization is under attack, from within and without, to the extent that it will be changed beyond recognition to the detriment of white people". But that's awfully wordy for a manifesto.

    White people are vastly outnumbered the world over.
    Western Civilization is under attack and is vastly outnumbered as I said.

    It isn’t necessary to kill whites, but genocide can be accomplished by invasion and out reproducing whites, which is already happening on a gigantic scale. This is being done by the help of or acquiesce on the part of stupid whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Realist says:
    @unit472
    Attacking Derbyshire because he married an Asian women is to micromanage people's lives in an unacceptable way. While I understand the concern that whites marrying blacks seem to only create more negroes not a better hybrid I don't think that applies to Eurasians.

    The why of this may just reflect my own prejudices or the biological-cultural attributes of the respective races but something is going on with black race mixing that doesn't happen with others. There is not an outbreak of social pathologies common to the negro when other races mingle.

    I suspect if Barack Obama had grown up in Chicago he would have been indistinguishable from other mulattoes in that city. More likely to have a criminal record than a college degree. Only the almost complete isolation from negro culture and influence in Hawaii gave him his veneer of race neutrality. He was a young adult before he arrived in the mainland and had to 'learn' the ways of the negro and never really adopted them but his sooty exterior still got him 95% of the black vote and he 'governed' as a negro for which we should give thanks. His was naturally lazy and content with putting other negroes in government posts and enjoying the perks of office rather than using the power of the presidency for any substantive purpose.
    '

    “Attacking Derbyshire because he married an Asian women is to micromanage people’s lives in an unacceptable way.”

    Managing anybody else’s life is unacceptable.

    Read More
    • Agree: Logan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Realist says:
    @Tiny Duck
    My lack of success with the females doesn't change the fact that you racists are about to get smacked

    So you admit you have no success with women?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    Honesty is the new policy

    But so what? I'm not spreading on my white DNA so that is one less bit of white supremacy to ruin the works.

    Besides I'm content with my two cats thank you very much
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Truth says:
    @D. K.
    Says the African immigrant who, by his own admission, could not break 1000 on his combined SAT score....

    Dude, I’m happy that you read! Great memory.

    I think it was 998 if I remember right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I think that you wrote that it was somewhat lower than that, but I do not care to hunt through your old comments to find the admission.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. jamie b. says:
    @DissidentRight

    Merely employing terms like “scientody” doesn’t provide a direct pipe-line to Truth. 
     
    That’s true. It simply introduces more precise language.

    The argument usually made is that the majority doesn’t determine what is true.
     
    That goes without saying.

    but this really is just a practical matter of deciding when to move on to new issues, rather than endlessly re-inventing the wheel
     
    The decision to move onto new issues, and when to dwell, is the personal business of the researcher and whoever is funding his research.

    Short of some form of authoritarianism, I don’t see how you could avoid resorting to consensus at some point.
     
    Consensus and conformity serve absolutely no scientific purpose. Humanity does not require a mutually coherent body of scientage any more than it requires a mutually coherent body of history…or theology.

    Of course, given that the Federal government does significantly determine where grant money goes, those of us interested in dissident scientage really have no choice but to uniformly oppose all talk of "scientific consensus"...

    Humanity does not require a mutually coherent body of scientage any more than it requires a mutually coherent body of history…or theology.

    That’s there’s no such thing as a meaningful consensus in theology is not surprising, since theology does not refer to anything empirical. But history does have standards, even if they’re less than those of science.

    The decision to move onto new issues, and when to dwell, is the personal business of the researcher and whoever is funding his research.

    Agreed.

    …the Federal government does significantly determine where grant money goes…

    (For all countries?) Consensus influences funding. Is there actual evidence for the reverse?

    …those of us interested in dissident scientage really have no choice but to uniformly oppose all talk of “scientific consensus”

    Proving your case would be better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DissidentRight

    That’s there’s no such thing as a meaningful consensus in theology is not surprising, since theology does not refer to anything empirical.
     
    Ah, but that’s not the point. A meaningful theological consensus would be tremendously practical for human relations. Infinitely more practical, I might add, then scientific consensus. And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.

    But history does have standards, even if they’re less than those of science.
     
    Of course.

    Consensus influences funding. Is there actual evidence for the reverse?
     
    I refuse to call it consensus. Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted on global warming research. I don’t care if they spend their own money, but leave mine alone.

    Proving your case would be better.
     
    We have proved it, just not to the satisfaction of our opponents. This is why scientistry is a joke and the idea of “consensus” is harmful. They haven’t proved their case to us, and so expect to be able to force their views on us anyway. How is that any different from forcing theology on people?
    , @anonymous

    since theology does not refer to anything empirical
     
    Superficially true. But, there is such a thing called common sense logicality, that the incredible complexity of the known Universe and all its contents would be impossible without an infinitely powerful Creator... and it would illogical for Him to have partners, and for Him to be human-like, and so on.

    For anyone with some of that elusive trait, it should be so clear that what much of the world wallows in, namely, Pagan Polytheist Human Worship, aka Godlessness, is simply far removed from that sense of logicality.

    The glorious exulting western civilisation will find out eventually... and there will not be much gloating where you are all headed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. D. K. says:
    @Truth
    Dude, I'm happy that you read! Great memory.

    I think it was 998 if I remember right.

    I think that you wrote that it was somewhat lower than that, but I do not care to hunt through your old comments to find the admission.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Svigor says:

    I had this at the end of my response, but figured you would be more likely to read it if I put it at the front:

    You make a living in media. Your philosemitism, opinion on Jews, are about as valuable as used toilet paper. They’re far too bound up in your career prospects to be taken seriously.

    The Alt Right is the reinvigorated/emergent dissident right. It’s not much more complicated than that. Nationalists, ethnopatriots, paleocons, trads, trad Christians, isolationists, anti-war-party, dark enlightenment, hard-core anti-communists, radical right-wingers, etc. Anybody who wants to kill the GOP, take its stuff, and then turn on the left.

    This manifesto stuff is an attempt to distill some commonalities and forge a more coherent movement out of the altright.

    Some of this is just temperamental. I’m not by nature a joiner. I don’t feel strong affinity with any sports team or church. I’m not an Elk or a Shriner. I’m just not a herd animal—not well-socialized. I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes. (Although I’ve always thought that story would be more true to life if the little boy had been chased down and lynched by a howling mob of well-socialized Goodthinkers.)

    I, too, am a crotchety curmudgeon, and no joiner. For a good while, I had no interest in calling myself altright. But:

    1. I realized that I’ve been “alt-right” since I went politically “hot” in 2002/2003; the bumper crop of racialist kids today sound like what I and the “new” White Nationalists were pushing 15 years ago. Calling myself altright involved no movement; it would be far more accurate to say that I was altright, when altright wasn’t cool.

    2. I realized that “crotchety curmudgeon” has its own wing in hotel altright. Your psychological self-evaluation applies to most altrighters. How do you think we got here in the first place?

    There’s some overlap between the last two paragraphs. I have utmost difficulty following any kind of ideological script. Sooner or later I always bang my shins against the boundary fences of ideological orthodoxy.

    There’s no script. Altrighters are constantly butting heads. We have far more interesting arguments with one another, than we do with leftists.

    On race, for example, I get incoming fire from both sides. Goodthinkers point’n’sputter at me for my negative comments about blacks; race purists snarl at me as a race traitor because of my marriage choice.

    The “race purists” (I call them hard-core or old-school WNs, when I’m being kind) don’t really seem to have grown in number since the old days when the new school WNs were heating up. They’re in the altright, but kinda by default. They don’t seem to have much pull or reach. Honestly, most of them seem to have bad wiring. They’re mostly inflexible, doctrinaire, boring, and out of touch. I think we need to carve out the Nazi fetishists (people who want Nazi optics need their own movement, and people who want to ban Nazi optics need their own movement, IMO) in any organizational sense. It wasn’t long after I became an ethnopatriot that I realized that many of them basically don’t want ethnopatriotism to gain any ground; it’s about being a costumed, antisocial, costumed, subculture or elect to them. Political success would spoil all of that.

    So yes, “purists” is a great name for them, but it goes way beyond race. It’s purity spirals, all the way down.

    I think of the altright as being a good deal broader than ethnopatriotism or racial nationalism. That aside, it’s not my business to browbeat people for not being sufficiently ethnopatriotic in their personal lives. I take allies as I find them, and allies are more to do with what they advocate than who they breed with, IMO.

    I think you qualify as altright, pretty easily. You could even claim a limited form of WNism, IMO. But then, I’ve never had a problem with someone who is forthright about advocating or arguing for a belief system not, or not entirely, his own (e.g., I’m a secular or cultural Christian; agnostic, but simpatico with Christianity and wanting to see it reformed on hand, while having no desire to practice the faith myself, reformed or otherwise).

    In short, there’s little sense in being picky about allies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    I, too, am a crotchety curmudgeon, and no joiner. For a good while, I had no interest in calling myself altright. But:
     
    Join yo seff' a wife and have sum key-yuds, Homie!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Svigor says:

    Alt Right has is an attitude.

    Agreed. The altright is the radical right. We’re here to eat the old right, then turn on the left and destroy it. We are the actual answer to the left.

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them. That’s a kind of fielder’s-choice point, though.

    No, it isn’t. The Jews of the Bible are long gone. The Jews of today are the descendants of those who rejected the New Covenant and formed Talmudic Judaism out of 1st and 2nd century Hebrew religion. They evolved out of the Biblical Jews, just as Christianity did. It’s not at all accurate to trace Christianity through Jews; it’s accurate to trace the both modern Judaism and Christianity to those byegone Jews. You are an educated man; if you aren’t already aware of this, then a read through the more salient Wikipedia articles on early Christianity will disabuse you.

    Again there are nits to pick, though again this isn’t the place to pick them. When the slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, or an asteroid hits, or a supervolcano pops, we shall all become globalists overnight.

    That works in theory (and along the same principle-spectrum as anti-globalism, btw; we’ll stop being anti-galactist and team up with the Alpha Centaurians when the Borg/Replicators/Terminators show up), but in reality, it’ll be yellows and whites vs. the aliens, with everyone else crapping the bed. So, more like hemi-globalism.

    c) The scientific consensus is unscientific? Huh? And why is the consensus “so-called”? There usually—not always, but usually—is a scientific consensus. It occasionally turns out to have been wrong, but it’s a consensus none the less, not a “so-called” consensus.

    “The Consensus” has become determinative, in the minds of the regime. It’s “science” because scientists say they believe it. Climate alarmism, race denial, etc. Faith in the scientific consensus is unscientific, yes. Absolutely. There’s even a name for this fallacy; appeal to authority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Svigor says:

    The “JQ” focus outs you as the old Alt-Right. The new Alt-Right has other more pressing issues.

    No, the JQ is probably the primary focus of the altright. There is a faction that doesn’t share it. You seem to be a member, so you’re trying to promote that faction as the norm, or the dominant faction, but it isn’t. Really the JQ is a kind of litmus test for genuine altrighters. It’s where the altright meets the most pushback from the left. The rest of altright is fairly tame by comparison, and meets with far less pushback from the leftist establishment. Kosher, you see.

    LOL

    first the conservative became ((neo-conservatives))

    and now the Alt-Right can become new or ((neo-Alt-Right))

    too f’n funny

    Jews are always gonna wheedle and chisel and subvert. Every…single…time.

    And there are always plenty of Shabbos Goy looking to carry water for them.

    Funny or not- it has outgrown the stormer movement.

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    Racial nationalists form the dominant faction. “Skinheads” are old school WNs, so conflating them with ethnopatriots or white racialists is a dodge.

    Some time on Twitter will confirm all of this, to anyone who wants to see for himself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Svigor says:

    Here’s a test: point out all the biggest altrighters on Twitter, and we can sort out which ones are Jew-wise, and which ones aren’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @jamie b.

    Humanity does not require a mutually coherent body of scientage any more than it requires a mutually coherent body of history…or theology.
     
    That's there's no such thing as a meaningful consensus in theology is not surprising, since theology does not refer to anything empirical. But history does have standards, even if they're less than those of science.

    The decision to move onto new issues, and when to dwell, is the personal business of the researcher and whoever is funding his research.
     
    Agreed.

    ...the Federal government does significantly determine where grant money goes...
     
    (For all countries?) Consensus influences funding. Is there actual evidence for the reverse?

    ...those of us interested in dissident scientage really have no choice but to uniformly oppose all talk of “scientific consensus”
     
    Proving your case would be better.

    That’s there’s no such thing as a meaningful consensus in theology is not surprising, since theology does not refer to anything empirical.

    Ah, but that’s not the point. A meaningful theological consensus would be tremendously practical for human relations. Infinitely more practical, I might add, then scientific consensus. And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.

    But history does have standards, even if they’re less than those of science.

    Of course.

    Consensus influences funding. Is there actual evidence for the reverse?

    I refuse to call it consensus. Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted on global warming research. I don’t care if they spend their own money, but leave mine alone.

    Proving your case would be better.

    We have proved it, just not to the satisfaction of our opponents. This is why scientistry is a joke and the idea of “consensus” is harmful. They haven’t proved their case to us, and so expect to be able to force their views on us anyway. How is that any different from forcing theology on people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.

    And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.
     
    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.

    Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted...
     
    So the problem isn't having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    We have proved it
     
    If you say so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Svigor says:

    The altright is about red-pilling, going down the rabbit hole. There are levels of altright-ness; each level is constantly red-pilling the less altright levels above it. In other words, non-countersemitic altrighters are constantly being redpilled into countersemitism. Most altrighters don’t stay philosemitic or agnostic on the JQ for long. Anti-countersemitic altrighters are in a constant state of losing this war, and always will be.

    Really, the pied-piper phony altright (Chernovich, that guy whose name starts with a “P” but eludes me at the moment, Laura Loomer, etc.) is the home of the non-countersemitic “dissident” right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Tiny Duck says:
    @Realist
    So you admit you have no success with women?

    Honesty is the new policy

    But so what? I’m not spreading on my white DNA so that is one less bit of white supremacy to ruin the works.

    Besides I’m content with my two cats thank you very much

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Truth says:
    @Svigor
    I had this at the end of my response, but figured you would be more likely to read it if I put it at the front:

    You make a living in media. Your philosemitism, opinion on Jews, are about as valuable as used toilet paper. They're far too bound up in your career prospects to be taken seriously.

    The Alt Right is the reinvigorated/emergent dissident right. It's not much more complicated than that. Nationalists, ethnopatriots, paleocons, trads, trad Christians, isolationists, anti-war-party, dark enlightenment, hard-core anti-communists, radical right-wingers, etc. Anybody who wants to kill the GOP, take its stuff, and then turn on the left.

    This manifesto stuff is an attempt to distill some commonalities and forge a more coherent movement out of the altright.

    Some of this is just temperamental. I’m not by nature a joiner. I don’t feel strong affinity with any sports team or church. I’m not an Elk or a Shriner. I’m just not a herd animal—not well-socialized. I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes. (Although I’ve always thought that story would be more true to life if the little boy had been chased down and lynched by a howling mob of well-socialized Goodthinkers.)
     
    I, too, am a crotchety curmudgeon, and no joiner. For a good while, I had no interest in calling myself altright. But:

    1. I realized that I've been "alt-right" since I went politically "hot" in 2002/2003; the bumper crop of racialist kids today sound like what I and the "new" White Nationalists were pushing 15 years ago. Calling myself altright involved no movement; it would be far more accurate to say that I was altright, when altright wasn't cool.

    2. I realized that "crotchety curmudgeon" has its own wing in hotel altright. Your psychological self-evaluation applies to most altrighters. How do you think we got here in the first place?

    There’s some overlap between the last two paragraphs. I have utmost difficulty following any kind of ideological script. Sooner or later I always bang my shins against the boundary fences of ideological orthodoxy.
     
    There's no script. Altrighters are constantly butting heads. We have far more interesting arguments with one another, than we do with leftists.

    On race, for example, I get incoming fire from both sides. Goodthinkers point’n’sputter at me for my negative comments about blacks; race purists snarl at me as a race traitor because of my marriage choice.
     
    The "race purists" (I call them hard-core or old-school WNs, when I'm being kind) don't really seem to have grown in number since the old days when the new school WNs were heating up. They're in the altright, but kinda by default. They don't seem to have much pull or reach. Honestly, most of them seem to have bad wiring. They're mostly inflexible, doctrinaire, boring, and out of touch. I think we need to carve out the Nazi fetishists (people who want Nazi optics need their own movement, and people who want to ban Nazi optics need their own movement, IMO) in any organizational sense. It wasn't long after I became an ethnopatriot that I realized that many of them basically don't want ethnopatriotism to gain any ground; it's about being a costumed, antisocial, costumed, subculture or elect to them. Political success would spoil all of that.

    So yes, "purists" is a great name for them, but it goes way beyond race. It's purity spirals, all the way down.

    I think of the altright as being a good deal broader than ethnopatriotism or racial nationalism. That aside, it's not my business to browbeat people for not being sufficiently ethnopatriotic in their personal lives. I take allies as I find them, and allies are more to do with what they advocate than who they breed with, IMO.

    I think you qualify as altright, pretty easily. You could even claim a limited form of WNism, IMO. But then, I've never had a problem with someone who is forthright about advocating or arguing for a belief system not, or not entirely, his own (e.g., I'm a secular or cultural Christian; agnostic, but simpatico with Christianity and wanting to see it reformed on hand, while having no desire to practice the faith myself, reformed or otherwise).

    In short, there's little sense in being picky about allies.

    I, too, am a crotchety curmudgeon, and no joiner. For a good while, I had no interest in calling myself altright. But:

    Join yo seff’ a wife and have sum key-yuds, Homie!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Svigor says:

    The great thing about the pied-piper phony dissident right, by the way, is that the altright is gonna redpill all of their people, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Svigor says:

    Non-countersemitic altrighters who work to undo the various Jewish tentacles (feminism, diversity, race-blindness, etc.) are basically the altright’s version of useful idiots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Cluebat says:
    @Rurik

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.
     
    I see

    so only skinheads believe there's a Jewish Question vis-a-vis the endless wars in the Middle East and the cultural rot promoted by our ((media)) and the neo-con [think Sheldon Adelson, other neoconservative Jews) demand that we keep our borders open.

    nothing Jewish about any of that eh?

    LOL, it is funny

    so let me ask you, what exactly is a "white nationalist"?

    are the Germans who're questioning the wisdom and prudence of millions of Middle Easterners and Africans moving in.. "white nationalists"? Perhaps there's another word you'd like to call them?

    what about the Swedes who're not allowed to go into the burgeoning 'no-go' areas for whites in Sweden. Are they too 'white nationalists"?

    are the whites of Zimbabwe, whose homes and farms have been violently seized by the black, racist government.. "white nationalists"?

    you tell me, eh?

    what is a "white nationalist" as opposed to an Alt-Right-er?

    I suspect that what you (and others ; ) would like to do is use terms like 'white nationalist' the way the left uses terms like 'racist'. As a vague pejorative that demonizes anyone the invective is hurled at in order to silence them, without ever defining what the expression means. Huh?

    I suspect that it's a tiresome ploy, to smear otherwise reasonable people, who don't want massive immigration or Eternal Wars for Israel as = swastika-tattooed morons with bald heads who're dumber than posts, and hollering about 'fags' and 'niggers', so as to paint them all with the same brush, huh?

    that's why they call people racists, who simply notice that the races are different, and should not be forced to integrate

    by calling such people 'racists' you're able to demonize them and therefor silence and "defeat" their otherwise sound arguments.

    this is the same agenda people use when they call reasonable people "white nationalists", or "white supremacists". Doing so is usually at attempt to demonize anyone who doesn't want their white nation to lose it's character, and descend into a Zimbabwe-type of hell on earth.

    which is what most of the people who use those pejoratives want. But they've decided the best way to accomplish their agenda is to pretend to be 'one of us', and then try to steer the conversation into directions that they find accommodating to their (anti-white, pro-Jewish) agenda. Huh?

    I suppose there really are some skin-head types that really do want to have a 'white supremacist' world where they can lord it over other races. (as some Jews are obviously obsessed with). But I've never met such a creature, and am not even aware of any presence of such people even on the Internet. But that doesn't stop certain sectors from trying to defame reasonable people as "white nationalists" or "white supremacists', simply for pointing out the obvious. That Jews are the only real and fundamental enemy that the white, Western world has. Indeed, a very real and very existential enemy, to the core. Not all Jews of course, but many.

    [deleted picture to avoid designated spam]

    While I do agree with much of what you are saying here, I think that it is not very productive to blame the Jews as a whole. They have been very influential in our foreign policy, but so also has been the House of Saud.

    By white nationalists, I refer to the most extreme flavors- of which there are many. They have generated some pretty terrible headlines recently and I do not want to be associated with them.

    We have been able to successfully integrate large numbers of immigrants in the past, but only because historically we reach a point where we seriously throttle back immigration and give them time to assimilate. I think that is where we are now.

    Anyway- these are only a couple of problems which we are faced with, while there are many others which need to be addressed if we stand any chance of saving our country. Replacing activists with originalists in SCOTUS would be a good start. Getting hung up on JQ is imo, not very productive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    We have been able to successfully integrate large numbers of immigrants in the past, but only because historically we reach a point where we seriously throttle back immigration and give them time to assimilate.
     
    Yes, because they were white. Integrating Irish, Italian and Eastern Europeans who genetically are almost indistinguishable from Germans and English is not the same as integrating Mestizos, Africans and Asians.

    And before you bring up that Asians and whites play well, let me say that I don't care. I like Asians. I like Asia. But I want my people to survive - as do people in Asia - and that won't happen if we blend with Asians. I suspect that such a people would be pretty good; they just wouldn't be my people.

    Let's put it this way. Would Israel allow 10 million 130+ Chinese to immigrate? I mean, wouldn't this make Israel a smarter, more productive country? Yep. Would the blended children of those Chinese and the Israelis Jews be a heck of a race? Yep. But Israel would never let that happen because they want to maintain their people.

    Simple as that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. jamie b. says:
    @DissidentRight

    That’s there’s no such thing as a meaningful consensus in theology is not surprising, since theology does not refer to anything empirical.
     
    Ah, but that’s not the point. A meaningful theological consensus would be tremendously practical for human relations. Infinitely more practical, I might add, then scientific consensus. And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.

    But history does have standards, even if they’re less than those of science.
     
    Of course.

    Consensus influences funding. Is there actual evidence for the reverse?
     
    I refuse to call it consensus. Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted on global warming research. I don’t care if they spend their own money, but leave mine alone.

    Proving your case would be better.
     
    We have proved it, just not to the satisfaction of our opponents. This is why scientistry is a joke and the idea of “consensus” is harmful. They haven’t proved their case to us, and so expect to be able to force their views on us anyway. How is that any different from forcing theology on people?

    And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.

    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.

    Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted…

    So the problem isn’t having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    We have proved it

    If you say so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    So the problem isn’t having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    This looks like an obtuse, snarky line of reasoning I would expect to hear from a pseudo skeptic; sarcasic strawmaning combined with obfuscation and a question designed to imply that your opponent is a kook.

    It doesn't take an organised conspiracy to get scientists to claim that AGW is the absolute truth, all you need is money, a heard mentality, and fear . Harvey Weinstain didn't need a organised conspiracy to a
    cover for him for 30 years, he needed a compliant media, people depending on him for their livelihoods and fear.

    There are to many scientists who are defunded, ostracized, and demonized for going against the grain for the rational(not skepti-bunkis) to take stock in a "consensus" simply because it is a consensus.

    Ps. If you have scientific evidence of AGW, share it with us
    , @DissidentRight

    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.
     
    Engineers and other people who apply scientage in a business application actually have to build things. Or actually fix your teeth. If you are not involved in a product, no disaster. The product itself is the convincing argument.

    So the problem isn’t having a consensus per se
     
    Correct. The problem is that scientistry and others want to use consensus (or so-called consensus) to spend our money and justify taking control of our children’s education away from us.

    If you say so.
     
    Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?
    , @Truth

    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.
     
    Well not for certain, Old Sod.

    If dentistry did not welcome diversity of opinion, we'd still have wooden false teeth. If engineering did not welcome diversity of opinion, we'd still life in tents. Ballistics: muzzle-loaders, medicine: blood diseases would still be treated with leaches, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Svigor says:

    By white nationalists, I refer to the most extreme flavors- of which there are many. They have generated some pretty terrible headlines recently and I do not want to be associated with them.

    It’s openly tendentious to use WN to refer only to the most extreme flavors. Get used to white ethnopatriots, they’re the core of the movement, and always will be. You lot can splinter off but you’ll be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Pro-Whites are the altright base, the core constituency.

    Getting hung up on JQ is imo, not very productive.

    You and your kind seem as hung up on it as the JQ obsessives who insist everyone toe their party line on the JQ. That’s what Shabbos Goyism, cuckery, etc., are all about – a Jew hangup, a black hangup, etc. In fact this is the reason for the altright; getting over the leftist narrative on race, a brace of hangups about race and ethnicity that the left have imposed on “conservatives.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Svigor says:

    White racialists are the most committed, radical, and loyal part of the altright.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. @Tiny Duck
    People of Color are sick of whites treating them poorly and are not going to take it anymore. South Africa has tolerated the racists for far too long and is about to give the racists the business

    Your descendants will be People of Color

    @ Tiny Duck: My descendants are already people of color, one red-haired and green-eyed, the other blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Fifty shades of mud don’t count, see?

    @ The Derb: Vox Nye the Scientody Guy has doubled down, and writes that you should refrain from commenting on economy or politics. Like any gamma sjw would. Just be glad he didn’t psychologically project and call you a liar, as he does regularly with people who disagree with him on points of religion.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Z Blog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Daninmd says:

    There is a huge problem with science right now. In any instance where science and left wing ideology collide the science loses out. You may not like Vox’s definitions but the problems with science are real. On questions from climate to gender to human sexual relations to HBD, the ‘scientific consensus’ is whatever happens to be politically expedient to the left right now, rather than what is empirically true. Gender stuff is most telling to me because the consensus is so trivially demonstrated to be false. It makes me think that if the left needed Jupiter to be closer to the sun than Mars then the words close and distance and space would be redefined to make this true and scientists stubbornly saying that Mars is closer would start to have trouble getting grants. On related vein is the retconning of history. History shouldn’t change, right? Wrong! History is scrubbed and rewritten a lot these days. Academic integrity seems lacking. The planetary example is interesting because once upon a time the consensus was what The Church required rather than what the data said. The Left is now the church and the requirements are different. Sex, gender, HBD, climate, these are where the new church controls science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @Tiny Duck
    People of Color are sick of whites treating them poorly and are not going to take it anymore. South Africa has tolerated the racists for far too long and is about to give the racists the business

    Your descendants will be People of Color

    Mr. Duck has had his brilliant moments, here and elsewhere, but this sure ain’t one of them

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Daninmd says:

    The problem with science is serious because the areas where science takes a back seat to leftist ideology are exactly the pressing topics of the day. Exactly when we need science to neutrally clarify what is going on in the world, it fails us. On areas from HBD to gender where truth is desperately needed for public policy, the scientific consensus consists of shameless, politically expedient (to the left) narratives that are misleading and false. Who cares if science tells us the order of the planets but fails when it matters? Is this worse than no science at all if science builds up its credibility capital with things like planetary trivia just to spend that capital misleading us where it matters for public policy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Tiny Duck
    People of Color are sick of whites treating them poorly and are not going to take it anymore. South Africa has tolerated the racists for far too long and is about to give the racists the business

    Your descendants will be People of Color

    Presuming you’re in the 1st world, well why are you still here if you think you’ve been mistreated? Africans flock to Europe. They’d flock to the US if they could get here. If you take our stuff, you’ll be like Zimbabwe, asking for whites to come back and rule (https://www.amren.com/news/2017/11/need-whites-come-back-rebuild-country-current-government-failed-says-war-vets-leader/). Blacks seem to think wealth is just there, and whites have it. Well no, whites create it. You blacks seem to be really slow learners on the subject. No surprise, I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    First world, schmuck world, whatever...

    As long as the "first" world remains the collective Spiritual Loserville, it does not make much of a difference.

    Your brilliantly weak minds are incapable to ever realise that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Meimou says:
    @jamie b.
    "...the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody..."

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.

    jamie b

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.

    All this time I thought the burden of proof was on the claimant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    Arrhenius's observations initially made him a minority of one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Dwright says:

    Tiny Duck
    The self loathing is strong in this one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    LOL, that's why the character was created.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. U. Ranus says:
    @Cluebat
    Funny or not- it has outgrown the stormer movement.

    Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time.

    That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    > Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time. That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    Calm down. It’s okay to be white.

    My understanding has been that to obtain Alt-Right, you start with Right and remove the Cuck.

    Lots of people working hard to put the Cuck back. I don’t think it can be done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Keeping in mind the kind of people on the "Right" (the word itself, like in, Righteous, Virtuous, etc.), from any part of the globe, the term applied to such lowlifes is such an oxymoron.

    Should you fellows not change your label to Alt-Wrong, Alt-Venom, Alt-Scum, or something?

    Right?! Alt-Right?! :D

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Meimou says: • Website
    @jamie b.

    And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.
     
    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.

    Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted...
     
    So the problem isn't having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    We have proved it
     
    If you say so.

    So the problem isn’t having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    This looks like an obtuse, snarky line of reasoning I would expect to hear from a pseudo skeptic; sarcasic strawmaning combined with obfuscation and a question designed to imply that your opponent is a kook.

    It doesn’t take an organised conspiracy to get scientists to claim that AGW is the absolute truth, all you need is money, a heard mentality, and fear . Harvey Weinstain didn’t need a organised conspiracy to a
    cover for him for 30 years, he needed a compliant media, people depending on him for their livelihoods and fear.

    There are to many scientists who are defunded, ostracized, and demonized for going against the grain for the rational(not skepti-bunkis) to take stock in a “consensus” simply because it is a consensus.

    Ps. If you have scientific evidence of AGW, share it with us

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.

    ...all you need is money, a heard mentality, and fear.

     

    Okay: those greedy, gullibility, fearful scientists.

    If you have scientific evidence of AGW, share it with us
     
    The burden of proof is on you. But fine. Note however, that there seems to be three stages of AGW denial: the claim that temperatures aren’t increasing at all, the claim that the world is indeed warming but that humans aren’t responsible, and finally the claim that human activity is indeed changing the climate, but that that isn’t a bad thing.

    If you’re at the first stage of denial, then I will present you with the NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report on ten different indicators of global warming: land surface air temperatures measured by weather stations, sea surface temperatures, air temperatures of the oceans, lower troposphere temperatures, ocean heat content, sea level, specific humidity, glaciers, northern hemisphere snow cover, and arctic sea ice.

    If you’re at the second stage of denial (the world is warming, but humans aren’t responsible) then I will present you with the following: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2 This report to the AMS takes into account the contributions of greenhouse gasses, solar output, ozone levels, volcanic emissions, and sulphate levels. The researchers found temp. measures never more than .02 C from their model for any year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. jamie b. says:
    @Meimou
    jamie b

    Scientific consensus simply establishes where the burden of proofs lies.

    All this time I thought the burden of proof was on the claimant.

    Arrhenius’s observations initially made him a minority of one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @jamie b.

    And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.
     
    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.

    Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted...
     
    So the problem isn't having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    We have proved it
     
    If you say so.

    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.

    Engineers and other people who apply scientage in a business application actually have to build things. Or actually fix your teeth. If you are not involved in a product, no disaster. The product itself is the convincing argument.

    So the problem isn’t having a consensus per se

    Correct. The problem is that scientistry and others want to use consensus (or so-called consensus) to spend our money and justify taking control of our children’s education away from us.

    If you say so.

    Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.

    Engineers and other people who apply scientage in a business application actually have to build things. Or actually fix your teeth. If you are not involved in a product, no disaster. The product itself is the convincing argument.
     
    Exactly. Consensus in theology would mean nothing as there's no empirical reference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. I wonder if Derb knows enough about quantum physics and the current un-explainable results of experiments involving conscious observation, photons, two slits and differing results that force questioning our understanding of materialism– to understand how absolutely ignorant he (Derb) is about science. As a physicist by education and nuclear engineer by career (US Navy nuclear power where Rickover preferred engineers over scientists as scientist were not grounded enough in the real world to build things) I understand that science is a series of changing theories, with one theory overcoming another as new understanding is gained. But then I studied Popper in graduate school decades ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Truth says:
    @Dwright
    Tiny Duck
    The self loathing is strong in this one.

    LOL, that’s why the character was created.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Truth says:
    @jamie b.

    And yet, we accept diversity of opinion.
     
    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.

    Interest groups are causing Federal money to be wasted...
     
    So the problem isn't having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    We have proved it
     
    If you say so.

    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.

    Well not for certain, Old Sod.

    If dentistry did not welcome diversity of opinion, we’d still have wooden false teeth. If engineering did not welcome diversity of opinion, we’d still life in tents. Ballistics: muzzle-loaders, medicine: blood diseases would still be treated with leaches, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    That was kinda my point: Do we still have wooden false teeth, muzzle-loaders, medical treatment with leeches, etc? Should we have such 'diversity'? If you want to see a return to medicinal leeches, you'll need to prove your case, rather than complain about the consensus. (And strangely enough, this is presently happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirudo_medicinalis)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. jamie b. says:
    @Meimou
    So the problem isn’t having a consensus per se, but that the consensus was created by a sort of conspiracy. Those greedy, gullible scientists, right?

    This looks like an obtuse, snarky line of reasoning I would expect to hear from a pseudo skeptic; sarcasic strawmaning combined with obfuscation and a question designed to imply that your opponent is a kook.

    It doesn't take an organised conspiracy to get scientists to claim that AGW is the absolute truth, all you need is money, a heard mentality, and fear . Harvey Weinstain didn't need a organised conspiracy to a
    cover for him for 30 years, he needed a compliant media, people depending on him for their livelihoods and fear.

    There are to many scientists who are defunded, ostracized, and demonized for going against the grain for the rational(not skepti-bunkis) to take stock in a "consensus" simply because it is a consensus.

    Ps. If you have scientific evidence of AGW, share it with us

    …all you need is money, a heard mentality, and fear.

    Okay: those greedy, gullibility, fearful scientists.

    If you have scientific evidence of AGW, share it with us

    The burden of proof is on you. But fine. Note however, that there seems to be three stages of AGW denial: the claim that temperatures aren’t increasing at all, the claim that the world is indeed warming but that humans aren’t responsible, and finally the claim that human activity is indeed changing the climate, but that that isn’t a bad thing.

    If you’re at the first stage of denial, then I will present you with the NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report on ten different indicators of global warming: land surface air temperatures measured by weather stations, sea surface temperatures, air temperatures of the oceans, lower troposphere temperatures, ocean heat content, sea level, specific humidity, glaciers, northern hemisphere snow cover, and arctic sea ice.

    If you’re at the second stage of denial (the world is warming, but humans aren’t responsible) then I will present you with the following: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2 This report to the AMS takes into account the contributions of greenhouse gasses, solar output, ozone levels, volcanic emissions, and sulphate levels. The researchers found temp. measures never more than .02 C from their model for any year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I'm at the third stage. What do you have for me?
    , @Anonymous

    Note however, that there seems to be three stages of AGW denial: the claim that temperatures aren’t increasing at all, the claim that the world is indeed warming but that humans aren’t responsible, and finally the claim that human activity is indeed changing the climate, but that that isn’t a bad thing.
     
    There's an additional stage: that human activity is changing the climate and that western nations are exclusively responsible

    The obsessive focus on Americans driving SUVs, while ignoring population growth and deforestation in Africa and Asia, is a matter of politics not science.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Vox has a rebuttal up on his site (got here Jim-Vox pipeline). I’ll add some of my own commentary.

    Point 5

    Nationalism in the rejection of globalism (the elimination of borders to support the elite). There is no consensus on empire maintenance (Nrx are pro-imperial for example).

    Point 9

    Assuming identity means genetics, in the long run this will hold true. Remember, South Korea has been only a democracy about 3 decades and their TFR is 1.26. Their current setup is unsustainable and will fall apart before 2100.

    Point 11

    It is a reference to Chateau Heartiste.. You can browse the links provided there to understand exactly what he means.

    Point 13

    Vox is overstating his case, but the reality does follow this. The reason is people’s jobs provide them status and livelihood so embracing free trade is frequently a way to screw over others in your society. Once the ‘screw others over’ faction is strong, ‘screwing them harder with mass immigration’ comes next because they’ve already demolished the opposition stopping them.

    Point 15

    The ability to reproduce above replacement, the most valuable trait of all.

    Point 16

    Vox (and much of the rest of the altright) is being coy- a positive TFR means that eventually there is not enough resources to go around. Which is followed by groups eliminating other groups. People don’t like to be reminded of this and so most people softball this (Anglin excepted).

    Other notes
    History is not an empirical science. The study of history is empirical, but packaging history is propaganda to tell people what important lessons to take from the past and use today.

    Theological diversity is bad. Remember, religion is false so there should be only one set of false beliefs people subscribe to. Having multiple sets gets you our progressives, where new, more crazy and more false beliefs are constantly added.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Regarding the free trade as "screwing over" your fellow citizen, I think you could present a nationalist case against that interpretation. The notion that trade screws people over requires that we look at people only as producers, not as consumers. As producers, we see people competing to produce goods for a market, and obviously the more producers are allowed to compete in a given sector, the more prices for goods and hence wages get bid down. But that's just part of the picture; the other part is the consumer. The more goods are allowed to enter the market, the more consumers save as prices are bid down. So your fellow citizen saves more when a free flow of goods across borders is allowed. So if you're going to support protective tariffs on the grounds that you're defending the economic interests of your fellow citizen as a producer, you have to also explain away the harm you're doing your fellow citizen as a consumer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. jamie b. says:
    @Truth

    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.
     
    Well not for certain, Old Sod.

    If dentistry did not welcome diversity of opinion, we'd still have wooden false teeth. If engineering did not welcome diversity of opinion, we'd still life in tents. Ballistics: muzzle-loaders, medicine: blood diseases would still be treated with leaches, etc.

    That was kinda my point: Do we still have wooden false teeth, muzzle-loaders, medical treatment with leeches, etc? Should we have such ‘diversity’? If you want to see a return to medicinal leeches, you’ll need to prove your case, rather than complain about the consensus. (And strangely enough, this is presently happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirudo_medicinalis)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    My friend, I think you miss the point. A lack of diversity would indicate that you, the dentist, did it the way your father taught you, who did it the way his father the dentist taught him, ad nauseum.

    Diversity means that you meet another dentist who has a differnt way of fixing teeth and incorporate what is efficient and works into your repetoire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. jamie b. says:
    @DissidentRight

    That would be disastrous for things that have an empirical basis. Things like: dentistry, chemistry, engineering, ballistics, etc.
     
    Engineers and other people who apply scientage in a business application actually have to build things. Or actually fix your teeth. If you are not involved in a product, no disaster. The product itself is the convincing argument.

    So the problem isn’t having a consensus per se
     
    Correct. The problem is that scientistry and others want to use consensus (or so-called consensus) to spend our money and justify taking control of our children’s education away from us.

    If you say so.
     
    Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?

    Engineers and other people who apply scientage in a business application actually have to build things. Or actually fix your teeth. If you are not involved in a product, no disaster. The product itself is the convincing argument.

    Exactly. Consensus in theology would mean nothing as there’s no empirical reference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DissidentRight

    Exactly. Consensus in theology would mean nothing as there’s no empirical reference.
     
    No, I like the way I put it. Theologians don't build products. Neither do neo-Darwinian atheistic evolutionists. But at least "consensus" in theology would obviate a lot of human conflict. Where is the meaning in "consensus" on neo-Darwinism?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Mark G.
    The Alt Right believes in biological based differences in the areas of race and gender. Libertarians believe in free market economics. Wouldn't it be possible to believe in both of those two things simultaneously? They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I think I believe in both and I have arrived at many policy positions that would be acceptable to both camps. For example, I support restricted immigration both because most immigrants are third worlders with low IQ levels and their descendants will be the same and so will never contribute to the economy and also because most immigrants lean socialist on economics and would drive the country in an anti-libertarian direction if they became citizens and got to vote.

    Well, one of those differences in the area of race is that whites seem to be far less tribal that most, if not all, other races. Libertarianism and tribalism conflict in many areas. Libertarianism may be an ideology that grows out of NW European DNA and may not work with other races who choose tribe over the individual.

    What use is economic and individual freedom if you lose your family, so to speak.

    However, you could shot for a “Tribal Libertarianism.” An ethno-state with a very free-market bent. I’m all for free trade, tourism and exchange of ideas, but you can have all of that while maintaining an ethno-state.

    Japan comes to mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS

    Libertarianism may be an ideology that grows of NW European DNA and may not work with other races who choose tribe over the individual.
     
    You have been duped and hypnotized. The roots of Libertarianism are Jewish. Libertarianism is a dialectic of banker usury.

    Government = evil. Market money is required to make sure government stays in its subordinated (to Oligarchy) place. That basically is the message of Libertarians. Oh - and unlimited immigration.

    The "merchants" always camped outside of city gates and plotted ways to take down the city/state. Haibaru donkey caravaneer bones have been found outside of Sumer.

    The great luminaries of Libertarian thought are Jewish, they don't want an organized movement to eject them from taking usury. Usury is the family business. Unlimited immigration is to take wage arbitrage, and to make "capital" above labor. Third world immigration is a twofer, it makes Jews less obvious, and weakens white unity. Unearned income is to be untaxed, and labor is to be taxed.

    It is all so obvious once you put on your glasses. Too bad we don't have glasses to hand out, like in the movie "They Live."

    The parasite has learned how to harvest the host, and one of those ways is pandering to white altruism and individualism.

    Libertarianism is fatal because it doesn't understand that money's true nature is law.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Cluebat
    While I do agree with much of what you are saying here, I think that it is not very productive to blame the Jews as a whole. They have been very influential in our foreign policy, but so also has been the House of Saud.

    By white nationalists, I refer to the most extreme flavors- of which there are many. They have generated some pretty terrible headlines recently and I do not want to be associated with them.

    We have been able to successfully integrate large numbers of immigrants in the past, but only because historically we reach a point where we seriously throttle back immigration and give them time to assimilate. I think that is where we are now.

    Anyway- these are only a couple of problems which we are faced with, while there are many others which need to be addressed if we stand any chance of saving our country. Replacing activists with originalists in SCOTUS would be a good start. Getting hung up on JQ is imo, not very productive.

    We have been able to successfully integrate large numbers of immigrants in the past, but only because historically we reach a point where we seriously throttle back immigration and give them time to assimilate.

    Yes, because they were white. Integrating Irish, Italian and Eastern Europeans who genetically are almost indistinguishable from Germans and English is not the same as integrating Mestizos, Africans and Asians.

    And before you bring up that Asians and whites play well, let me say that I don’t care. I like Asians. I like Asia. But I want my people to survive – as do people in Asia – and that won’t happen if we blend with Asians. I suspect that such a people would be pretty good; they just wouldn’t be my people.

    Let’s put it this way. Would Israel allow 10 million 130+ Chinese to immigrate? I mean, wouldn’t this make Israel a smarter, more productive country? Yep. Would the blended children of those Chinese and the Israelis Jews be a heck of a race? Yep. But Israel would never let that happen because they want to maintain their people.

    Simple as that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Anonymous
    No, you are not Alt-Right.

    You identify the problems affecting Whites, but you refuse to name the opponent who is creating these problems. You won't engage with the JQ.

    Fighting an opponent with no name is akin to tilting at windmills. it is too transparently double-think to be taken seriously. It is a stance that has no future as the noose tightens around the White world's neck.

    I know why you do it. You are old enough that you were able to amass wealth in the USA while the White sun was still shining. You do not engage the JQ so that you might maintain what you have earned, lest the Chosen take it from you.

    And yet you have lost so much potential wealth taking the path you have taken, even though it is a half measure... why come up short in your words when you surely know the truth?

    Perhaps you really agree with the left, in your heart of hearts, that racism is bad. You are, to be frank, an immigrant and a race-mixer, yes? These actions speak too loudly to be papered over with even the choicest of words.

    I accept that you would rather watch the fight from afar. So be it. Just don't stand in our way when we do what must be done.

    Steve Sailer, on this very website, is willing to engage with the JQ in a much more forthright manner. Steve, in my mind, therefore can be considered Alt-Right... a gateway to the Alt-Right, even.

    Steve Sailer, on this very website, is willing to engage with the JQ in a much more forthright manner. Steve, in my mind, therefore can be considered Alt-Right… a gateway to the Alt-Right, even.

    I undertand that you have reasons to think so – about Steve Sailer, too; but the thing is, he opposed or resented the notion he’d be part of the Alt-Right (more than once).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @jamie b.

    Engineers and other people who apply scientage in a business application actually have to build things. Or actually fix your teeth. If you are not involved in a product, no disaster. The product itself is the convincing argument.
     
    Exactly. Consensus in theology would mean nothing as there's no empirical reference.

    Exactly. Consensus in theology would mean nothing as there’s no empirical reference.

    No, I like the way I put it. Theologians don’t build products. Neither do neo-Darwinian atheistic evolutionists. But at least “consensus” in theology would obviate a lot of human conflict. Where is the meaning in “consensus” on neo-Darwinism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    So you literally mean 'build products'?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Truth says:
    @jamie b.
    That was kinda my point: Do we still have wooden false teeth, muzzle-loaders, medical treatment with leeches, etc? Should we have such 'diversity'? If you want to see a return to medicinal leeches, you'll need to prove your case, rather than complain about the consensus. (And strangely enough, this is presently happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirudo_medicinalis)

    My friend, I think you miss the point. A lack of diversity would indicate that you, the dentist, did it the way your father taught you, who did it the way his father the dentist taught him, ad nauseum.

    Diversity means that you meet another dentist who has a differnt way of fixing teeth and incorporate what is efficient and works into your repetoire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    How diverse is ‘diverse’? At the mildest, you’ve simply described something that happens routinely. At the most extreme (eg. witchdoctors) we’re talking about practices that shouldn’t be regarded as dentistry at all. And even as far as that goes, you’re free to visit the witchdoctor if you like (or as a dentist, you’re free to change careers and practice witchdoctoring). No law against any of that. But to call it dentistry isn’t allowed, and shouldn’t be allowed, for very good reasons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @DissidentRight

    and a continual effort to keep blowing hot air to keep the Good Balloon Darwin floating. What happens when that gov’t cheese vanishes as it must (20 T in debt), and evidence gets more fairly evaluated? [...]

    Just like Lenin, all those statues of Darwin are going to be torn down by a liberated people. Its in the five to twenty year range. You’re spitting into the wind when you say evolution is a settled fact.
     
    Bingo! And what consequences will this have for atheism's intellectual high ground? What consequences will it have for popular religion? Welcome to New Christendom.

    To me, they’ve lost the high ground some years back. Confessing to being an atheist is like saying ‘I be reel smaht.’ Now, that’s IMO.

    I’d practice being condescending is my suggestion of doubtful value. Sigh in pity the next time some atheist talks to you. Me, I don’t have to practice, I’m naturally talented at it.

    Good comment, DR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @CPEG
    Ah, James P Hogan... "Rockets, Redheads, and Revolution" included my first exposure to conspiracy theories and climate skepticism. Good memories.

    I think first time I met him, he was sitting at a big round table, and he mentioned R,R, and R to me and my then fiance’ (now my wife of 17 or so years.) It was at some convention or something. I didn’t read it, but I’ve read about a half-dozen of his other books.

    Good memories, indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. JackOH says:
    @Randal
    A good discussion, although my own default position is basically that "there is no there, there" as far as trying to define "the Alt Right" is concerned. The Alt Right is not a party, nor any kind of organisation, nor does it have any philosophy as such. It's surely best just defined as anyone who is on the right (and thereby hangs another long and complicated tale of definition) but not of the mainstream or establishment right, imo. That said, many desperately want to define it further, from Vox Day's valiant effort here described to Richard Spencer and his enemies.

    A couple of my own quibbles with Derbyshire's comments:

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.
     
    I think it's vitally important to maintain a recognition of the basic foreignness of judaism in Christian countries, especially now that there is an explicitly jewish state, which creates around them the kind of problem Catholics constituted for England in the C16th-C19th. I don't think of myself as meaningfully anti-Semitic, since I don't hate jews, but as a result of putting that opinion forward I was accused of having perpetrated one of the worst antisemitic statements he'd ever seen, by a jewish identity lobbyist with whom the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for policing hate speech nationally apparently agreed about my general heinousness in this regard. The jewish lobbies' attempts to promote the enforcement of this kind of speechcrime law is of course another strong reason to keep their basic foreignness in mind.

    That’s a kind of fielder’s-choice point, though.
     
    This appears to be a rather obscure reference to something derived from the American version of rounders.

    Randal, thanks, you have good sense here. I’ve only heard the expression “Alt-Right” on these pages. The best I can make out is that it refers to a jumble of ideas that really never went away, such as eugenics and dysgenics, and that have gained a bit of new life thanks in part to the excesses of the Black lobbies and Jewish-Zionist lobbies.

    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what’s going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That’s something worth defending.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I just think of all of this - under whatever title - as European Americans thinking and acting like every other people on the planet. We want to preserve our people and culture. We want to carve out a space for ourselves whether that be within a larger society or on our own. We want to rule ourselves.

    This is what every group wants. What we're discussing is actually quite banal, except that it's whites who are bringing it.
    , @Randal
    Cheers, JackOH.

    I’ve only heard the expression “Alt-Right” on these pages.
     
    I come across it fairly regularly in the mainstream, such as in the UK's Channel 4 documentary blurb in my other post on this thread. It's mostly used as a synonym, as it is there, for Richard Spencer's lot and related politics.


    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what’s going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That’s something worth defending.
     
    Exactly so (and Citizen's reply as well). It's a much-needed corrective to a longstanding thrust to uniquely demonize white/Euro-American people and culture for the benefit of radicals and various ethnic and other lobbies and interest groups.
    , @anonymous

    ...such as the murderousness of the 20th century, ... are still a pretty damned good people.
     
    LOL! How about the 21st century, cursed one?

    Anyway, your kind has always been greedy psychopathic murderers, who will go to any extent to establish hegemony in all spheres, over all people, and the evil you have resorted to has earned yourselves a just comeuppance in the fiery pits of Hell.

    As they say, the higher you rise, the harder you fall. The fall is Hell, baby. :)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @JackOH
    Randal, thanks, you have good sense here. I've only heard the expression "Alt-Right" on these pages. The best I can make out is that it refers to a jumble of ideas that really never went away, such as eugenics and dysgenics, and that have gained a bit of new life thanks in part to the excesses of the Black lobbies and Jewish-Zionist lobbies.

    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what's going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That's something worth defending.

    I just think of all of this – under whatever title – as European Americans thinking and acting like every other people on the planet. We want to preserve our people and culture. We want to carve out a space for ourselves whether that be within a larger society or on our own. We want to rule ourselves.

    This is what every group wants. What we’re discussing is actually quite banal, except that it’s whites who are bringing it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Philip Neal says: • Website

    I once asked on the Libertarian Alliance site in Sean Gabb’s day where we get the idea that the free movement of people is supposed to be economically beneficial. Gabb referred me to various books by Ludwig von Mises. Mises seems to demonstrate that, by Ricardo’s theorem, a merged unit of England and Portugal would be better off than under protectionism or even under free trade between the two nations. However, he does not attempt to demonstrate that the merger would be better for the existing people of England and their descendants, because for him the question would be meaningless. He held that nations are a purely cultural phenomenon with no basis in genetic reality and that after a merger, there would be no such thing as the original inhabitants of England. It seems that the benefits of open borders are not strictly speaking derived from economic law but from an assumption or methodological principle smuggled into economics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    It makes more sense when you realize Mises was an Austrian Jew. For once the former part is more important. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled central Europe and when it fell, you got a bunch of new states that immediately set up their own economic policies and proceeded to be worse of then the empire.

    As long as you don't have democracy or a welfare state, Mises proposition is true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. > When the slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, or an asteroid hits, or a supervolcano pops, we shall all become globalists overnight.
    Why? UN and new commintern promote non-existent, fairy tale “catastrophes” to subvert and destroy all existing power groups not completely dominated by them, and don’t even bother to hide it. Why would an actual problem make them a better option?
    Also, why those who currently are traitors harming their people and land and compete to paint any sort of abomination with thick layers of euphemisms for some crumbles from Soros, UN, etc would not do exactly the same for slave traders from Alpha Centauri? As the fall of USSR demonstrated, the system promoting internal bootlickers is susceptible to conversion into external bootlickers. If you have a shipload of rats, when they’ll jump the ship is only a matter of which way the wind blow.

    > What do the “unique strengths” of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?

    That’s not the important question in this context. The important question is what does it avail them in the world THEY actually live in. Beyond that, it’s either
    A) Their choice of whether they try to go live in (for example) New York on its conditions, try to copy it, ignore its existence, something in between, or something else entirely. Nobody drags them there.
    And of how exactly they go about it – let the others rent land, sell souvenirs, hire as safari guides, go panhandling or put their money together and hire someone to build a fish canning factory and teach them to use it. It’s their time, resources and risks, and their winnings or losses. Or
    B) Someone from the outside intrudes and does there whatever said intruder (rather than Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines) wants, their opinions are ignored.

    From explicit rejection of colonialism and interventionism (#6,7,10,15) follows disagreement with (B).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. Vox Day is a goof and not to be taken seriously. All said and done, he’s a plus to the movement but a rather shallow and snippy character. And he sometimes goes for low-hanging fruits like Andrew Anglin whose only value is as class clown.

    1. The Alt Right is of the political right… Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

    Big problem with this. Even though people who call themselves ‘socialists’ are not Alt Right, Alt Right is open to socialism as component of economics. Alt Right is neo-fascist or social-democratic in accepting both socialism and capitalism. Indeed, this capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is rather useless in our world. When capitalist had free rein in the 19th century and when communists called for abolition of private property, one could speak of capitalists vs socialists. However, esp following WWII, both Europe and US have adopted economic policies that combine capitalism and socialism. Even American Conservatives who are all for free enterprise would not vote for politicians who would end social security and other government programs. And even American Liberals who call themselves ‘socialists’ wanna live in nations with powerful capitalist economies. Just consider. If socialists are really and truly socialist, why not be like Amish folks? Why not get together and work on communes and share everything? But so-called socialists in US and EU don’t act this way. They always try to move to the most affluent urban areas and try to live off capitalists. They write books and plays in the hopes that the affluent class will buy them. As ‘artists’, they seek rich patrons to sponsor and fund their projects. As academics, they teach at universities funded by rich donors. Consider the ton of money Harvard and Yale have due to donors. These donors made their money in capitalism, not socialism. And if these ‘socialists’ are into artisanal work, they make fancy stuff for rich folks. Artisanal beer, Artisanal candy, Artisanal candles, etc. They are ‘socialist’ in the sense that Europeans used to be ‘Christian’. The label makes them sound noble, caring, and into ‘social justice’. But they would never want to live in a socialist nation. They want to feed on capitalist success. Your average ‘socialist’ moves to glitzy cities like San Fran or NY.

    In the 60s, some ‘socialist’ types did try to live in communes, but it didn’t work. Unlike Amish who are disciplined, humble, orderly, and virtuous — I guess Mormons are free-market materialist Amish — , the ‘socialists’ were into hedonism, drugs, orgies, and etc. They were more into bumming off others than working for the common good. It’s like the hippie commune in EASY RIDER where the folks are more into long hair, weed, and skinny-dipping than getting up in the morning and doing chores like milking cows and making butter. Look what the hippie ‘socialists’ did to Woodstock. If not for the wage-slave Portosan man, the place would have been covered with shi*.

    Anyway, Alt Right seeks to move beyond this ‘capitalism vs socialism’ dichotomy. While socialism can be anti-right, so can capitalism. The root of rightism is nationalism and identity in race and culture. Capitalists will easily betray their own race and nation just for more profits or status. To a capitalist, profits and prestige matter more than anything. Anything for profits.
    Worse, once a society turns hedonist and shameless, capitalism begins to focus on vice industry to feed on people’s weakness for fast pleasure in food, trash culture, sex, and etc. Shameless and hedonistic capitalism is the basis of globalist control of the populace.
    True Power comes from self-control. Those who lose control over themselves won’t be able to control much else. It’s like once American Indians surrendered to the pleasures of firewater, they lost the pride and will. And Chinese on opium were lost in lala-land while their families and nation were being sold off to imperialists. White people are lost because so many of them are addicted to the opiate of pop culture.

    And it’s about mindless excessive appetites, indulgences, and therapies. It says pig out, hump all over, laugh like tard at OW MY BALLS(see IDIOCRACY), play dumb video games, and worship comic book super heroes. It promotes infantilism, and this is reflected in the political culture of celebrity, vanity, and therapy. So, there is babyish PC that divides the world in goodies and baddies. And progs cry and wail like babies and call people ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ and ‘homophobic’ and chant slogans like ‘black lives matter’. And then, there are all these therapies that, instead of telling people to get real and grow up, indulge them in their self-aggrandizing baby-emotions…. like General Silvestra who indulged that lowlife black ‘hate hoaxer’ who was responsible for the KKK vandalism.
    Indeed, it is interesting how the very people who push this EXTREMISM in appetites and ideology are the ones who accuse Alt Right and any basic patriots as ‘far right’ and ‘extreme’. Alt Right is calling for self-control over appetites. It’s not calling for globalist imperialism or war-mongering. It’s calling for the right of each Western nation to survive as and for what it is. How is that extreme? In contrast, globalists call for More Wars and More Intervention even after such ventures destroyed much of the Middle East and led to useless ‘new cold war’ with Russia. Globalists also say the native peoples of US and EU must be replaced by nasty non-white ingrates. Yet, that is considered ‘normal’ while basic nationalism 101 that is pro-peace and pro-borders is denounced as ‘far right’ and ‘extremist’. What a crazy world. Consider Francis Fukuyama, aka George Soros’ dog. He should be called Fukyomama because this lowlife is so convinced that wars and mass invasions are justified because they hasten the ‘end of history’ when it’s really hastening the End of Humanity.

    2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA

    [MORE]

    Alt Right is that but it is also an alternative to old-style far right of white politics and white supremacism as represented by organizations like KKK and Neo-Nazis. It is also an alternative to the grim and dour racial apocalyptic views of men like William Pierce.
    KKK was too hick. Neo-Nazis were too deranged and demented. And men like Pierce came across as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, they were very bourgeois and respectable, but their views were nutty or insane.
    And then, there were men like William Shockley who didn’t crank out nutter visions like TURNER DIARIES. But Alt Right differs from them as well. The problem with men like Shockley was they thought they could persuade people with rational arguments and facts alone. But any socio-political movement must have vision, passion, and the prophetic thing. Shockley never had it. Jared Taylor and his kind have a broader vision, but they too are focused on rational discussion. Alt Right understands that cautious rational arguments are not enough. People want to be swept up by a collective passion that stirs their hearts and minds. And this is why Alt Right is anti-stuffy and not very bourgeois in its attitude and approach. It is looser, even bohemian, and Spencer certainly has edgy tendencies. Also, Alt Right understands that even race-rationalists like Shockley(and perhaps even James Watson) are motivated by something more than facts and logic. They are pro-white because they are white and feel comfortable being white and want to preserve white civilization. It’s not just about IQ. Would Shockley have been okay if blacks were to gain equal intelligence with whites and then humped tons of white women to make mulatto babies? My guess is NO. So, it’s a vision of OUR PEOPLE and OUR CULTURE and OUR LAND. Alt Right is more honest about the roots of the movement. It’s not mainly about rational discussion of IQ. It’s about Race and Culture. In this respect, George Hee-Hawley is right in his wussy-boy book on the Alt Right. Hee-Hawley is too much of a Pee-Wee-Herman to be a proud white man. He has characteristics of CucKen Burns and looks like a dork. And by ‘racism’, he doesn’t mean race-ism but ‘nasty nah nah racism’. Still, he is right to understand that Racial Identity is at the core of Alt Right. Alt Right has a sense of racial and cultural family. And it is for this reason that Alt Right understands that nationalism must be a kind of ethno-socialism. After all, Zionism is a nationalism that necessitates racial-socialism. Zionism says that the richest Jew must see even poor Jews in Israel(and around the world) as fellow brethren. So, rich Jews in Israel must favor poor Jews than rich gentiles. He may do business with rich gentiles, but when all is said and done, even a poor Jew is more his brother than a rich gentile is. Indeed, Jewish-Americanism is racial socialism. After all, why did Jews push the US government to save Soviet Jews where there were plenty of people far worse off than Jews in the USSR? Because Jews cared about fellow Jews. Now, if Jews are totally beyond race, rich Jews should identify mainly with rich gentiles. But even as Jews told rich gentiles to betray and abandon their own kind, rich Jews never stopped caring for less fortunate Jews, like in USSR or Romania. Rich Jews bribed Ceucescu to let Romania’s Jews to immigrate to Israel. This is the basis of Jewish Power. Racial-Socialism or Nationalism among all Jews. Jews fear that if white gentiles regain the same mindset(as white elites during the New Deal cared about poor whites like those in GRAPES OF WRATH), they will lead and serve white masses than serve rich Jews. This is why Jews push libertarianism on whites. It serves as a wedge between rich successful whites and masses of whites. Jews also push socialism on whites, but it’s ‘anti-racist’ kind that forbids rich whites to care about less fortunate whites. If rich or successful whites are to be ‘noble’, they must take care of non-whites… .like Bill Gates spending billions of dollars to help blacks and others but never whites. Racial-socialism is good enough for Jews but never good for whites by rules of PC.

    This is what the Alt Right opposes, and this is why it is feared. To Jewish globalists, ‘unite the right’ sounds like Unite the White from top to bottom. This is why Spencer calls on Trump to pass Single Payer. All this ‘muh free enterprise’ has only helped to drive a wedge between white have-lots and white have-lesses.

    That said, another reason for Alt Right’s appeal is it is the ONLY force out there that is willing to speak honestly about the Power. Mainstream Media of both ‘right’ and ‘left’ are all owned by the Globalist Establishment. Now, there are many alternative voices, organizations, and etc. Alt-Right doesn’t own the ‘alternative’ label, which has a long pedigree. There are alternative voices on the Left, Libertarianism, white nationalism, anarchism, feminism, and etc. Esp in the age of the internet, there are tons of alternative voices with so many bloggers and cloggers.

    So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of the alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY ‘movement’ that really doesn’t give a crap about PC. Now, I’m defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is ‘politically incorrect’ to Mainstream PC, it is also about mental straitjackets and iron dogma. For the white supremacist types, Hitler did no wrong, or it would have been better if Germans won. Or Stalin intended to invade first, and Hitler only attacked out of defense. Or everything Jewish is evil or suspect. Or the Shoah is one big lie and the only Jews who died was due to starvation under duress of war.
    What the white supremacists and proggy PC have in common is this kind of dogmatism. Anyone who has tried to discuss reality with a communist, BLM moron, homomaniac, radical feminist, libertarian, or some such know it’s like talking to a brick wall. It’s like Stefan Molyneux the baldie losing his last few hairs while trying to talk logic with a commie.
    And we don’t expect too much from Evangelicals who just rely on faith and hallelujah and glory be and all that childlike stuff. They are sheeple. Even when Evangelicals oppose homo agenda, it’s not based on truth or moral logic but on the Bible, as if modern society can be organized around what was written 1000s of yrs ago.

    Now, one would expect far-left commies and far-right white supremacists(for whom supremacism is a crutch because they are fat, low IQ, morons usually) to be thick-skulled. In contrast, we might expect liberals and moderate conservatives to be open-minded, intellectually honest, and respectful of free speech and etc. But not so. PC permeates into every corner of Western Discourse. So, moderate respectable conservatives will claim to champion liberty, constitution, and free speech(along with traditional values), but they run scared and shi* their pants when faced with honest discussion of race and Jewish power. Today, most of these conservatives don’t even have the balls to say NO to homomania. Even Charles Murray the baldie cucked out on homo stuff. And these conservatives never oppose censorship of voices that speak truth to Jewish power. Mark Steyn talks big about Muslims but never about Zionists and their bad deeds in West Bank.
    As for liberals, most of them are illiberal. On many issues and subjects, they are indeed bona fide liberals in the best sense of the word. But when anything intersects with issues of race or steps on shibboleths of Proggy PC, the liberal minds close the shutters and turn illiberal.
    Liberals go for Compassion Supremacism or Sensitivity-Supremacism that says certain groups deserve more love, care, praise, and protection than others. So, even though Liberals will pretend to denounce all forms of ‘bigotry’, they care far less about negative things said about Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or Mexicans than about the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, while liberals are open to any general subject, they shut their minds when the subject encroaches on their holy taboos. Take the issue of Culture and Work Ethic. Suppose someone says the problem with Russia is the lack of work ethic compared to, say, Germans and Japanese. Liberals may agree or disagree, but they will listen to the argument with an open mind. But suppose you then say the same about blacks. Suddenly, the liberal will gets antsy and panicky and fulminate and call you ‘racist’ and etc.
    Or, suppose you say the problem with China is corruption. As such, any Western businessman who wants to do business should keep his guard up and learn something about Chinese culture, attitudes, and way of doing things. Again, the liberal may agree or disagree, but he will discuss the issue. But if you say Jews have become very corrupt and abusive and that we need to be more critical of Jewish power, the liberal(esp if Jewish) will have conniptions, tell you to shut up, and say the discussion is OVER. This is why liberals have become useless on certain key issues. They are still good on many subjects but they cannot honesty grapple with certain matters due to their holy taboos. No matter how committed they are to free speech and open-minded discourse, those principles are overridden by The Taboo. Liberal minds have been programmed that way.
    Also, PC won’t allow honest discussion of Shoah. While Holocaust-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people just like to be the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked apollo landing), not everyone who questions aspects of Shoah are ‘deniers’. David Cole is not a denier, but he’s been labeled as such because he refused to conform to the Official Narrative that said 6 million died in such and such manner. Too many Jewish Liberals will label as ‘denier’ anyone who dares to raise questions. Or they will label as ‘deniers’ even though who adhere to the official narrative but try to understand WHY the Nazis did what they did as extreme reaction to radical excesses of Jews and the times(that sought scapegoats of one form or another all across the political spectrum).

    So, we have white supremacists with their dogma. Because they can’t move beyond Heil Hitler, they can’t be true members of Alt Right.

    As for everyone else, from the far-left commies to globalist liberals to far-libertarians to Conservatism Inc., they are all restrained by the Taboo of the Holy Three. They cannot speak honestly about Jewish Power. The far-left will denounce Zionism but is loathe to connect the dots between Zionism and Jewish power in the US. Libertarians claim to support total freedom, but they turn PC on issues related to blacks and homos. And Conservative Inc. denounces the Left without mentioning that the globalist Left is largely funded and led by Jews. Con Inc. won’t even face the fact that Homomania is a Jewish proxy agenda. And even as Conservatives denounce crime, they will not state the obvious fact that blacks commit more crime because they are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is where Alt Right is different. You don’t have to be nazi-tard to join. And on issues that command so much silence, cuckery, timidity, and cowardice, the Alt Right speaks freely: Jewish Power, Black thuggery, and Homo degeneracy.
    And yet, on issues like homos, it refuses to follow the dumb Evangelical handbook. While Alt Right opposes the homo agenda — making homomania the New Normal — , it accepts the science on homosexuality, i.e. that some people are born homo, it’s not their ‘fault’, and they should be allowed to be homo and do their thing. And if they have talent, it should be praised and admired. If Alt Right had played a role in the homo debate, it would have been more interesting. But while the media and powers-that-be were going all-homo, what did we get from the Right? Silence from Con Inc. that was so afraid of alienating Jews(as even Neocons were pushing homo crap) and ‘Muh Bible’ from Evangelicals as if social policy can be decided by what’s in the Bible.

    This is why Alt Right made a difference. And this is what the Alt Right must never lose sight of. As Alt Right coalesces more into a real movement, if it insists on dogma and taboos, it will lose its edge and its appeal even to those who detest what the Core Ideology of the Alt Right stands for. The fact is even radical anti-race-ists have been provoked and stimulated by the Alt Right that is so willing to talk about issues that are forbidden by PC all across the spectrum from far left to Con Inc. (And far-right Nazitards have their own PC taboos. ‘Muh Fuhrer’.)
    It’s like the European Marxists and Frankfurt School gained a degree of respect even from elements of the Right. While the Soviet Left turned utterly Stalinist and statist-dogmatic and predictable, the European neo-Marxists were interesting in their critique of modernity, materialism, capitalism, individualism, and Soviet communism. And even Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Gore Vidal had reluctant admirers on the Right because they approached and criticized American Empire from angles ignored by mainstream media or hardline leftist.
    Still, even alt-left figures were bound by the Taboos. Chomsky was critical of Zionism but didn’t connect it with Jewish American Power, nor did he address the ethnic character of US media monopoly. After all, if US media were monopolized by Mexican-Americans or Muslim-Americans, the result would be different.

    Due to WWII and Shoah-guilt as New Religion of the Secular West, the West was loathe to speak honestly about Jewish Power. Also, due to Black Slavery narrative and anti-imperialism — and blacks as the colorful face of ‘social justice’ — , blacks became objects of semi-worship, culminating in the Magic Mountain Negro or Montenegro in GREEN MILE. And as pop culture turned the West into a hedonistic celebrapolis of narcissism and excess, it wasn’t long before homos rode on that wave to become the neo-angels of globalism. Esp with the help of Jewish Media, homos spun their self-created disaster — AIDS epidemic — as their own kind of ‘holocaust’.

    And then, the media and academia turned into endless fests of praising Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, Americanism(which also infects the EU) is about little more than praising Jews, blacks, and homos. No ideology tops the ‘iconology’ of the Holy Three. You can say you disagree with the fundamental principles of America’s founding, and that’s okay. But if you say anything that runs counter to the spirit of the Holy Three, you are done for.

    Alt Right is iconoclastic force against the Holy Three. It is more effective in challenging the Taboo because it doesn’t play by the dogmatic White Supremacist neo-Nazi playbook. If anything, the Neo-Nazis could almost be seen as part of PC proggism. It’s no wonder that so many Jews pretended to be Nazis. It’s no wonder so many FBI types infiltrated the movement. According to PC, any kind of white identity or white interests is NAZI or KKK, thus automatically discrediting itself. And the white supremacist morons obliged this narrative with their retarded gestures, dumb narratives, and beer-belly ubermensch ‘larping’.
    Even as proggy PC detested the Neo-Nazi-KKK morons, it saw propaganda value in white supremacists making total fools of themselves. It’s like the Globo Media found the Westboro church so useful in making the anti-homo side seem like a bunch of Christian-tard nutters. According to the PC narrative, any pro-white person must be ‘nazi’ and anyone who opposes the homo agenda must be a crazy Christian lunatic protesting military funerals.

    But Alt Right didn’t play to this script. It cogently laid out how it sees the Power Dynamic in the West, and it’s been more right than wrong, easily done since PC has suppressed so much necessary criticism of the Power. The ripple effects have been that even anti-Alt-Right people are more willing to discuss certain issues. The Overton window has been shifted, if only slightly.

    5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

    Derb: No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism?

    The answer to Derbyshire’s question is Localism. Let Spanish and Catalans arrive at what is best for them. Non-Spanish and Non-Catalans might offer their advice and opinions, but it should be handled as local affair between Cats and Spans.

    7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

    Actually, it’s better to say Alt Right is honestly anti-equalitarian. Let’s face it. NO ONE believes in equality. Everyone with sense knows that Jews are smarter than Gypsies, West Africans can outrun Hindus, and Germans are, on average, taller than Mexicans.

    Alt Right is just honest about what everyone knows. I mean do Jews really believe than any Bolivian peasant can excel in finance in huge numbers? Do blacks really feel that Chinese are suddenly gonna win in 100m sprints?

    8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption

    Derb:
    It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.

    Vox Day is a sci-fi writer and them fellers have these funny ideas. He’s just being sciencefictionoid with terminology.

    Derb: a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision. Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.

    True enough, but I think Vox Day was talking about social sciences. After all, theories on atoms and stars have no bearing on matters of politics and society. But scientific matters relating to humans have huge relevance and implications. And there has been too much ‘scientistry — scientific sophistry — in the field. Scientistry is like quack dentistry where the wrong tooth is pulled out. So, even though the black tooth must be removed to stop the pain, white ones are yanked out. It’s Clouseauean Dentistry.

    Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?

    True, but if SK were to reunite with any nation, wouldn’t it be easier with NK than with Japan even though SK and Japan are economically and politically similar?
    Or look at Israel. Jews came from capitalist nations, communist nations, Muslim-majority nations, Christian-majority nations, and etc. Many spoke different languages and few knew Hebrew. There were religious Jews, secular Jews, and etc. But they made it work because they were bound by identity as the basis.
    Now, imagine creating a new nation based solely on creed. Suppose German Christians, African Christians, Chinese Christians, Mexican Christians, Arab Christians, and etc all came together to form a nation based on Jesus. Would it work as well? Or imagine a new nation founded on shared ideology of capitalism. Suppose French capitalists, Swedish capitalists, Nigerian capitalists, Turkish capitalist, Japanese capitalists, Indonesian capitalists, Pakistani capitalists, and etc all formed a nation. How long would it last?
    Thus far, US and Canada has held together despite diversity because there has been a Core Majority and Core narrative. But as they fray, can these nations remain together or function well based on shared general credos in ‘muh constitution’ and ‘muh liberty’?

    10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

    Derb: As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10.

    Indians don’t count. They were savages and had no civilization and had no means to resist white invaders. Also, the world was yet to be fully navigated and explored back then. Today, it’s different. Mankind has explored and mapped out and claimed every inch of territory. Also, the Age of Empire ended after WWII with non-whites telling whites to go home. So, we can have universal nationalism. Every part of the world has been CLAIMED by a particular people and culture. And this must be preserved and used as the fundamental principle for the world. After all, it’s called United NATIONS, not United Empire or United Economy.
    This common sense view is called ‘far right’. The real extremist forces are the far-globalists, far-imperialists, far-Zionists, far-profiteers(greed is their only creed), far-thugs(black criminals and lunatics), far-sluts(what has become of womenfolk), far-invaders(neo-colonialism with massive third world movements). Why should peoples be invading and colonizing other nations when all the world has been claimed? Also, the agreement after WWII was end of empire and imperialism. So, why do we have ‘reverse-imperialism’ whereby non-whites get to demographically swamp white nations?

    11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

    Derb: Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence.
    I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent.

    True enough, but by ‘diversity’, Vox Day surely means diversity as cancer than condition.
    Diversity as condition is a fact of any nation. Even the most homogeneous nations have some diversity, the presence of non-nationals and foreigners, some of whom are permanently settled. And those people can be tolerated as co-existing folks.

    But by Diversity in today’s parlance, it means Diversity as a cancer. Diversity as condition is like a tattoo. Good or bad, that tattoo will not expand. Diversity as cancer or Diversinoma is like skin cancer that starts small but never stops growing. PC and globalism say this is the only kind of Diversity that is good and NECESSARY. This is obviously a fatal disease for any racial-cultural civilization, but this is pushed by globalist quacks as the cure. It’s like Barbara Specter saying that, “In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode.” Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe. But cunning witches like her work on the earnest and naive good-will of Nordics who are especially easy suckers since they’ve been raised on Holocaust Guilt and the notion that white homogeneity = Nazism.

    13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

    Derb: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

    It depends on what one means by Free Trade. Surely, the Brits had free trade long ago but didn’t allow massive invasions of non-whites into Britain. Also, the leftist Scottish National Party is more pro-immigration. And Stalin moved plenty of people around in his empire.

    Still, what Vox means by ‘free trade’ in the 21st century is globalism. This is different from free trade in the past that meant commerce among sovereign nations with national governments that represented their own peoples. Today, free trade is based on globalist corporations who feel NO sense of allegiance to their own nation or people. So, ‘free trade’ now means free movement of capital and peoples for economic opportunity, investment, exploitation, colonization. It is a form of anarchy.

    Also, I think a kind of agreement has been made between rich and poor nations. It goes as follows. Rich nations can invest in poor nations, but just as First World industrialists gain access to Third World, Third World folks must have access to First World.. to work and toil and send remittances back home. It’s like US industrial elites gained access to Mexico, but US has to be opened to Mexicans who come in huge numbers and send back remittances.

    15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses

    Derb: Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. What do the “unique strengths” of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?

    Bushmen and Austro-Aborigines are outliers. They are few in number and don’t count. But when it comes to the major races, there are indeed advantages and disadvantages. While Japanese can make good gadgets and run an orderly society, they are short dorks and have no iconic value. So, even though they make all these electronic stuff, people prefer to see OTHER races on Japanese-made gadgets. Sony made a lot of TV and walkmans, and Japanese were good at making such stuff. But it was Negro athletes who were shown on TV. So, even though Negroes have little industrial value — they can’t run an economy — , they have much entertainment value, and that means billions around the world will be watching Negro runners and footballers. Look at China. Over billion people and they’re addicted to NBA Negroes. And look at all the Blapanese. They are almost all the result of black fathers and Japanese mothers. If Japan that has so few Negroes is going this way, imagine what is happening to EU.
    Sure, all those Negroes coming from Africa have little industrial value. They be jiving and messing things up. But blacks got more rhythm and funk and bigger dongs. And whites find black music, black muscle, and black meat very pleasurable and entertaining. So, blacks have superior hedonic value. As whites are addicted to Negropium, one can say blacks do have serious advantages over the white race. Derbyshire is a math-geek sort of person and judges worth by science and intellect. But most of humanity is pretty vulgar, trashy, and infantile. And they want fun, fun, fun. And since Negroes be flipping and jiving and humping more than others, Non-Negroes have come under the iconic-idolatrous power of the Negroids. Bongo, the power of Negroness, does have a decisive advantage in the modern world. Capitalism and West used to be about work ethic, virtue, and restraint. But with over-surplus of food, clothing, and production, the West no longer worries about enough-to-eat or essentials of survival. They care mostly about fun and pleasure. Vice industry has overtaken virtue industry. In PLACES IN THE SUN, the Negroes were willing to pick cotton for corn meal. But today, Negresses got fat asses from welfare and ‘twerk’ their fat asses as if having sex with bad boys, and white kids grow up to this music and dance as ‘western values’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Meimou
    So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of the alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY ‘movement’ that really doesn’t give a crap about PC. Now, I’m defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is ‘politically incorrect’ to Mainstream PC, it is also about mental straitjackets and iron dogma.

    In your screed you metion "white supremacist" as much as a sjw would, in fact dont think i have read those terms so much in one rant as i did now.

    Can you actully name one? Where are these ws? I don't even come across them on the net.

    You also refer to the KKK, neo nazis and "white supremacist" far right...like a sjw or cuckservative would. One who is far right takes traditionally right wing positions to the extreme, what positions do neo nazis, KKK and these fabled white supremacist to the extreme?
    , @Meimou
    While Holocaust-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people just like to be the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked apollo landing), not everyone who questions aspects of Shoah are ‘deniers’.

    I'll take what is armchair psychology for $50.000 Alex, no, on second thought, make that $6 gorlillan! Didn't know unz had debunkers. Isn't it possible that we simply don't believe in the OS? There is much to be skeptical of:

    1. Spending the resources to take hundreds of thousands(if not millions)of Eskimos into camps just to gas them. If extermination was the goal they would have killed when found or killed in large ditches like with all mass killing of that sort.

    2. Killing at least 4 gorlillian Eskimos in public camps without the world being aware of is preposterous .Keeping such a secret would be operationaly impossible without the intelligence agencies of the allies. A former spy evem wrote about his time in a camp - he said nothing of genocide.

    3. Germans exterminating Eskimos would be extremely valuable wartime propaganda, if I remember correctly lies were spread about the Germans gassing people in WW1. Why wouldn't the allies tell the world while it was happening?

    4. We are told from camp survivors that Eskimos were forced into cambers so tightly
    there was standing room only... why use gas? Why not let them suffocate? Surely it would be less time consuming than waiting for the gas to ventilate? It would also cost alot less.

    So much for German efficiency

    5. Not one of the survivors described the gassed bodies as pink or red, which is odd considering how specific survivor tales

    There is plenty more where that came from.
    , @silviosilver

    It’s like Barbara Specter saying that, “In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode.” Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe.
     
    I think what Specter means by "Europe" is the European Union version of Europe. Open borders Europe. "Anti-racist" (anti-white), cult marx Europe. Islamifying, negrifying Europe. That's the Europe she's talking about. And she's right, because that Europe could not hope to survive if Europeans turn to ethnonationalism and embrace ethnic and racial pride rather than racial self-flagellation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. jamie b. says:
    @Truth
    My friend, I think you miss the point. A lack of diversity would indicate that you, the dentist, did it the way your father taught you, who did it the way his father the dentist taught him, ad nauseum.

    Diversity means that you meet another dentist who has a differnt way of fixing teeth and incorporate what is efficient and works into your repetoire.

    How diverse is ‘diverse’? At the mildest, you’ve simply described something that happens routinely. At the most extreme (eg. witchdoctors) we’re talking about practices that shouldn’t be regarded as dentistry at all. And even as far as that goes, you’re free to visit the witchdoctor if you like (or as a dentist, you’re free to change careers and practice witchdoctoring). No law against any of that. But to call it dentistry isn’t allowed, and shouldn’t be allowed, for very good reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    I am not aware the whichdoctoring fixes teeth, and the types of societies that utilize this practice probably have very little need for dentists as they eat fresh fruit, vegetables and meats, and little sugar, preservatives or crystal meth, on a daily basis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. jamie b. says:
    @DissidentRight

    Exactly. Consensus in theology would mean nothing as there’s no empirical reference.
     
    No, I like the way I put it. Theologians don't build products. Neither do neo-Darwinian atheistic evolutionists. But at least "consensus" in theology would obviate a lot of human conflict. Where is the meaning in "consensus" on neo-Darwinism?

    So you literally mean ‘build products’?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Truth says:
    @jamie b.
    How diverse is ‘diverse’? At the mildest, you’ve simply described something that happens routinely. At the most extreme (eg. witchdoctors) we’re talking about practices that shouldn’t be regarded as dentistry at all. And even as far as that goes, you’re free to visit the witchdoctor if you like (or as a dentist, you’re free to change careers and practice witchdoctoring). No law against any of that. But to call it dentistry isn’t allowed, and shouldn’t be allowed, for very good reasons.

    I am not aware the whichdoctoring fixes teeth, and the types of societies that utilize this practice probably have very little need for dentists as they eat fresh fruit, vegetables and meats, and little sugar, preservatives or crystal meth, on a daily basis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    Well, I had to come up with something more extreme than medicinal leeching.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. yeah says:

    I am not very good at labelling games because I tend to get stuck in a pedantic pursuit of exactness and precision: what label goes where and why? Even after reading some brilliant and erudite posts on “Alt Right” here, I must confess to not feeling much wiser. How about a “For dummies”, by example kind of explanation from some of you kind folk. How would you label the gents below and why? Never mind their self-affixed labels.
    Pat Buchanan
    Fred Reed
    President Trump
    Paul Craig Roberts (Yes, I know he may not be Alt Right, but what might be the best label?)
    Milton Friedman
    Ann Ryand (the only lady on this list)

    Thanks in advance!

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    Pat Buchanan: paleo right
    most people in the past believed in heredity but the concept was very blocky e.g. black and white etc categories seen as solid blocks, which was predictive on average but had enough flaws it was easy to knock down. the modern conception of heredity is more flexible so can get around the standard objections. you could say the paleo right was the alt-right with one arm tied behind their back and thus often pushed into half-hearted civic nationalism as a result.

    Fred Reed: not sure

    President Trump: mostly straight forward civic nationalist (culture > heredity) with a bit of paleo right

    Paul Craig Roberts: hard to say as most of what i've read of his was focused more on international policy more than than domestic policy - i'd guess he was paleo right.

    Milton Friedman,Ann Rand: international capitalist
    the purpose of public policy should be things like security and affordable family formation imo so relative economic efficiency is important but only when subordinate to a higher goal - having economic efficiency as the goal itself is the capitalist version of poz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. whoever says: • Website

    We English

    Yet you are always calling yourself an American, and recently you even described yourself as a “legacy American.”
    Really.
    (¬_¬)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Randal says:
    @JackOH
    Randal, thanks, you have good sense here. I've only heard the expression "Alt-Right" on these pages. The best I can make out is that it refers to a jumble of ideas that really never went away, such as eugenics and dysgenics, and that have gained a bit of new life thanks in part to the excesses of the Black lobbies and Jewish-Zionist lobbies.

    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what's going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That's something worth defending.

    Cheers, JackOH.

    I’ve only heard the expression “Alt-Right” on these pages.

    I come across it fairly regularly in the mainstream, such as in the UK’s Channel 4 documentary blurb in my other post on this thread. It’s mostly used as a synonym, as it is there, for Richard Spencer’s lot and related politics.

    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what’s going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That’s something worth defending.

    Exactly so (and Citizen’s reply as well). It’s a much-needed corrective to a longstanding thrust to uniquely demonize white/Euro-American people and culture for the benefit of radicals and various ethnic and other lobbies and interest groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    are still a pretty damned good people.
     
    Also;

    If you mean in an outwardly manner, say like everyone's favourite psycho, Hannibal, then yes, you fellows do seem quite agreeable... manners well cultivated to deceive.

    It is what is within the hearts and minds, and the actions those depraved organs set into motion, which is most chilling.

    , @JackOH
    "Exactly so (and Citizen’s reply as well). It’s a much-needed corrective to a longstanding thrust to uniquely demonize white/Euro-American people and culture for the benefit of radicals and various ethnic and other lobbies and interest groups."

    Agree 100%. Only have time for a very brief response. Our 1914-1945 Euro-American war seems to have lent to Africans, Western Asians, and others an undue, unearned virtue, at least in my opinion. Four generations later, Africa still has its begging bowl, despite those naughty, colonizing Europeans having disappeared or been tossed from power. Western Asia is a mess of low-grade wars and religious animus, and, there too, the colonizer-conquerors are mostly gone.

    Solution? We Euro-Americans are going to have to get past the 1914-1945 thing if we want to address today's problems with uprightness. And one more thing. We Euro-Americans need to get off our high horses. We're not as evil as some of us think, or as others wish to portray us.

    Again, sorry for the brevity. Best wishes. Thanks for your good comments on this site.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. jamie b. says:
    @Truth
    I am not aware the whichdoctoring fixes teeth, and the types of societies that utilize this practice probably have very little need for dentists as they eat fresh fruit, vegetables and meats, and little sugar, preservatives or crystal meth, on a daily basis.

    Well, I had to come up with something more extreme than medicinal leeching.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Philip Neal
    I once asked on the Libertarian Alliance site in Sean Gabb's day where we get the idea that the free movement of people is supposed to be economically beneficial. Gabb referred me to various books by Ludwig von Mises. Mises seems to demonstrate that, by Ricardo's theorem, a merged unit of England and Portugal would be better off than under protectionism or even under free trade between the two nations. However, he does not attempt to demonstrate that the merger would be better for the existing people of England and their descendants, because for him the question would be meaningless. He held that nations are a purely cultural phenomenon with no basis in genetic reality and that after a merger, there would be no such thing as the original inhabitants of England. It seems that the benefits of open borders are not strictly speaking derived from economic law but from an assumption or methodological principle smuggled into economics.

    It makes more sense when you realize Mises was an Austrian Jew. For once the former part is more important. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled central Europe and when it fell, you got a bunch of new states that immediately set up their own economic policies and proceeded to be worse of then the empire.

    As long as you don’t have democracy or a welfare state, Mises proposition is true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled central Europe and when it fell, you got a bunch of new states that immediately set up their own economic policies and proceeded to be worse of then the empire. As long as you don’t have democracy or a welfare state, Mises proposition is true.

    The Hapsburgs established electoral and conciliar institutions during the 1850s, as did the German states. Universal male suffrage was instituted in 1907. Mises was 26 at the time.

    What was 'worse' about the successor states? They had economic problems during the inter-war period but that was a feature of life all over the occidental world. Parliamentary institutions had by 1935 failed everywhere but Czechoslovakia and (with some qualification) Hungary, but they also failed in a string of places that had no Hapsburg territory and often failed earlier (see Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany, and the Baltic states).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. El'geherg says: • Website
    @Mark G.
    The Alt Right believes in biological based differences in the areas of race and gender. Libertarians believe in free market economics. Wouldn't it be possible to believe in both of those two things simultaneously? They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I think I believe in both and I have arrived at many policy positions that would be acceptable to both camps. For example, I support restricted immigration both because most immigrants are third worlders with low IQ levels and their descendants will be the same and so will never contribute to the economy and also because most immigrants lean socialist on economics and would drive the country in an anti-libertarian direction if they became citizens and got to vote.

    Within the Alt-Right universe you will find a lot of different economic positions from AnCap to National Socialism to neo-reactionary thought but all united on the reality of race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Meimou says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    Vox Day is a goof and not to be taken seriously. All said and done, he's a plus to the movement but a rather shallow and snippy character. And he sometimes goes for low-hanging fruits like Andrew Anglin whose only value is as class clown.

    1. The Alt Right is of the political right... Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

    Big problem with this. Even though people who call themselves 'socialists' are not Alt Right, Alt Right is open to socialism as component of economics. Alt Right is neo-fascist or social-democratic in accepting both socialism and capitalism. Indeed, this capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is rather useless in our world. When capitalist had free rein in the 19th century and when communists called for abolition of private property, one could speak of capitalists vs socialists. However, esp following WWII, both Europe and US have adopted economic policies that combine capitalism and socialism. Even American Conservatives who are all for free enterprise would not vote for politicians who would end social security and other government programs. And even American Liberals who call themselves 'socialists' wanna live in nations with powerful capitalist economies. Just consider. If socialists are really and truly socialist, why not be like Amish folks? Why not get together and work on communes and share everything? But so-called socialists in US and EU don't act this way. They always try to move to the most affluent urban areas and try to live off capitalists. They write books and plays in the hopes that the affluent class will buy them. As 'artists', they seek rich patrons to sponsor and fund their projects. As academics, they teach at universities funded by rich donors. Consider the ton of money Harvard and Yale have due to donors. These donors made their money in capitalism, not socialism. And if these 'socialists' are into artisanal work, they make fancy stuff for rich folks. Artisanal beer, Artisanal candy, Artisanal candles, etc. They are 'socialist' in the sense that Europeans used to be 'Christian'. The label makes them sound noble, caring, and into 'social justice'. But they would never want to live in a socialist nation. They want to feed on capitalist success. Your average 'socialist' moves to glitzy cities like San Fran or NY.

    In the 60s, some 'socialist' types did try to live in communes, but it didn't work. Unlike Amish who are disciplined, humble, orderly, and virtuous -- I guess Mormons are free-market materialist Amish -- , the 'socialists' were into hedonism, drugs, orgies, and etc. They were more into bumming off others than working for the common good. It's like the hippie commune in EASY RIDER where the folks are more into long hair, weed, and skinny-dipping than getting up in the morning and doing chores like milking cows and making butter. Look what the hippie 'socialists' did to Woodstock. If not for the wage-slave Portosan man, the place would have been covered with shi*.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch6yn_toTbI

    Anyway, Alt Right seeks to move beyond this 'capitalism vs socialism' dichotomy. While socialism can be anti-right, so can capitalism. The root of rightism is nationalism and identity in race and culture. Capitalists will easily betray their own race and nation just for more profits or status. To a capitalist, profits and prestige matter more than anything. Anything for profits.
    Worse, once a society turns hedonist and shameless, capitalism begins to focus on vice industry to feed on people's weakness for fast pleasure in food, trash culture, sex, and etc. Shameless and hedonistic capitalism is the basis of globalist control of the populace.
    True Power comes from self-control. Those who lose control over themselves won't be able to control much else. It's like once American Indians surrendered to the pleasures of firewater, they lost the pride and will. And Chinese on opium were lost in lala-land while their families and nation were being sold off to imperialists. White people are lost because so many of them are addicted to the opiate of pop culture.

    And it's about mindless excessive appetites, indulgences, and therapies. It says pig out, hump all over, laugh like tard at OW MY BALLS(see IDIOCRACY), play dumb video games, and worship comic book super heroes. It promotes infantilism, and this is reflected in the political culture of celebrity, vanity, and therapy. So, there is babyish PC that divides the world in goodies and baddies. And progs cry and wail like babies and call people 'racist' and 'white supremacist' and 'homophobic' and chant slogans like 'black lives matter'. And then, there are all these therapies that, instead of telling people to get real and grow up, indulge them in their self-aggrandizing baby-emotions.... like General Silvestra who indulged that lowlife black 'hate hoaxer' who was responsible for the KKK vandalism.
    Indeed, it is interesting how the very people who push this EXTREMISM in appetites and ideology are the ones who accuse Alt Right and any basic patriots as 'far right' and 'extreme'. Alt Right is calling for self-control over appetites. It's not calling for globalist imperialism or war-mongering. It's calling for the right of each Western nation to survive as and for what it is. How is that extreme? In contrast, globalists call for More Wars and More Intervention even after such ventures destroyed much of the Middle East and led to useless 'new cold war' with Russia. Globalists also say the native peoples of US and EU must be replaced by nasty non-white ingrates. Yet, that is considered 'normal' while basic nationalism 101 that is pro-peace and pro-borders is denounced as 'far right' and 'extremist'. What a crazy world. Consider Francis Fukuyama, aka George Soros' dog. He should be called Fukyomama because this lowlife is so convinced that wars and mass invasions are justified because they hasten the 'end of history' when it's really hastening the End of Humanity.

    2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA

    Alt Right is that but it is also an alternative to old-style far right of white politics and white supremacism as represented by organizations like KKK and Neo-Nazis. It is also an alternative to the grim and dour racial apocalyptic views of men like William Pierce.
    KKK was too hick. Neo-Nazis were too deranged and demented. And men like Pierce came across as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, they were very bourgeois and respectable, but their views were nutty or insane.
    And then, there were men like William Shockley who didn't crank out nutter visions like TURNER DIARIES. But Alt Right differs from them as well. The problem with men like Shockley was they thought they could persuade people with rational arguments and facts alone. But any socio-political movement must have vision, passion, and the prophetic thing. Shockley never had it. Jared Taylor and his kind have a broader vision, but they too are focused on rational discussion. Alt Right understands that cautious rational arguments are not enough. People want to be swept up by a collective passion that stirs their hearts and minds. And this is why Alt Right is anti-stuffy and not very bourgeois in its attitude and approach. It is looser, even bohemian, and Spencer certainly has edgy tendencies. Also, Alt Right understands that even race-rationalists like Shockley(and perhaps even James Watson) are motivated by something more than facts and logic. They are pro-white because they are white and feel comfortable being white and want to preserve white civilization. It's not just about IQ. Would Shockley have been okay if blacks were to gain equal intelligence with whites and then humped tons of white women to make mulatto babies? My guess is NO. So, it's a vision of OUR PEOPLE and OUR CULTURE and OUR LAND. Alt Right is more honest about the roots of the movement. It's not mainly about rational discussion of IQ. It's about Race and Culture. In this respect, George Hee-Hawley is right in his wussy-boy book on the Alt Right. Hee-Hawley is too much of a Pee-Wee-Herman to be a proud white man. He has characteristics of CucKen Burns and looks like a dork. And by 'racism', he doesn't mean race-ism but 'nasty nah nah racism'. Still, he is right to understand that Racial Identity is at the core of Alt Right. Alt Right has a sense of racial and cultural family. And it is for this reason that Alt Right understands that nationalism must be a kind of ethno-socialism. After all, Zionism is a nationalism that necessitates racial-socialism. Zionism says that the richest Jew must see even poor Jews in Israel(and around the world) as fellow brethren. So, rich Jews in Israel must favor poor Jews than rich gentiles. He may do business with rich gentiles, but when all is said and done, even a poor Jew is more his brother than a rich gentile is. Indeed, Jewish-Americanism is racial socialism. After all, why did Jews push the US government to save Soviet Jews where there were plenty of people far worse off than Jews in the USSR? Because Jews cared about fellow Jews. Now, if Jews are totally beyond race, rich Jews should identify mainly with rich gentiles. But even as Jews told rich gentiles to betray and abandon their own kind, rich Jews never stopped caring for less fortunate Jews, like in USSR or Romania. Rich Jews bribed Ceucescu to let Romania's Jews to immigrate to Israel. This is the basis of Jewish Power. Racial-Socialism or Nationalism among all Jews. Jews fear that if white gentiles regain the same mindset(as white elites during the New Deal cared about poor whites like those in GRAPES OF WRATH), they will lead and serve white masses than serve rich Jews. This is why Jews push libertarianism on whites. It serves as a wedge between rich successful whites and masses of whites. Jews also push socialism on whites, but it's 'anti-racist' kind that forbids rich whites to care about less fortunate whites. If rich or successful whites are to be 'noble', they must take care of non-whites... .like Bill Gates spending billions of dollars to help blacks and others but never whites. Racial-socialism is good enough for Jews but never good for whites by rules of PC.

    This is what the Alt Right opposes, and this is why it is feared. To Jewish globalists, 'unite the right' sounds like Unite the White from top to bottom. This is why Spencer calls on Trump to pass Single Payer. All this 'muh free enterprise' has only helped to drive a wedge between white have-lots and white have-lesses.

    That said, another reason for Alt Right's appeal is it is the ONLY force out there that is willing to speak honestly about the Power. Mainstream Media of both 'right' and 'left' are all owned by the Globalist Establishment. Now, there are many alternative voices, organizations, and etc. Alt-Right doesn't own the 'alternative' label, which has a long pedigree. There are alternative voices on the Left, Libertarianism, white nationalism, anarchism, feminism, and etc. Esp in the age of the internet, there are tons of alternative voices with so many bloggers and cloggers.

    So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of the alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY 'movement' that really doesn't give a crap about PC. Now, I'm defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is 'politically incorrect' to Mainstream PC, it is also about mental straitjackets and iron dogma. For the white supremacist types, Hitler did no wrong, or it would have been better if Germans won. Or Stalin intended to invade first, and Hitler only attacked out of defense. Or everything Jewish is evil or suspect. Or the Shoah is one big lie and the only Jews who died was due to starvation under duress of war.
    What the white supremacists and proggy PC have in common is this kind of dogmatism. Anyone who has tried to discuss reality with a communist, BLM moron, homomaniac, radical feminist, libertarian, or some such know it's like talking to a brick wall. It's like Stefan Molyneux the baldie losing his last few hairs while trying to talk logic with a commie.
    And we don't expect too much from Evangelicals who just rely on faith and hallelujah and glory be and all that childlike stuff. They are sheeple. Even when Evangelicals oppose homo agenda, it's not based on truth or moral logic but on the Bible, as if modern society can be organized around what was written 1000s of yrs ago.

    Now, one would expect far-left commies and far-right white supremacists(for whom supremacism is a crutch because they are fat, low IQ, morons usually) to be thick-skulled. In contrast, we might expect liberals and moderate conservatives to be open-minded, intellectually honest, and respectful of free speech and etc. But not so. PC permeates into every corner of Western Discourse. So, moderate respectable conservatives will claim to champion liberty, constitution, and free speech(along with traditional values), but they run scared and shi* their pants when faced with honest discussion of race and Jewish power. Today, most of these conservatives don't even have the balls to say NO to homomania. Even Charles Murray the baldie cucked out on homo stuff. And these conservatives never oppose censorship of voices that speak truth to Jewish power. Mark Steyn talks big about Muslims but never about Zionists and their bad deeds in West Bank.
    As for liberals, most of them are illiberal. On many issues and subjects, they are indeed bona fide liberals in the best sense of the word. But when anything intersects with issues of race or steps on shibboleths of Proggy PC, the liberal minds close the shutters and turn illiberal.
    Liberals go for Compassion Supremacism or Sensitivity-Supremacism that says certain groups deserve more love, care, praise, and protection than others. So, even though Liberals will pretend to denounce all forms of 'bigotry', they care far less about negative things said about Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or Mexicans than about the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, while liberals are open to any general subject, they shut their minds when the subject encroaches on their holy taboos. Take the issue of Culture and Work Ethic. Suppose someone says the problem with Russia is the lack of work ethic compared to, say, Germans and Japanese. Liberals may agree or disagree, but they will listen to the argument with an open mind. But suppose you then say the same about blacks. Suddenly, the liberal will gets antsy and panicky and fulminate and call you 'racist' and etc.
    Or, suppose you say the problem with China is corruption. As such, any Western businessman who wants to do business should keep his guard up and learn something about Chinese culture, attitudes, and way of doing things. Again, the liberal may agree or disagree, but he will discuss the issue. But if you say Jews have become very corrupt and abusive and that we need to be more critical of Jewish power, the liberal(esp if Jewish) will have conniptions, tell you to shut up, and say the discussion is OVER. This is why liberals have become useless on certain key issues. They are still good on many subjects but they cannot honesty grapple with certain matters due to their holy taboos. No matter how committed they are to free speech and open-minded discourse, those principles are overridden by The Taboo. Liberal minds have been programmed that way.
    Also, PC won't allow honest discussion of Shoah. While Holocaust-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people just like to be the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked apollo landing), not everyone who questions aspects of Shoah are 'deniers'. David Cole is not a denier, but he's been labeled as such because he refused to conform to the Official Narrative that said 6 million died in such and such manner. Too many Jewish Liberals will label as 'denier' anyone who dares to raise questions. Or they will label as 'deniers' even though who adhere to the official narrative but try to understand WHY the Nazis did what they did as extreme reaction to radical excesses of Jews and the times(that sought scapegoats of one form or another all across the political spectrum).

    So, we have white supremacists with their dogma. Because they can't move beyond Heil Hitler, they can't be true members of Alt Right.

    As for everyone else, from the far-left commies to globalist liberals to far-libertarians to Conservatism Inc., they are all restrained by the Taboo of the Holy Three. They cannot speak honestly about Jewish Power. The far-left will denounce Zionism but is loathe to connect the dots between Zionism and Jewish power in the US. Libertarians claim to support total freedom, but they turn PC on issues related to blacks and homos. And Conservative Inc. denounces the Left without mentioning that the globalist Left is largely funded and led by Jews. Con Inc. won't even face the fact that Homomania is a Jewish proxy agenda. And even as Conservatives denounce crime, they will not state the obvious fact that blacks commit more crime because they are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is where Alt Right is different. You don't have to be nazi-tard to join. And on issues that command so much silence, cuckery, timidity, and cowardice, the Alt Right speaks freely: Jewish Power, Black thuggery, and Homo degeneracy.
    And yet, on issues like homos, it refuses to follow the dumb Evangelical handbook. While Alt Right opposes the homo agenda -- making homomania the New Normal -- , it accepts the science on homosexuality, i.e. that some people are born homo, it's not their 'fault', and they should be allowed to be homo and do their thing. And if they have talent, it should be praised and admired. If Alt Right had played a role in the homo debate, it would have been more interesting. But while the media and powers-that-be were going all-homo, what did we get from the Right? Silence from Con Inc. that was so afraid of alienating Jews(as even Neocons were pushing homo crap) and 'Muh Bible' from Evangelicals as if social policy can be decided by what's in the Bible.

    This is why Alt Right made a difference. And this is what the Alt Right must never lose sight of. As Alt Right coalesces more into a real movement, if it insists on dogma and taboos, it will lose its edge and its appeal even to those who detest what the Core Ideology of the Alt Right stands for. The fact is even radical anti-race-ists have been provoked and stimulated by the Alt Right that is so willing to talk about issues that are forbidden by PC all across the spectrum from far left to Con Inc. (And far-right Nazitards have their own PC taboos. 'Muh Fuhrer'.)
    It's like the European Marxists and Frankfurt School gained a degree of respect even from elements of the Right. While the Soviet Left turned utterly Stalinist and statist-dogmatic and predictable, the European neo-Marxists were interesting in their critique of modernity, materialism, capitalism, individualism, and Soviet communism. And even Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Gore Vidal had reluctant admirers on the Right because they approached and criticized American Empire from angles ignored by mainstream media or hardline leftist.
    Still, even alt-left figures were bound by the Taboos. Chomsky was critical of Zionism but didn't connect it with Jewish American Power, nor did he address the ethnic character of US media monopoly. After all, if US media were monopolized by Mexican-Americans or Muslim-Americans, the result would be different.

    Due to WWII and Shoah-guilt as New Religion of the Secular West, the West was loathe to speak honestly about Jewish Power. Also, due to Black Slavery narrative and anti-imperialism -- and blacks as the colorful face of 'social justice' -- , blacks became objects of semi-worship, culminating in the Magic Mountain Negro or Montenegro in GREEN MILE. And as pop culture turned the West into a hedonistic celebrapolis of narcissism and excess, it wasn't long before homos rode on that wave to become the neo-angels of globalism. Esp with the help of Jewish Media, homos spun their self-created disaster -- AIDS epidemic -- as their own kind of 'holocaust'.

    And then, the media and academia turned into endless fests of praising Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, Americanism(which also infects the EU) is about little more than praising Jews, blacks, and homos. No ideology tops the 'iconology' of the Holy Three. You can say you disagree with the fundamental principles of America's founding, and that's okay. But if you say anything that runs counter to the spirit of the Holy Three, you are done for.

    Alt Right is iconoclastic force against the Holy Three. It is more effective in challenging the Taboo because it doesn't play by the dogmatic White Supremacist neo-Nazi playbook. If anything, the Neo-Nazis could almost be seen as part of PC proggism. It's no wonder that so many Jews pretended to be Nazis. It's no wonder so many FBI types infiltrated the movement. According to PC, any kind of white identity or white interests is NAZI or KKK, thus automatically discrediting itself. And the white supremacist morons obliged this narrative with their retarded gestures, dumb narratives, and beer-belly ubermensch 'larping'.
    Even as proggy PC detested the Neo-Nazi-KKK morons, it saw propaganda value in white supremacists making total fools of themselves. It's like the Globo Media found the Westboro church so useful in making the anti-homo side seem like a bunch of Christian-tard nutters. According to the PC narrative, any pro-white person must be 'nazi' and anyone who opposes the homo agenda must be a crazy Christian lunatic protesting military funerals.

    But Alt Right didn't play to this script. It cogently laid out how it sees the Power Dynamic in the West, and it's been more right than wrong, easily done since PC has suppressed so much necessary criticism of the Power. The ripple effects have been that even anti-Alt-Right people are more willing to discuss certain issues. The Overton window has been shifted, if only slightly.

    5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

    Derb: No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism?

    The answer to Derbyshire's question is Localism. Let Spanish and Catalans arrive at what is best for them. Non-Spanish and Non-Catalans might offer their advice and opinions, but it should be handled as local affair between Cats and Spans.

    7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

    Actually, it's better to say Alt Right is honestly anti-equalitarian. Let's face it. NO ONE believes in equality. Everyone with sense knows that Jews are smarter than Gypsies, West Africans can outrun Hindus, and Germans are, on average, taller than Mexicans.

    Alt Right is just honest about what everyone knows. I mean do Jews really believe than any Bolivian peasant can excel in finance in huge numbers? Do blacks really feel that Chinese are suddenly gonna win in 100m sprints?

    8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption


    Derb:
    It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.


    Vox Day is a sci-fi writer and them fellers have these funny ideas. He's just being sciencefictionoid with terminology.

    Derb: a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision. Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.

    True enough, but I think Vox Day was talking about social sciences. After all, theories on atoms and stars have no bearing on matters of politics and society. But scientific matters relating to humans have huge relevance and implications. And there has been too much 'scientistry -- scientific sophistry -- in the field. Scientistry is like quack dentistry where the wrong tooth is pulled out. So, even though the black tooth must be removed to stop the pain, white ones are yanked out. It's Clouseauean Dentistry.

    https://youtu.be/ENOCJBGzS-E?t=6m42s

    Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?

    True, but if SK were to reunite with any nation, wouldn't it be easier with NK than with Japan even though SK and Japan are economically and politically similar?
    Or look at Israel. Jews came from capitalist nations, communist nations, Muslim-majority nations, Christian-majority nations, and etc. Many spoke different languages and few knew Hebrew. There were religious Jews, secular Jews, and etc. But they made it work because they were bound by identity as the basis.
    Now, imagine creating a new nation based solely on creed. Suppose German Christians, African Christians, Chinese Christians, Mexican Christians, Arab Christians, and etc all came together to form a nation based on Jesus. Would it work as well? Or imagine a new nation founded on shared ideology of capitalism. Suppose French capitalists, Swedish capitalists, Nigerian capitalists, Turkish capitalist, Japanese capitalists, Indonesian capitalists, Pakistani capitalists, and etc all formed a nation. How long would it last?
    Thus far, US and Canada has held together despite diversity because there has been a Core Majority and Core narrative. But as they fray, can these nations remain together or function well based on shared general credos in 'muh constitution' and 'muh liberty'?

    10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

    Derb: As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10.

    Indians don't count. They were savages and had no civilization and had no means to resist white invaders. Also, the world was yet to be fully navigated and explored back then. Today, it's different. Mankind has explored and mapped out and claimed every inch of territory. Also, the Age of Empire ended after WWII with non-whites telling whites to go home. So, we can have universal nationalism. Every part of the world has been CLAIMED by a particular people and culture. And this must be preserved and used as the fundamental principle for the world. After all, it's called United NATIONS, not United Empire or United Economy.
    This common sense view is called 'far right'. The real extremist forces are the far-globalists, far-imperialists, far-Zionists, far-profiteers(greed is their only creed), far-thugs(black criminals and lunatics), far-sluts(what has become of womenfolk), far-invaders(neo-colonialism with massive third world movements). Why should peoples be invading and colonizing other nations when all the world has been claimed? Also, the agreement after WWII was end of empire and imperialism. So, why do we have 'reverse-imperialism' whereby non-whites get to demographically swamp white nations?

    11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

    Derb: Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence.
    I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent.


    True enough, but by 'diversity', Vox Day surely means diversity as cancer than condition.
    Diversity as condition is a fact of any nation. Even the most homogeneous nations have some diversity, the presence of non-nationals and foreigners, some of whom are permanently settled. And those people can be tolerated as co-existing folks.

    But by Diversity in today's parlance, it means Diversity as a cancer. Diversity as condition is like a tattoo. Good or bad, that tattoo will not expand. Diversity as cancer or Diversinoma is like skin cancer that starts small but never stops growing. PC and globalism say this is the only kind of Diversity that is good and NECESSARY. This is obviously a fatal disease for any racial-cultural civilization, but this is pushed by globalist quacks as the cure. It's like Barbara Specter saying that, "In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode." Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe. But cunning witches like her work on the earnest and naive good-will of Nordics who are especially easy suckers since they've been raised on Holocaust Guilt and the notion that white homogeneity = Nazism.

    13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

    Derb: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

    It depends on what one means by Free Trade. Surely, the Brits had free trade long ago but didn't allow massive invasions of non-whites into Britain. Also, the leftist Scottish National Party is more pro-immigration. And Stalin moved plenty of people around in his empire.

    Still, what Vox means by 'free trade' in the 21st century is globalism. This is different from free trade in the past that meant commerce among sovereign nations with national governments that represented their own peoples. Today, free trade is based on globalist corporations who feel NO sense of allegiance to their own nation or people. So, 'free trade' now means free movement of capital and peoples for economic opportunity, investment, exploitation, colonization. It is a form of anarchy.

    Also, I think a kind of agreement has been made between rich and poor nations. It goes as follows. Rich nations can invest in poor nations, but just as First World industrialists gain access to Third World, Third World folks must have access to First World.. to work and toil and send remittances back home. It's like US industrial elites gained access to Mexico, but US has to be opened to Mexicans who come in huge numbers and send back remittances.

    15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses

    Derb: Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. What do the “unique strengths” of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?

    Bushmen and Austro-Aborigines are outliers. They are few in number and don't count. But when it comes to the major races, there are indeed advantages and disadvantages. While Japanese can make good gadgets and run an orderly society, they are short dorks and have no iconic value. So, even though they make all these electronic stuff, people prefer to see OTHER races on Japanese-made gadgets. Sony made a lot of TV and walkmans, and Japanese were good at making such stuff. But it was Negro athletes who were shown on TV. So, even though Negroes have little industrial value -- they can't run an economy -- , they have much entertainment value, and that means billions around the world will be watching Negro runners and footballers. Look at China. Over billion people and they're addicted to NBA Negroes. And look at all the Blapanese. They are almost all the result of black fathers and Japanese mothers. If Japan that has so few Negroes is going this way, imagine what is happening to EU.
    Sure, all those Negroes coming from Africa have little industrial value. They be jiving and messing things up. But blacks got more rhythm and funk and bigger dongs. And whites find black music, black muscle, and black meat very pleasurable and entertaining. So, blacks have superior hedonic value. As whites are addicted to Negropium, one can say blacks do have serious advantages over the white race. Derbyshire is a math-geek sort of person and judges worth by science and intellect. But most of humanity is pretty vulgar, trashy, and infantile. And they want fun, fun, fun. And since Negroes be flipping and jiving and humping more than others, Non-Negroes have come under the iconic-idolatrous power of the Negroids. Bongo, the power of Negroness, does have a decisive advantage in the modern world. Capitalism and West used to be about work ethic, virtue, and restraint. But with over-surplus of food, clothing, and production, the West no longer worries about enough-to-eat or essentials of survival. They care mostly about fun and pleasure. Vice industry has overtaken virtue industry. In PLACES IN THE SUN, the Negroes were willing to pick cotton for corn meal. But today, Negresses got fat asses from welfare and 'twerk' their fat asses as if having sex with bad boys, and white kids grow up to this music and dance as 'western values'.

    So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of the alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY ‘movement’ that really doesn’t give a crap about PC. Now, I’m defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is ‘politically incorrect’ to Mainstream PC, it is also about mental straitjackets and iron dogma.

    In your screed you metion “white supremacist” as much as a sjw would, in fact dont think i have read those terms so much in one rant as i did now.

    Can you actully name one? Where are these ws? I don’t even come across them on the net.

    You also refer to the KKK, neo nazis and “white supremacist” far right…like a sjw or cuckservative would. One who is far right takes traditionally right wing positions to the extreme, what positions do neo nazis, KKK and these fabled white supremacist to the extreme?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Art Deco says:
    @Samuel Skinner
    It makes more sense when you realize Mises was an Austrian Jew. For once the former part is more important. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled central Europe and when it fell, you got a bunch of new states that immediately set up their own economic policies and proceeded to be worse of then the empire.

    As long as you don't have democracy or a welfare state, Mises proposition is true.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled central Europe and when it fell, you got a bunch of new states that immediately set up their own economic policies and proceeded to be worse of then the empire. As long as you don’t have democracy or a welfare state, Mises proposition is true.

    The Hapsburgs established electoral and conciliar institutions during the 1850s, as did the German states. Universal male suffrage was instituted in 1907. Mises was 26 at the time.

    What was ‘worse’ about the successor states? They had economic problems during the inter-war period but that was a feature of life all over the occidental world. Parliamentary institutions had by 1935 failed everywhere but Czechoslovakia and (with some qualification) Hungary, but they also failed in a string of places that had no Hapsburg territory and often failed earlier (see Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany, and the Baltic states).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    The Empire of Japan also had universal male suffrage (1925). That isn't what people mean when they talk about democratic.

    As for worse, Mises is an economist- he means poorer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Meimou says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    Vox Day is a goof and not to be taken seriously. All said and done, he's a plus to the movement but a rather shallow and snippy character. And he sometimes goes for low-hanging fruits like Andrew Anglin whose only value is as class clown.

    1. The Alt Right is of the political right... Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

    Big problem with this. Even though people who call themselves 'socialists' are not Alt Right, Alt Right is open to socialism as component of economics. Alt Right is neo-fascist or social-democratic in accepting both socialism and capitalism. Indeed, this capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is rather useless in our world. When capitalist had free rein in the 19th century and when communists called for abolition of private property, one could speak of capitalists vs socialists. However, esp following WWII, both Europe and US have adopted economic policies that combine capitalism and socialism. Even American Conservatives who are all for free enterprise would not vote for politicians who would end social security and other government programs. And even American Liberals who call themselves 'socialists' wanna live in nations with powerful capitalist economies. Just consider. If socialists are really and truly socialist, why not be like Amish folks? Why not get together and work on communes and share everything? But so-called socialists in US and EU don't act this way. They always try to move to the most affluent urban areas and try to live off capitalists. They write books and plays in the hopes that the affluent class will buy them. As 'artists', they seek rich patrons to sponsor and fund their projects. As academics, they teach at universities funded by rich donors. Consider the ton of money Harvard and Yale have due to donors. These donors made their money in capitalism, not socialism. And if these 'socialists' are into artisanal work, they make fancy stuff for rich folks. Artisanal beer, Artisanal candy, Artisanal candles, etc. They are 'socialist' in the sense that Europeans used to be 'Christian'. The label makes them sound noble, caring, and into 'social justice'. But they would never want to live in a socialist nation. They want to feed on capitalist success. Your average 'socialist' moves to glitzy cities like San Fran or NY.

    In the 60s, some 'socialist' types did try to live in communes, but it didn't work. Unlike Amish who are disciplined, humble, orderly, and virtuous -- I guess Mormons are free-market materialist Amish -- , the 'socialists' were into hedonism, drugs, orgies, and etc. They were more into bumming off others than working for the common good. It's like the hippie commune in EASY RIDER where the folks are more into long hair, weed, and skinny-dipping than getting up in the morning and doing chores like milking cows and making butter. Look what the hippie 'socialists' did to Woodstock. If not for the wage-slave Portosan man, the place would have been covered with shi*.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch6yn_toTbI

    Anyway, Alt Right seeks to move beyond this 'capitalism vs socialism' dichotomy. While socialism can be anti-right, so can capitalism. The root of rightism is nationalism and identity in race and culture. Capitalists will easily betray their own race and nation just for more profits or status. To a capitalist, profits and prestige matter more than anything. Anything for profits.
    Worse, once a society turns hedonist and shameless, capitalism begins to focus on vice industry to feed on people's weakness for fast pleasure in food, trash culture, sex, and etc. Shameless and hedonistic capitalism is the basis of globalist control of the populace.
    True Power comes from self-control. Those who lose control over themselves won't be able to control much else. It's like once American Indians surrendered to the pleasures of firewater, they lost the pride and will. And Chinese on opium were lost in lala-land while their families and nation were being sold off to imperialists. White people are lost because so many of them are addicted to the opiate of pop culture.

    And it's about mindless excessive appetites, indulgences, and therapies. It says pig out, hump all over, laugh like tard at OW MY BALLS(see IDIOCRACY), play dumb video games, and worship comic book super heroes. It promotes infantilism, and this is reflected in the political culture of celebrity, vanity, and therapy. So, there is babyish PC that divides the world in goodies and baddies. And progs cry and wail like babies and call people 'racist' and 'white supremacist' and 'homophobic' and chant slogans like 'black lives matter'. And then, there are all these therapies that, instead of telling people to get real and grow up, indulge them in their self-aggrandizing baby-emotions.... like General Silvestra who indulged that lowlife black 'hate hoaxer' who was responsible for the KKK vandalism.
    Indeed, it is interesting how the very people who push this EXTREMISM in appetites and ideology are the ones who accuse Alt Right and any basic patriots as 'far right' and 'extreme'. Alt Right is calling for self-control over appetites. It's not calling for globalist imperialism or war-mongering. It's calling for the right of each Western nation to survive as and for what it is. How is that extreme? In contrast, globalists call for More Wars and More Intervention even after such ventures destroyed much of the Middle East and led to useless 'new cold war' with Russia. Globalists also say the native peoples of US and EU must be replaced by nasty non-white ingrates. Yet, that is considered 'normal' while basic nationalism 101 that is pro-peace and pro-borders is denounced as 'far right' and 'extremist'. What a crazy world. Consider Francis Fukuyama, aka George Soros' dog. He should be called Fukyomama because this lowlife is so convinced that wars and mass invasions are justified because they hasten the 'end of history' when it's really hastening the End of Humanity.

    2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA

    Alt Right is that but it is also an alternative to old-style far right of white politics and white supremacism as represented by organizations like KKK and Neo-Nazis. It is also an alternative to the grim and dour racial apocalyptic views of men like William Pierce.
    KKK was too hick. Neo-Nazis were too deranged and demented. And men like Pierce came across as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, they were very bourgeois and respectable, but their views were nutty or insane.
    And then, there were men like William Shockley who didn't crank out nutter visions like TURNER DIARIES. But Alt Right differs from them as well. The problem with men like Shockley was they thought they could persuade people with rational arguments and facts alone. But any socio-political movement must have vision, passion, and the prophetic thing. Shockley never had it. Jared Taylor and his kind have a broader vision, but they too are focused on rational discussion. Alt Right understands that cautious rational arguments are not enough. People want to be swept up by a collective passion that stirs their hearts and minds. And this is why Alt Right is anti-stuffy and not very bourgeois in its attitude and approach. It is looser, even bohemian, and Spencer certainly has edgy tendencies. Also, Alt Right understands that even race-rationalists like Shockley(and perhaps even James Watson) are motivated by something more than facts and logic. They are pro-white because they are white and feel comfortable being white and want to preserve white civilization. It's not just about IQ. Would Shockley have been okay if blacks were to gain equal intelligence with whites and then humped tons of white women to make mulatto babies? My guess is NO. So, it's a vision of OUR PEOPLE and OUR CULTURE and OUR LAND. Alt Right is more honest about the roots of the movement. It's not mainly about rational discussion of IQ. It's about Race and Culture. In this respect, George Hee-Hawley is right in his wussy-boy book on the Alt Right. Hee-Hawley is too much of a Pee-Wee-Herman to be a proud white man. He has characteristics of CucKen Burns and looks like a dork. And by 'racism', he doesn't mean race-ism but 'nasty nah nah racism'. Still, he is right to understand that Racial Identity is at the core of Alt Right. Alt Right has a sense of racial and cultural family. And it is for this reason that Alt Right understands that nationalism must be a kind of ethno-socialism. After all, Zionism is a nationalism that necessitates racial-socialism. Zionism says that the richest Jew must see even poor Jews in Israel(and around the world) as fellow brethren. So, rich Jews in Israel must favor poor Jews than rich gentiles. He may do business with rich gentiles, but when all is said and done, even a poor Jew is more his brother than a rich gentile is. Indeed, Jewish-Americanism is racial socialism. After all, why did Jews push the US government to save Soviet Jews where there were plenty of people far worse off than Jews in the USSR? Because Jews cared about fellow Jews. Now, if Jews are totally beyond race, rich Jews should identify mainly with rich gentiles. But even as Jews told rich gentiles to betray and abandon their own kind, rich Jews never stopped caring for less fortunate Jews, like in USSR or Romania. Rich Jews bribed Ceucescu to let Romania's Jews to immigrate to Israel. This is the basis of Jewish Power. Racial-Socialism or Nationalism among all Jews. Jews fear that if white gentiles regain the same mindset(as white elites during the New Deal cared about poor whites like those in GRAPES OF WRATH), they will lead and serve white masses than serve rich Jews. This is why Jews push libertarianism on whites. It serves as a wedge between rich successful whites and masses of whites. Jews also push socialism on whites, but it's 'anti-racist' kind that forbids rich whites to care about less fortunate whites. If rich or successful whites are to be 'noble', they must take care of non-whites... .like Bill Gates spending billions of dollars to help blacks and others but never whites. Racial-socialism is good enough for Jews but never good for whites by rules of PC.

    This is what the Alt Right opposes, and this is why it is feared. To Jewish globalists, 'unite the right' sounds like Unite the White from top to bottom. This is why Spencer calls on Trump to pass Single Payer. All this 'muh free enterprise' has only helped to drive a wedge between white have-lots and white have-lesses.

    That said, another reason for Alt Right's appeal is it is the ONLY force out there that is willing to speak honestly about the Power. Mainstream Media of both 'right' and 'left' are all owned by the Globalist Establishment. Now, there are many alternative voices, organizations, and etc. Alt-Right doesn't own the 'alternative' label, which has a long pedigree. There are alternative voices on the Left, Libertarianism, white nationalism, anarchism, feminism, and etc. Esp in the age of the internet, there are tons of alternative voices with so many bloggers and cloggers.

    So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of the alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY 'movement' that really doesn't give a crap about PC. Now, I'm defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is 'politically incorrect' to Mainstream PC, it is also about mental straitjackets and iron dogma. For the white supremacist types, Hitler did no wrong, or it would have been better if Germans won. Or Stalin intended to invade first, and Hitler only attacked out of defense. Or everything Jewish is evil or suspect. Or the Shoah is one big lie and the only Jews who died was due to starvation under duress of war.
    What the white supremacists and proggy PC have in common is this kind of dogmatism. Anyone who has tried to discuss reality with a communist, BLM moron, homomaniac, radical feminist, libertarian, or some such know it's like talking to a brick wall. It's like Stefan Molyneux the baldie losing his last few hairs while trying to talk logic with a commie.
    And we don't expect too much from Evangelicals who just rely on faith and hallelujah and glory be and all that childlike stuff. They are sheeple. Even when Evangelicals oppose homo agenda, it's not based on truth or moral logic but on the Bible, as if modern society can be organized around what was written 1000s of yrs ago.

    Now, one would expect far-left commies and far-right white supremacists(for whom supremacism is a crutch because they are fat, low IQ, morons usually) to be thick-skulled. In contrast, we might expect liberals and moderate conservatives to be open-minded, intellectually honest, and respectful of free speech and etc. But not so. PC permeates into every corner of Western Discourse. So, moderate respectable conservatives will claim to champion liberty, constitution, and free speech(along with traditional values), but they run scared and shi* their pants when faced with honest discussion of race and Jewish power. Today, most of these conservatives don't even have the balls to say NO to homomania. Even Charles Murray the baldie cucked out on homo stuff. And these conservatives never oppose censorship of voices that speak truth to Jewish power. Mark Steyn talks big about Muslims but never about Zionists and their bad deeds in West Bank.
    As for liberals, most of them are illiberal. On many issues and subjects, they are indeed bona fide liberals in the best sense of the word. But when anything intersects with issues of race or steps on shibboleths of Proggy PC, the liberal minds close the shutters and turn illiberal.
    Liberals go for Compassion Supremacism or Sensitivity-Supremacism that says certain groups deserve more love, care, praise, and protection than others. So, even though Liberals will pretend to denounce all forms of 'bigotry', they care far less about negative things said about Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or Mexicans than about the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, while liberals are open to any general subject, they shut their minds when the subject encroaches on their holy taboos. Take the issue of Culture and Work Ethic. Suppose someone says the problem with Russia is the lack of work ethic compared to, say, Germans and Japanese. Liberals may agree or disagree, but they will listen to the argument with an open mind. But suppose you then say the same about blacks. Suddenly, the liberal will gets antsy and panicky and fulminate and call you 'racist' and etc.
    Or, suppose you say the problem with China is corruption. As such, any Western businessman who wants to do business should keep his guard up and learn something about Chinese culture, attitudes, and way of doing things. Again, the liberal may agree or disagree, but he will discuss the issue. But if you say Jews have become very corrupt and abusive and that we need to be more critical of Jewish power, the liberal(esp if Jewish) will have conniptions, tell you to shut up, and say the discussion is OVER. This is why liberals have become useless on certain key issues. They are still good on many subjects but they cannot honesty grapple with certain matters due to their holy taboos. No matter how committed they are to free speech and open-minded discourse, those principles are overridden by The Taboo. Liberal minds have been programmed that way.
    Also, PC won't allow honest discussion of Shoah. While Holocaust-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people just like to be the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked apollo landing), not everyone who questions aspects of Shoah are 'deniers'. David Cole is not a denier, but he's been labeled as such because he refused to conform to the Official Narrative that said 6 million died in such and such manner. Too many Jewish Liberals will label as 'denier' anyone who dares to raise questions. Or they will label as 'deniers' even though who adhere to the official narrative but try to understand WHY the Nazis did what they did as extreme reaction to radical excesses of Jews and the times(that sought scapegoats of one form or another all across the political spectrum).

    So, we have white supremacists with their dogma. Because they can't move beyond Heil Hitler, they can't be true members of Alt Right.

    As for everyone else, from the far-left commies to globalist liberals to far-libertarians to Conservatism Inc., they are all restrained by the Taboo of the Holy Three. They cannot speak honestly about Jewish Power. The far-left will denounce Zionism but is loathe to connect the dots between Zionism and Jewish power in the US. Libertarians claim to support total freedom, but they turn PC on issues related to blacks and homos. And Conservative Inc. denounces the Left without mentioning that the globalist Left is largely funded and led by Jews. Con Inc. won't even face the fact that Homomania is a Jewish proxy agenda. And even as Conservatives denounce crime, they will not state the obvious fact that blacks commit more crime because they are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is where Alt Right is different. You don't have to be nazi-tard to join. And on issues that command so much silence, cuckery, timidity, and cowardice, the Alt Right speaks freely: Jewish Power, Black thuggery, and Homo degeneracy.
    And yet, on issues like homos, it refuses to follow the dumb Evangelical handbook. While Alt Right opposes the homo agenda -- making homomania the New Normal -- , it accepts the science on homosexuality, i.e. that some people are born homo, it's not their 'fault', and they should be allowed to be homo and do their thing. And if they have talent, it should be praised and admired. If Alt Right had played a role in the homo debate, it would have been more interesting. But while the media and powers-that-be were going all-homo, what did we get from the Right? Silence from Con Inc. that was so afraid of alienating Jews(as even Neocons were pushing homo crap) and 'Muh Bible' from Evangelicals as if social policy can be decided by what's in the Bible.

    This is why Alt Right made a difference. And this is what the Alt Right must never lose sight of. As Alt Right coalesces more into a real movement, if it insists on dogma and taboos, it will lose its edge and its appeal even to those who detest what the Core Ideology of the Alt Right stands for. The fact is even radical anti-race-ists have been provoked and stimulated by the Alt Right that is so willing to talk about issues that are forbidden by PC all across the spectrum from far left to Con Inc. (And far-right Nazitards have their own PC taboos. 'Muh Fuhrer'.)
    It's like the European Marxists and Frankfurt School gained a degree of respect even from elements of the Right. While the Soviet Left turned utterly Stalinist and statist-dogmatic and predictable, the European neo-Marxists were interesting in their critique of modernity, materialism, capitalism, individualism, and Soviet communism. And even Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Gore Vidal had reluctant admirers on the Right because they approached and criticized American Empire from angles ignored by mainstream media or hardline leftist.
    Still, even alt-left figures were bound by the Taboos. Chomsky was critical of Zionism but didn't connect it with Jewish American Power, nor did he address the ethnic character of US media monopoly. After all, if US media were monopolized by Mexican-Americans or Muslim-Americans, the result would be different.

    Due to WWII and Shoah-guilt as New Religion of the Secular West, the West was loathe to speak honestly about Jewish Power. Also, due to Black Slavery narrative and anti-imperialism -- and blacks as the colorful face of 'social justice' -- , blacks became objects of semi-worship, culminating in the Magic Mountain Negro or Montenegro in GREEN MILE. And as pop culture turned the West into a hedonistic celebrapolis of narcissism and excess, it wasn't long before homos rode on that wave to become the neo-angels of globalism. Esp with the help of Jewish Media, homos spun their self-created disaster -- AIDS epidemic -- as their own kind of 'holocaust'.

    And then, the media and academia turned into endless fests of praising Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, Americanism(which also infects the EU) is about little more than praising Jews, blacks, and homos. No ideology tops the 'iconology' of the Holy Three. You can say you disagree with the fundamental principles of America's founding, and that's okay. But if you say anything that runs counter to the spirit of the Holy Three, you are done for.

    Alt Right is iconoclastic force against the Holy Three. It is more effective in challenging the Taboo because it doesn't play by the dogmatic White Supremacist neo-Nazi playbook. If anything, the Neo-Nazis could almost be seen as part of PC proggism. It's no wonder that so many Jews pretended to be Nazis. It's no wonder so many FBI types infiltrated the movement. According to PC, any kind of white identity or white interests is NAZI or KKK, thus automatically discrediting itself. And the white supremacist morons obliged this narrative with their retarded gestures, dumb narratives, and beer-belly ubermensch 'larping'.
    Even as proggy PC detested the Neo-Nazi-KKK morons, it saw propaganda value in white supremacists making total fools of themselves. It's like the Globo Media found the Westboro church so useful in making the anti-homo side seem like a bunch of Christian-tard nutters. According to the PC narrative, any pro-white person must be 'nazi' and anyone who opposes the homo agenda must be a crazy Christian lunatic protesting military funerals.

    But Alt Right didn't play to this script. It cogently laid out how it sees the Power Dynamic in the West, and it's been more right than wrong, easily done since PC has suppressed so much necessary criticism of the Power. The ripple effects have been that even anti-Alt-Right people are more willing to discuss certain issues. The Overton window has been shifted, if only slightly.

    5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

    Derb: No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism?

    The answer to Derbyshire's question is Localism. Let Spanish and Catalans arrive at what is best for them. Non-Spanish and Non-Catalans might offer their advice and opinions, but it should be handled as local affair between Cats and Spans.

    7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

    Actually, it's better to say Alt Right is honestly anti-equalitarian. Let's face it. NO ONE believes in equality. Everyone with sense knows that Jews are smarter than Gypsies, West Africans can outrun Hindus, and Germans are, on average, taller than Mexicans.

    Alt Right is just honest about what everyone knows. I mean do Jews really believe than any Bolivian peasant can excel in finance in huge numbers? Do blacks really feel that Chinese are suddenly gonna win in 100m sprints?

    8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption


    Derb:
    It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.


    Vox Day is a sci-fi writer and them fellers have these funny ideas. He's just being sciencefictionoid with terminology.

    Derb: a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision. Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.

    True enough, but I think Vox Day was talking about social sciences. After all, theories on atoms and stars have no bearing on matters of politics and society. But scientific matters relating to humans have huge relevance and implications. And there has been too much 'scientistry -- scientific sophistry -- in the field. Scientistry is like quack dentistry where the wrong tooth is pulled out. So, even though the black tooth must be removed to stop the pain, white ones are yanked out. It's Clouseauean Dentistry.

    https://youtu.be/ENOCJBGzS-E?t=6m42s

    Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?

    True, but if SK were to reunite with any nation, wouldn't it be easier with NK than with Japan even though SK and Japan are economically and politically similar?
    Or look at Israel. Jews came from capitalist nations, communist nations, Muslim-majority nations, Christian-majority nations, and etc. Many spoke different languages and few knew Hebrew. There were religious Jews, secular Jews, and etc. But they made it work because they were bound by identity as the basis.
    Now, imagine creating a new nation based solely on creed. Suppose German Christians, African Christians, Chinese Christians, Mexican Christians, Arab Christians, and etc all came together to form a nation based on Jesus. Would it work as well? Or imagine a new nation founded on shared ideology of capitalism. Suppose French capitalists, Swedish capitalists, Nigerian capitalists, Turkish capitalist, Japanese capitalists, Indonesian capitalists, Pakistani capitalists, and etc all formed a nation. How long would it last?
    Thus far, US and Canada has held together despite diversity because there has been a Core Majority and Core narrative. But as they fray, can these nations remain together or function well based on shared general credos in 'muh constitution' and 'muh liberty'?

    10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

    Derb: As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10.

    Indians don't count. They were savages and had no civilization and had no means to resist white invaders. Also, the world was yet to be fully navigated and explored back then. Today, it's different. Mankind has explored and mapped out and claimed every inch of territory. Also, the Age of Empire ended after WWII with non-whites telling whites to go home. So, we can have universal nationalism. Every part of the world has been CLAIMED by a particular people and culture. And this must be preserved and used as the fundamental principle for the world. After all, it's called United NATIONS, not United Empire or United Economy.
    This common sense view is called 'far right'. The real extremist forces are the far-globalists, far-imperialists, far-Zionists, far-profiteers(greed is their only creed), far-thugs(black criminals and lunatics), far-sluts(what has become of womenfolk), far-invaders(neo-colonialism with massive third world movements). Why should peoples be invading and colonizing other nations when all the world has been claimed? Also, the agreement after WWII was end of empire and imperialism. So, why do we have 'reverse-imperialism' whereby non-whites get to demographically swamp white nations?

    11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

    Derb: Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence.
    I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent.


    True enough, but by 'diversity', Vox Day surely means diversity as cancer than condition.
    Diversity as condition is a fact of any nation. Even the most homogeneous nations have some diversity, the presence of non-nationals and foreigners, some of whom are permanently settled. And those people can be tolerated as co-existing folks.

    But by Diversity in today's parlance, it means Diversity as a cancer. Diversity as condition is like a tattoo. Good or bad, that tattoo will not expand. Diversity as cancer or Diversinoma is like skin cancer that starts small but never stops growing. PC and globalism say this is the only kind of Diversity that is good and NECESSARY. This is obviously a fatal disease for any racial-cultural civilization, but this is pushed by globalist quacks as the cure. It's like Barbara Specter saying that, "In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode." Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe. But cunning witches like her work on the earnest and naive good-will of Nordics who are especially easy suckers since they've been raised on Holocaust Guilt and the notion that white homogeneity = Nazism.

    13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

    Derb: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

    It depends on what one means by Free Trade. Surely, the Brits had free trade long ago but didn't allow massive invasions of non-whites into Britain. Also, the leftist Scottish National Party is more pro-immigration. And Stalin moved plenty of people around in his empire.

    Still, what Vox means by 'free trade' in the 21st century is globalism. This is different from free trade in the past that meant commerce among sovereign nations with national governments that represented their own peoples. Today, free trade is based on globalist corporations who feel NO sense of allegiance to their own nation or people. So, 'free trade' now means free movement of capital and peoples for economic opportunity, investment, exploitation, colonization. It is a form of anarchy.

    Also, I think a kind of agreement has been made between rich and poor nations. It goes as follows. Rich nations can invest in poor nations, but just as First World industrialists gain access to Third World, Third World folks must have access to First World.. to work and toil and send remittances back home. It's like US industrial elites gained access to Mexico, but US has to be opened to Mexicans who come in huge numbers and send back remittances.

    15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses

    Derb: Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. What do the “unique strengths” of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?

    Bushmen and Austro-Aborigines are outliers. They are few in number and don't count. But when it comes to the major races, there are indeed advantages and disadvantages. While Japanese can make good gadgets and run an orderly society, they are short dorks and have no iconic value. So, even though they make all these electronic stuff, people prefer to see OTHER races on Japanese-made gadgets. Sony made a lot of TV and walkmans, and Japanese were good at making such stuff. But it was Negro athletes who were shown on TV. So, even though Negroes have little industrial value -- they can't run an economy -- , they have much entertainment value, and that means billions around the world will be watching Negro runners and footballers. Look at China. Over billion people and they're addicted to NBA Negroes. And look at all the Blapanese. They are almost all the result of black fathers and Japanese mothers. If Japan that has so few Negroes is going this way, imagine what is happening to EU.
    Sure, all those Negroes coming from Africa have little industrial value. They be jiving and messing things up. But blacks got more rhythm and funk and bigger dongs. And whites find black music, black muscle, and black meat very pleasurable and entertaining. So, blacks have superior hedonic value. As whites are addicted to Negropium, one can say blacks do have serious advantages over the white race. Derbyshire is a math-geek sort of person and judges worth by science and intellect. But most of humanity is pretty vulgar, trashy, and infantile. And they want fun, fun, fun. And since Negroes be flipping and jiving and humping more than others, Non-Negroes have come under the iconic-idolatrous power of the Negroids. Bongo, the power of Negroness, does have a decisive advantage in the modern world. Capitalism and West used to be about work ethic, virtue, and restraint. But with over-surplus of food, clothing, and production, the West no longer worries about enough-to-eat or essentials of survival. They care mostly about fun and pleasure. Vice industry has overtaken virtue industry. In PLACES IN THE SUN, the Negroes were willing to pick cotton for corn meal. But today, Negresses got fat asses from welfare and 'twerk' their fat asses as if having sex with bad boys, and white kids grow up to this music and dance as 'western values'.

    While Holocaust-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people just like to be the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked apollo landing), not everyone who questions aspects of Shoah are ‘deniers’.

    I’ll take what is armchair psychology for $50.000 Alex, no, on second thought, make that $6 gorlillan! Didn’t know unz had debunkers. Isn’t it possible that we simply don’t believe in the OS? There is much to be skeptical of:

    1. Spending the resources to take hundreds of thousands(if not millions)of Eskimos into camps just to gas them. If extermination was the goal they would have killed when found or killed in large ditches like with all mass killing of that sort.

    2. Killing at least 4 gorlillian Eskimos in public camps without the world being aware of is preposterous .Keeping such a secret would be operationaly impossible without the intelligence agencies of the allies. A former spy evem wrote about his time in a camp – he said nothing of genocide.

    3. Germans exterminating Eskimos would be extremely valuable wartime propaganda, if I remember correctly lies were spread about the Germans gassing people in WW1. Why wouldn’t the allies tell the world while it was happening?

    4. We are told from camp survivors that Eskimos were forced into cambers so tightly
    there was standing room only… why use gas? Why not let them suffocate? Surely it would be less time consuming than waiting for the gas to ventilate? It would also cost alot less.

    So much for German efficiency

    5. Not one of the survivors described the gassed bodies as pink or red, which is odd considering how specific survivor tales

    There is plenty more where that came from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @wayfarer
    Holocaust denial is not some lunatic conspiracy theory, but a pathetic fact.

    A low-ball figure of 6,000,000 people being exterminated in WW II is not even remotely accurate, as roughly over 13 times that figure or about 80,000,000 people were unceremoniously dispatched.

    This propaganda is no doubt being perpetuated by the Rothschild family trust-fund progeny, who with the aid of their fiat-currency print shops, were instrumental in orchestrating shrewd financing programs for both the Axis and the Allied war machines.

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

    World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million. The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine.

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

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Cluebat
    The "JQ" focus outs you as the old Alt-Right. The new Alt-Right has other more pressing issues.

    But I also agree that John is not Alt-Right. He strikes me more as a Civic-Nationalist. And it is not like there is a club which can be joined. It is a philosophy which has more to do with the preservation of Western Civilization and the preservation of our national culture than anything else. And this is why PDT's message resonated with so many people.

    If you view what the Alt-Right truly holds dear and ignore media libels, you probably would also become one of us (gobble gobble). But it would need to be your secret identity, since it would be hard on your career to embrace an admittedly selfish (from a national perspective) ideology.

    The Alt-Right is just a bunch of people who a few decades ago were mainstream, and woke up one morning as villains. Now they follow the only path available to them. It is not a choice consciously deliberated by a group of hateful racists. Mostly, it is composed of white Christians who, over the course of a few short years have found that all they believe is now sinful in the eyes Caesar, and they are being persecuted for it.

    PS. I agree with Vox that Zman totally blew the science question.
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-failure-to-grasp-obvious.html

    [If you make absolutely no effort at proper capitalization, spelling, or punctuation, your comments may just get trashed.]

    see a lot of alt right you know before breitbart and the tea party got it into their heads it was they hilary was referring to type alt right, would pretty much consider you a cuck for being a christian.and certainly for cucking up for jews whether you were a hard core anti semite or just a skeptic first rule of alt right is no enemies to the right so cucking up for jews makes you a cuck, Unless you specifically state youre a alt right jew and blah blah blah then you’d probably be directed to nrx unless a very stubborn jew that didnt mind constant insult and suspicion. Now there were some alt righ christians but most went nrx when the schism came when the nazis claimed to be alt right cause the channers claimed to be alt right and the channers were so funny and successful, and not long after that it became impossible to say wtf was alt right or wtf it meant. It definitely doesnt mean disaffected tea party sorry

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. jtgw says:

    Hans Hoppe explicitly advocates free trade alongside restricted migration

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. jtgw says:
    @Samuel Skinner
    Vox has a rebuttal up on his site (got here Jim-Vox pipeline). I'll add some of my own commentary.

    Point 5

    Nationalism in the rejection of globalism (the elimination of borders to support the elite). There is no consensus on empire maintenance (Nrx are pro-imperial for example).

    Point 9

    Assuming identity means genetics, in the long run this will hold true. Remember, South Korea has been only a democracy about 3 decades and their TFR is 1.26. Their current setup is unsustainable and will fall apart before 2100.

    Point 11

    It is a reference to Chateau Heartiste.. You can browse the links provided there to understand exactly what he means.

    Point 13

    Vox is overstating his case, but the reality does follow this. The reason is people's jobs provide them status and livelihood so embracing free trade is frequently a way to screw over others in your society. Once the 'screw others over' faction is strong, 'screwing them harder with mass immigration' comes next because they've already demolished the opposition stopping them.

    Point 15

    The ability to reproduce above replacement, the most valuable trait of all.

    Point 16

    Vox (and much of the rest of the altright) is being coy- a positive TFR means that eventually there is not enough resources to go around. Which is followed by groups eliminating other groups. People don't like to be reminded of this and so most people softball this (Anglin excepted).

    Other notes
    History is not an empirical science. The study of history is empirical, but packaging history is propaganda to tell people what important lessons to take from the past and use today.

    Theological diversity is bad. Remember, religion is false so there should be only one set of false beliefs people subscribe to. Having multiple sets gets you our progressives, where new, more crazy and more false beliefs are constantly added.

    Regarding the free trade as “screwing over” your fellow citizen, I think you could present a nationalist case against that interpretation. The notion that trade screws people over requires that we look at people only as producers, not as consumers. As producers, we see people competing to produce goods for a market, and obviously the more producers are allowed to compete in a given sector, the more prices for goods and hence wages get bid down. But that’s just part of the picture; the other part is the consumer. The more goods are allowed to enter the market, the more consumers save as prices are bid down. So your fellow citizen saves more when a free flow of goods across borders is allowed. So if you’re going to support protective tariffs on the grounds that you’re defending the economic interests of your fellow citizen as a producer, you have to also explain away the harm you’re doing your fellow citizen as a consumer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    In a broad sense production is masculine and consumption is feminine. Think about it. This is why some of libertarianism comes off as gay to me. Dittos for libertarian style open borders. Though these days many-most libertarians know how absurd this idea is. Though Silicon Valley libertarians sure don't, they have stayed the course on this degeneracy.
    , @Samuel Skinner
    I'm looking at it through the lens of
    Men get jobs to show their worth to attract women
    Free trade allows you to eliminate jobs
    Free trade allows you to lower the wages and status/worth provided by certain jobs
    People who get new jobs are generally worse off

    So free trade is a way for people who know their jobs are secure to raise their relative sexual market value.

    It is true it makes a nation richer in an absolute sense. That isn't what gets you a mate. What gets you a mate is being a better catch then the other competitors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Clyde says:
    @Realist
    "I doubt there is an existential threat to white people."

    You're short on situational awareness.

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”

    You’re short on situational awareness.

    I am very worried about this. Just look at South Africa where the whites, many of them have been driven down into rural trailer park type poverty and worse. The farm murders. Given enough time (decades) this is what happens here and in Europe.
    I am paranoid about this and “only the paranoid survive”
    And not just our internal race problems within the US. China gets more powerful each year and they are anti-Caucasian in a broad sense. Whites as a proportion of the world’s population are half or worse of what they were in 1900 before we invented and spread modern sanitarian, modern medicines and antibiotics and modern well drilling. You will die from no water long before you die of (starvation) no food and populations are limited by access to potable water. But no more, as we whites invented and spread modern well drilling techniques.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Many good points.
    , @anonymous

    as we whites invented and spread modern
     
    The whites were also primarily responsible for spreading Pagan Polytheist Human Worship, on a global scale.

    In that way, you people are quite unselfish. You have certainly ensured that billions will have a share in the bounty called Hell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Clyde says:
    @jtgw
    Regarding the free trade as "screwing over" your fellow citizen, I think you could present a nationalist case against that interpretation. The notion that trade screws people over requires that we look at people only as producers, not as consumers. As producers, we see people competing to produce goods for a market, and obviously the more producers are allowed to compete in a given sector, the more prices for goods and hence wages get bid down. But that's just part of the picture; the other part is the consumer. The more goods are allowed to enter the market, the more consumers save as prices are bid down. So your fellow citizen saves more when a free flow of goods across borders is allowed. So if you're going to support protective tariffs on the grounds that you're defending the economic interests of your fellow citizen as a producer, you have to also explain away the harm you're doing your fellow citizen as a consumer.

    In a broad sense production is masculine and consumption is feminine. Think about it. This is why some of libertarianism comes off as gay to me. Dittos for libertarian style open borders. Though these days many-most libertarians know how absurd this idea is. Though Silicon Valley libertarians sure don’t, they have stayed the course on this degeneracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I think I see what you mean, but remember that the only reason we produce is because we consume. The alternative is to suggest we spend time and resources making things just for the hell of it, and not because we need those things to satisfy certain wants.

    I think what you mean is that consuming without producing is feminine. Traditionally, the men actually produced (monetary) wealth through their jobs and business, while the women simply consumed that monetary wealth in their domestic duties. Yes, the women worked, but all their "work" actually consisted of consuming the wealth provided by their husbands.

    This doesn't really relate to the question of trade policy. We have to start with considering the needs and wants of our fellow citizens, i.e. their role as consumers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Realist says:
    @Clyde

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”

    You’re short on situational awareness.

     
    I am very worried about this. Just look at South Africa where the whites, many of them have been driven down into rural trailer park type poverty and worse. The farm murders. Given enough time (decades) this is what happens here and in Europe.
    I am paranoid about this and "only the paranoid survive"
    And not just our internal race problems within the US. China gets more powerful each year and they are anti-Caucasian in a broad sense. Whites as a proportion of the world's population are half or worse of what they were in 1900 before we invented and spread modern sanitarian, modern medicines and antibiotics and modern well drilling. You will die from no water long before you die of (starvation) no food and populations are limited by access to potable water. But no more, as we whites invented and spread modern well drilling techniques.

    Many good points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jamie b.

    Humanity does not require a mutually coherent body of scientage any more than it requires a mutually coherent body of history…or theology.
     
    That's there's no such thing as a meaningful consensus in theology is not surprising, since theology does not refer to anything empirical. But history does have standards, even if they're less than those of science.

    The decision to move onto new issues, and when to dwell, is the personal business of the researcher and whoever is funding his research.
     
    Agreed.

    ...the Federal government does significantly determine where grant money goes...
     
    (For all countries?) Consensus influences funding. Is there actual evidence for the reverse?

    ...those of us interested in dissident scientage really have no choice but to uniformly oppose all talk of “scientific consensus”
     
    Proving your case would be better.

    since theology does not refer to anything empirical

    Superficially true. But, there is such a thing called common sense logicality, that the incredible complexity of the known Universe and all its contents would be impossible without an infinitely powerful Creator… and it would illogical for Him to have partners, and for Him to be human-like, and so on.

    For anyone with some of that elusive trait, it should be so clear that what much of the world wallows in, namely, Pagan Polytheist Human Worship, aka Godlessness, is simply far removed from that sense of logicality.

    The glorious exulting western civilisation will find out eventually… and there will not be much gloating where you are all headed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. If one side in a civil war cannot win without massive foreign support, it means it has a fatal weakness.

    Take the Vietnam War.
    All North Vietnamese soldiers were Vietnamese.
    In contrast, South Vietnam relied on US troops and even South Korean troops to prop up its regime and system.
    North had the decisive advantage. Its military was manned with proud patriots.
    South was decadent and under neo-imperialist mentality. It lacked conviction except profits and pleasure. So, no one was willing to fight and die for what the system stood for.
    So, the South relied on what were mercenary forces from the US and South Korea.

    US soldiers had no idea why they were there. Something about stopping evil communism and all that. But most Americans didn’t care and grew cynical. They had low morale and had to be bribed with R&R to keep fighting. They were given generous rations to drink, party, and bang whores.
    And S. Koreans fought as a mercenary force as they got the same pay. And it was a huge boost to the SK economy. But without US money, SK had no reason or will to fight.
    In contrast, North Vietnamese were fighting for nation and pride. They had a sense of value beyond money and materialism.

    North had the will, the cohesion, and the conviction all on its own.
    South had no will, no pride. It had to be propped up by outside mercenary forces. Without them, South was doomed, and indeed the North soon prevailed over the South once the US left.

    This dynamics is reflected partly in the crisis of the West.
    There is a civil war between globalist whites and nationalist whites. In many white nations, the nationalist whites have a decisive advantage over the globalist whites.
    Nationalist whites tend to have strong sense of roots and identity. They are more likely to have a sense of core morality. They are more likely to have national and racial pride and cultural pride. As such, they have a sense of meaning, direction, and power in being what they are and being with others like themselves.
    In contrast, globalist whites(despite their education and affluence) tend to be decadent, demoralized(except in the virtue-signaling of self-loathing; their moral pride is predicated on racial suicide), directionless, rootless, and spineless(again, except in denouncing their own race).
    As such, they are bound to be the minority of whites in any healthy nation where whites have woken up to what’s really at stake.

    The reason why some white nations have more globalist whites than nationalist whites is because the elite institutions are controlled by globalist Jews and their cuck-collaborators who spread PC and Homogro pop culture to whites from cradle.
    But if white national consciousness were given a chance, it is bound to grow and spread.
    It’s like most Vietnamese had been resigned to French imperialism and just went along. But once the nationalist fire began spreading, it could hardly be contained.

    Just like the South Vietnamese felt they had no chance without foreign mercenaries, globalist whites(who are really unwitting servile shills of Jewish globalists) are beginning to feel that they have no chance without foreign mercenaries of Diversity or ‘immigrants’. These are immigrant-mercenaries or ‘immercenaries’ in the sense that their ONLY commitment to the West is materialist. They have no concern for western identity, culture, or history. They just come for money and materialism. For those goodies, they are willing to destroy nationalist whites… just like South Korean soldiers were willing to kill tons of Vietnamese nationalists for $$$.
    Without Immercenaries, Virginia would still be a red state. It was the immercenaries who turned California into a blue state. Indeed, many stares would be red if not for immercenaries.

    Granted, there is one crucial difference between US and Divided Vietnam during the war. The nationalist Viets had a solid base in the North. So, the Viet Cong in the South could rely on support from the total patriotic power in the North.
    In contrast, all of the US is like South Vietnam. All of it is occupied by the GLOB. All the governments, all the institutions, all the industries. So, nationalist whites(a more accurate term than ‘white nationalists’) are like Viet Cong but without the backing of solid base of power.
    In North Vietnam, all the institutions were controlled by patriots. So, the Viet Cong could at least rely on hardcore nationalist Vietnam at war with South Vietnam under neo-imperialist US hegemony.
    In contrast, the Alt Right and nationalist whites have no such backing. Some see Russia as the support system of nationalist whites, but Russia is non-interventionist and, being an imperial nation in its own right, not so keen on ethno-nationalism.

    Still, once true nationalism replaces cuck-conservatism, the nationalist whites will be far more passionate and committed than the globalist whites whose main passions are ridiculous homo-worship, Negro-worship, servility to Zionists, and racial self-hated.
    In the end, a people who love their own kind have advantage over those who hate their own kind. This is why globalist whites everywhere fear that they cannot win in the long run against nationalist whites. They can win ONLY with the mercenary masses of non-white immigrants who side with globalist whites PURELY for material reasons. $$$

    If the only means of political contention will be elections, the globalist whites might prevail because immercenaries, as ‘new citizens’, will vote for globalism.

    But if it comes to a shooting war, nationalist whites will be like the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. They will have something to live for, kill for, die for.
    In contrast, the immercenaries will fight only for money. As for globalist whites, what is their great cause? Racial suicide. Is that something worth dying for?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @the cruncher
    Presuming you're in the 1st world, well why are you still here if you think you've been mistreated? Africans flock to Europe. They'd flock to the US if they could get here. If you take our stuff, you'll be like Zimbabwe, asking for whites to come back and rule (https://www.amren.com/news/2017/11/need-whites-come-back-rebuild-country-current-government-failed-says-war-vets-leader/). Blacks seem to think wealth is just there, and whites have it. Well no, whites create it. You blacks seem to be really slow learners on the subject. No surprise, I guess.

    First world, schmuck world, whatever…

    As long as the “first” world remains the collective Spiritual Loserville, it does not make much of a difference.

    Your brilliantly weak minds are incapable to ever realise that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @U. Ranus
    > Alt-Right is not a white nationalist ideology anymore. Not for some time. That really bothers a lot of skinheads.

    Calm down. It's okay to be white.

    My understanding has been that to obtain Alt-Right, you start with Right and remove the Cuck.

    Lots of people working hard to put the Cuck back. I don't think it can be done.

    Keeping in mind the kind of people on the “Right” (the word itself, like in, Righteous, Virtuous, etc.), from any part of the globe, the term applied to such lowlifes is such an oxymoron.

    Should you fellows not change your label to Alt-Wrong, Alt-Venom, Alt-Scum, or something?

    Right?! Alt-Right?! :D

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. geokat62 says:
    @Anonymous
    No, you are not Alt-Right.

    You identify the problems affecting Whites, but you refuse to name the opponent who is creating these problems. You won't engage with the JQ.

    Fighting an opponent with no name is akin to tilting at windmills. it is too transparently double-think to be taken seriously. It is a stance that has no future as the noose tightens around the White world's neck.

    I know why you do it. You are old enough that you were able to amass wealth in the USA while the White sun was still shining. You do not engage the JQ so that you might maintain what you have earned, lest the Chosen take it from you.

    And yet you have lost so much potential wealth taking the path you have taken, even though it is a half measure... why come up short in your words when you surely know the truth?

    Perhaps you really agree with the left, in your heart of hearts, that racism is bad. You are, to be frank, an immigrant and a race-mixer, yes? These actions speak too loudly to be papered over with even the choicest of words.

    I accept that you would rather watch the fight from afar. So be it. Just don't stand in our way when we do what must be done.

    Steve Sailer, on this very website, is willing to engage with the JQ in a much more forthright manner. Steve, in my mind, therefore can be considered Alt-Right... a gateway to the Alt-Right, even.

    You identify the problems affecting Whites, but you refuse to name the opponent who is creating these problems. You won’t engage with the JQ…

    I know why you do it… You do not engage the JQ so that you might maintain what you have earned, lest the Chosen take it from you.

    Close, but not quite right.

    He wishes to go a little beyond what he has already earned.

    Excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. jtgw says:
    @Clyde
    In a broad sense production is masculine and consumption is feminine. Think about it. This is why some of libertarianism comes off as gay to me. Dittos for libertarian style open borders. Though these days many-most libertarians know how absurd this idea is. Though Silicon Valley libertarians sure don't, they have stayed the course on this degeneracy.

    I think I see what you mean, but remember that the only reason we produce is because we consume. The alternative is to suggest we spend time and resources making things just for the hell of it, and not because we need those things to satisfy certain wants.

    I think what you mean is that consuming without producing is feminine. Traditionally, the men actually produced (monetary) wealth through their jobs and business, while the women simply consumed that monetary wealth in their domestic duties. Yes, the women worked, but all their “work” actually consisted of consuming the wealth provided by their husbands.

    This doesn’t really relate to the question of trade policy. We have to start with considering the needs and wants of our fellow citizens, i.e. their role as consumers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    I am a shameless protectionist going back to 1992 with Perot and Pat Buchanan. I do thank you for considering what I said and getting the point I was making. I will admit that the libertarian (or protectionist) in me can see that trade policy works much better in mono ethnic (enough) nations such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China. In today's multiculti US it would probably be a disaster of vote buying and favoritism.
    So maybe the present chaos with huge, disgraceful trade deficits and runaway Fed money printing to paper this over. Plus borrowing trillions from foreigners, mostly Asian. Maybe this is the best we can do. The time for serious trade policy to eliminate trade deficits was 1992 before so many factories and industries were sent packing to China/Asia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @dearieme
    "I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them."

    I disagree: only a moron could fail to know that Christianity started as a Jewish cult established in the name of a Jewish preacher/magician. The only Jewish influence of much consequence on western civ, until recent times, was through Christianity. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to leave the importance of the Jews as implicit within the singling out of Christianity. After all, we can mention the the Graeco-Roman legacy without feeling any need to point out that Roman civilisation learnt quite a lot from the Etruscans.

    What's missing from the pillars is any implication of the importance of the ages of, or should I say movements of, Renaissance, Exploration, Reformation, Enlightenment, Romanticism. But maybe these aren't pillars: who knows what phenomena a metaphor is meant to include? Presumably a stationary pillar can't include a movement.

    Talking of "pillars": the early Christians apparently talked of the pillars of their movement being James, Peter, and Paul. Is the use of "pillars" here intended as an allusion to that?

    The inclusion of "the European nations" as a pillar should invite a lot of debate. So many of them are so recent, so many so fleeting.

    The only Jewish influence of much consequence on western civ, until recent times, was through Christianity.

    Only? That’s gonna be a hard sell in my neck of the woods.

    You are correct that the always increasing sub-cults of Christianity (now Paulinity, really) have their roots as you say, but people who identify themselves as members of one of the many other Jewish sub-cult, especially if you include JINOs, have had lot of influence in what’s poorly labeled as Western civilization. The influence started at least as far back s Moses’ influence with the Pharaoh a couple millennia ago and can be traced through the halls of power to the present day.

    Jewish influence can be seen n the writings of Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, to name only two,for instance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Jewish influence can be seen n the writings of Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, to name only two, for instance." Both of whom were Christians, which is my point.

    "Moses’ influence with the Pharaoh a couple millennia ago": (i) Moses didn't exist - it's a fairy-tale. (ii) But if he had existed it was a lot longer than two millennia ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Che Guava says:
    @Randal
    A good discussion, although my own default position is basically that "there is no there, there" as far as trying to define "the Alt Right" is concerned. The Alt Right is not a party, nor any kind of organisation, nor does it have any philosophy as such. It's surely best just defined as anyone who is on the right (and thereby hangs another long and complicated tale of definition) but not of the mainstream or establishment right, imo. That said, many desperately want to define it further, from Vox Day's valiant effort here described to Richard Spencer and his enemies.

    A couple of my own quibbles with Derbyshire's comments:

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.
     
    I think it's vitally important to maintain a recognition of the basic foreignness of judaism in Christian countries, especially now that there is an explicitly jewish state, which creates around them the kind of problem Catholics constituted for England in the C16th-C19th. I don't think of myself as meaningfully anti-Semitic, since I don't hate jews, but as a result of putting that opinion forward I was accused of having perpetrated one of the worst antisemitic statements he'd ever seen, by a jewish identity lobbyist with whom the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for policing hate speech nationally apparently agreed about my general heinousness in this regard. The jewish lobbies' attempts to promote the enforcement of this kind of speechcrime law is of course another strong reason to keep their basic foreignness in mind.

    That’s a kind of fielder’s-choice point, though.
     
    This appears to be a rather obscure reference to something derived from the American version of rounders.

    Randal,

    I was thinking ynu were UsA person, your line about rounders and baseball, very good and to the point.

    In part of primary school education in Singapore, rounders was the game!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes.
     
    no you're not

    because as everyone with a brain and a shred of integrity knows by now, the 800 LB purple gorilla doing all it can to murder Western Civilization are the Jewish supremacists that you 'prudently' fail to mention, because mentioning ((them)) is exactly what the boy in the story would be doing.

    'But look at who owns the media and the banks and controls the courts and the universities and Western governments?!'

    'Look on whose behalf the West is trying to destroy so many Muslim nations and Europa in the process!'

    'Look at who is behind the immigration into England and N. America!'

    those are the things that the boy in the story would be pointing out, rather than doing all you can to obfuscate that fact, as you hail the sumptuous flowing raiments and glorious fabrics with golden stitching!


    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them
     
    Knowing that doing so is pleasing to the ((emperor))

    a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision.

    Saturn is further from the Sun
     

    he wasn't talking about the Sun, duh

    he was talking about how 'science' is so often hijacked by charlatans and scoundrels simply by injecting money to corrupt the "scientists', who're too often corruptible, being all too human. (like journalists ; )

    some glaring examples of that are 'climate science', which has been infused with billions of shekels in order to impose an anti-science agenda. You'd have to be Martian not to have seen that mockery of actual science play itself out on the world's stage of late.

    Also the 'science' of Anthropology had been similarly debased and corrupted by ((their)) eternal agenda. With Franz Boaz and the rest of the charlatans and scoundrels telling us there's no such thing as race.

    So I believe these are the kinds of things he's talking about when he says to be skeptical of 'science', as it's too often lies imposed by the PTB as 'science' in order to impose their agendas.

    basically the alt-right is simply the actual right as opposed to the liberal, progressive left, (as it's currently manifested - anti-white)

    the alt-right is the alternative to the ((neoconservative right)), who demand eternal wars to bolster a Jewish supremacist Israel, while at the same time demanding open borders for all white nations. [Tony Blair, George Bush, Paul Ryan, John McCain, David Cameron, Sheldon Adelson, ad nauseam..]

    the alt-right is an alternative to this so-called genocidal "right". And let me explain 'genocidal'.

    -The ((neocon)) right (of cucks like Tony Blair) demands the hard genocide (by murder and ethnic cleansing of the Arabs of Palestine) and by infusing millions upon millions of non-whites into the white gene pool of historically white nations until ultimately there are no white nations left. Genocide.

    for the record

    and that's basically what the alt-right simply are

    the sane elements of the white, Western world that aren't beholding to the ((emperor)) and his kosher agenda to see Western civilization and its people march off into oblivion so that ((he)) can rule this planet absolutely.

    Duh

    Derb – I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes.

    Rurik – no you’re not

    because as everyone with a brain and a shred of integrity knows by now, the 800 LB purple gorilla doing all it can to murder Western Civilization are the Jewish supremacists that you ‘prudently’ fail to mention, because mentioning ((them)) is exactly what the boy in the story would be doing.

    Good stuff, Rurik.

    This is indeed the real litmus test: anyone who refuses to discuss the 800 lb gorilla in the room should be called out for being the phony cuckservative they are.

    And this guy has the nads to suggest he is like the little boy pointing out the emperor has no clothes, when he has openly admitted his cringing fear of the emperor:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law

    Not sure why this guy still has a following after admitting something like that.

    His followers are like the frogs in that boiling pot of water who are oblivious to the fact that they are being cooked alive since he quickly reassures them there is no need to get out as everything is just fine…. the empower is just wanting a little snack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     
    Geo:


    Not sure why this guy still has a following after admitting something like that.

     

    I suspect a kind of Stockholm Syndrome Geo

    or a kind of craven ambition ;)

    and that wasn't the only gem in that nice piece you posted Geo, there's more..

    I therefore approached MacDonald’s work dispassionately, interested to see what he has to say. I found his first two books tough-going, jargony, and not very well written. The Culture of Critique, though, is an interesting book, and I think he says things that are true, uncomfortably true—for example about the tendency, on the part of 20th-century Jewish-led intellectual movements like the Frankfurt School, to pathologize Gentile culture.

    I was glad to see that someone [other than me, actually willing to say the emperor was nekked] had written about these things in a non-vituperative way. They are things that occur to any thoughtful American sooner or later, and it is satisfying to see someone who’s done a lot of reading on these topics, trying to fit them into some kind of coherent social-historical framework.

     

    he also points out how MacDonald writes for the real world

    I think MacDonald is in love with 1950—with the old Gentile supremacy, [over their own lands and their own people] when Jews were kept out of golf clubs and hotels [and didn't control our institutions and media and foreign policy in near absolute terms] advertised themselves on their stationery as “near churches” (translation: No Jews, please). He doesn’t wish any harm to Jews, but I do think he resents the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, the academy, and other elites.
     
    whereas Derby seems to have no problem with that "disproportionate representation" (and the catastrophic consequences), even if he's carved a good career niche by lamenting the symptoms of - so long as he studiously avoids mentioning the actual cause.

    IOW mentioning that the emperor has no clothes.

    [emphasis and comments in italics are mine]
    , @Rurik
    OK Geo, I posted a nice reply to this and it was censured.

    I'll post this as a sort of test, I guess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. wayfarer says:
    @Meimou
    While Holocaust-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people just like to be the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked apollo landing), not everyone who questions aspects of Shoah are ‘deniers’.

    I'll take what is armchair psychology for $50.000 Alex, no, on second thought, make that $6 gorlillan! Didn't know unz had debunkers. Isn't it possible that we simply don't believe in the OS? There is much to be skeptical of:

    1. Spending the resources to take hundreds of thousands(if not millions)of Eskimos into camps just to gas them. If extermination was the goal they would have killed when found or killed in large ditches like with all mass killing of that sort.

    2. Killing at least 4 gorlillian Eskimos in public camps without the world being aware of is preposterous .Keeping such a secret would be operationaly impossible without the intelligence agencies of the allies. A former spy evem wrote about his time in a camp - he said nothing of genocide.

    3. Germans exterminating Eskimos would be extremely valuable wartime propaganda, if I remember correctly lies were spread about the Germans gassing people in WW1. Why wouldn't the allies tell the world while it was happening?

    4. We are told from camp survivors that Eskimos were forced into cambers so tightly
    there was standing room only... why use gas? Why not let them suffocate? Surely it would be less time consuming than waiting for the gas to ventilate? It would also cost alot less.

    So much for German efficiency

    5. Not one of the survivors described the gassed bodies as pink or red, which is odd considering how specific survivor tales

    There is plenty more where that came from.

    Holocaust denial is not some lunatic conspiracy theory, but a pathetic fact.

    A low-ball figure of 6,000,000 people being exterminated in WW II is not even remotely accurate, as roughly over 13 times that figure or about 80,000,000 people were unceremoniously dispatched.

    This propaganda is no doubt being perpetuated by the Rothschild family trust-fund progeny, who with the aid of their fiat-currency print shops, were instrumental in orchestrating shrewd financing programs for both the Axis and the Allied war machines.

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

    World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million. The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine.

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JackOH
    Randal, thanks, you have good sense here. I've only heard the expression "Alt-Right" on these pages. The best I can make out is that it refers to a jumble of ideas that really never went away, such as eugenics and dysgenics, and that have gained a bit of new life thanks in part to the excesses of the Black lobbies and Jewish-Zionist lobbies.

    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what's going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That's something worth defending.

    …such as the murderousness of the 20th century, … are still a pretty damned good people.

    LOL! How about the 21st century, cursed one?

    Anyway, your kind has always been greedy psychopathic murderers, who will go to any extent to establish hegemony in all spheres, over all people, and the evil you have resorted to has earned yourselves a just comeuppance in the fiery pits of Hell.

    As they say, the higher you rise, the harder you fall. The fall is Hell, baby. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Clyde says:
    @jtgw
    I think I see what you mean, but remember that the only reason we produce is because we consume. The alternative is to suggest we spend time and resources making things just for the hell of it, and not because we need those things to satisfy certain wants.

    I think what you mean is that consuming without producing is feminine. Traditionally, the men actually produced (monetary) wealth through their jobs and business, while the women simply consumed that monetary wealth in their domestic duties. Yes, the women worked, but all their "work" actually consisted of consuming the wealth provided by their husbands.

    This doesn't really relate to the question of trade policy. We have to start with considering the needs and wants of our fellow citizens, i.e. their role as consumers.

    I am a shameless protectionist going back to 1992 with Perot and Pat Buchanan. I do thank you for considering what I said and getting the point I was making. I will admit that the libertarian (or protectionist) in me can see that trade policy works much better in mono ethnic (enough) nations such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China. In today’s multiculti US it would probably be a disaster of vote buying and favoritism.
    So maybe the present chaos with huge, disgraceful trade deficits and runaway Fed money printing to paper this over. Plus borrowing trillions from foreigners, mostly Asian. Maybe this is the best we can do. The time for serious trade policy to eliminate trade deficits was 1992 before so many factories and industries were sent packing to China/Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I'm not sure how much our current "free trade" system is actually free trade. I know a lot of the substance of agreements like NAFTA involves harmonizing trade-distorting regulation across borders and balancing free trade in some areas with continued protection in others. In other words, there's the potential for a lot more market-distorting activities that harm us. While I haven't gotten the chance to really look into the details, I do know that plenty of hard-core libertarians have been and still are against NAFTA and most official "free trade" agreements. So if you can show that NAFTA or another policy harmed us in some way, it may not be fair to blame libertarianism or free trade doctrine itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Che Guava says:
    @DissidentRight
    Regarding the response to Point 8:

    Scientody - the scientific method itself
    Scientage - the knowledge base; the conclusions of scientody
    Scientistry - the profession

    Scientody - It’s great. However many things that are factual and true, that sensible people believe are factual and true, and that are required for civilization, fall outside its scope. History, for example. Similarly philosophy, logic, mathematics, and various matters of religion.

    Scientage - Note that an observation is not the same as a conclusion–in particular, a conclusion drawn from a tested hypothesis which was formed on the basis of an observation. To merely observe is not to practice scientody. To practice scientody, one must draw hypotheses concerning the observations and then test those hypotheses. The conclusion of scientody, then, is not the observation, but rather the verified hypothesis.

    Therefore, it should not be controversial to notice that the validity of any given instance of scientage (conclusion of scientody) rests both on the assumptions and nature of the hypothesis and the accuracy, relevance, and completeness of the tests. Both of these points are, in principle, open to dispute and further revision. (Repeatable observations, of course, are not open to dispute.)

    Even in cases where a robust conclusion (‘scientific theory’) is developed, it is common for the theory to later be superseded and improved by the addition of novel observations.

    And in cases where the observations and tests are few, or where the hypothesis has only been partially tested, the scientage is dubious.

    Scientistry - This refers to the people who practice (or claim to practice) scientody: in other words, a joke. Scientistry typically engages in bluster, spin, and outright lies. The people who fund scientistry frequently have a vested interest in the claims of scientistry and happily pay for results, scientody be damned. Scientistry frequently disappears parts of scientage deemed insensitive to egalitarians, atheists, environmentalists, and the like. (Some segments of scientistry even disappear scientage deemed insensitive to Christians.) Scientistry ignores scientody when it is deemed appropriate.

    According to scientistry, a handful of trivial tests serve to validate all the assumptions and broad-reaching models of global warming. According to scientistry, the conclusions of the peer review method (a method which bears no resemblance whatsoever to scientody; peer review does not even bother to test the claims it is reviewing) naturally bear the same weight as scientage; to doubt them is to doubt scientody. In fact, according to scientistry, its own pontifications naturally bear the same weight as scientage, regardless of the subject matter, and to doubt them is to doubt scientody. According to scientistry, the claims of neo-Darwinism are as unassailable as scientody itself, despite consisting in large part of post-hoc observations and a set of untestable historical hypotheses. Even if we discard every neo-Darwinian claim that, by definition, falls outside the bounds of scientody, we are left with a set of tremendously broad-scoped hypotheses which have only been tested in small part. Yet scientistry tells us that to doubt neo-Darwinism is not merely to undermine all scientage, but to literally cast doubt on scientody itself. (This is why I fucking love science.)

    Meanwhile, according to scientistry, scientody is the sole basis of rational knowledge and anything outside the scope of scientody should be discarded as myth or fantasy. In other words, scientistry serves to reinforce the rule that Most People Are Idiots. It is easy to see why these distinctions are essential for understanding “science” and escaping various fallacies and sophistries.

    Those are clownish neologisms, may as well throw scientophagy in.

    Thinking that I can seeing why somebody was making those stupid words (leftards who hate science and those educated in scientific method suddenly to ranting about ‘settled science’ on climate and human diversity), but inventing stupid words with no valid roots, sure the way to making yourselves look stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal
    Cheers, JackOH.

    I’ve only heard the expression “Alt-Right” on these pages.
     
    I come across it fairly regularly in the mainstream, such as in the UK's Channel 4 documentary blurb in my other post on this thread. It's mostly used as a synonym, as it is there, for Richard Spencer's lot and related politics.


    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what’s going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That’s something worth defending.
     
    Exactly so (and Citizen's reply as well). It's a much-needed corrective to a longstanding thrust to uniquely demonize white/Euro-American people and culture for the benefit of radicals and various ethnic and other lobbies and interest groups.

    are still a pretty damned good people.

    Also;

    If you mean in an outwardly manner, say like everyone’s favourite psycho, Hannibal, then yes, you fellows do seem quite agreeable… manners well cultivated to deceive.

    It is what is within the hearts and minds, and the actions those depraved organs set into motion, which is most chilling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    Given the low murder rate by whites compared to everyone but east Asians, it isn't clear what evil you are possibly referring to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Clyde

    “I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.”

    You’re short on situational awareness.

     
    I am very worried about this. Just look at South Africa where the whites, many of them have been driven down into rural trailer park type poverty and worse. The farm murders. Given enough time (decades) this is what happens here and in Europe.
    I am paranoid about this and "only the paranoid survive"
    And not just our internal race problems within the US. China gets more powerful each year and they are anti-Caucasian in a broad sense. Whites as a proportion of the world's population are half or worse of what they were in 1900 before we invented and spread modern sanitarian, modern medicines and antibiotics and modern well drilling. You will die from no water long before you die of (starvation) no food and populations are limited by access to potable water. But no more, as we whites invented and spread modern well drilling techniques.

    as we whites invented and spread modern

    The whites were also primarily responsible for spreading Pagan Polytheist Human Worship, on a global scale.

    In that way, you people are quite unselfish. You have certainly ensured that billions will have a share in the bounty called Hell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. I doubt there is an existential threat to white people.

    I stopped reading right here. Derbyshire cannot possibly be this ignorant.

    Having engaged in it himself, he will defend miscegenation to the death (or to the white race’s death).

    Pro-whites need to be extremely wary of considering him an ally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. Since any alt-rightist worth his salt is anti-Israel, the answer to Derb’s question is, “no”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    if the choice is bolshevism or zionism then zionism is better (however we currently have both)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. jtgw says:
    @Clyde
    I am a shameless protectionist going back to 1992 with Perot and Pat Buchanan. I do thank you for considering what I said and getting the point I was making. I will admit that the libertarian (or protectionist) in me can see that trade policy works much better in mono ethnic (enough) nations such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China. In today's multiculti US it would probably be a disaster of vote buying and favoritism.
    So maybe the present chaos with huge, disgraceful trade deficits and runaway Fed money printing to paper this over. Plus borrowing trillions from foreigners, mostly Asian. Maybe this is the best we can do. The time for serious trade policy to eliminate trade deficits was 1992 before so many factories and industries were sent packing to China/Asia.

    I’m not sure how much our current “free trade” system is actually free trade. I know a lot of the substance of agreements like NAFTA involves harmonizing trade-distorting regulation across borders and balancing free trade in some areas with continued protection in others. In other words, there’s the potential for a lot more market-distorting activities that harm us. While I haven’t gotten the chance to really look into the details, I do know that plenty of hard-core libertarians have been and still are against NAFTA and most official “free trade” agreements. So if you can show that NAFTA or another policy harmed us in some way, it may not be fair to blame libertarianism or free trade doctrine itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    There is a very simple answer to what you said. Go look at our trade deficit. This will tell you how "free trade" the US is. The people of NE Asia have high IQs and they don't buy into the Anglo doctrine of free trade. Anglo nations are the only ones who buy into free trade theory 100%.

    Maybe the mercantilist nations of NE Asia are smarter than you and they are patriotic, nationalist and look out for their people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Priss Factor
    Vox Day is a goof and not to be taken seriously. All said and done, he's a plus to the movement but a rather shallow and snippy character. And he sometimes goes for low-hanging fruits like Andrew Anglin whose only value is as class clown.

    1. The Alt Right is of the political right... Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

    Big problem with this. Even though people who call themselves 'socialists' are not Alt Right, Alt Right is open to socialism as component of economics. Alt Right is neo-fascist or social-democratic in accepting both socialism and capitalism. Indeed, this capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is rather useless in our world. When capitalist had free rein in the 19th century and when communists called for abolition of private property, one could speak of capitalists vs socialists. However, esp following WWII, both Europe and US have adopted economic policies that combine capitalism and socialism. Even American Conservatives who are all for free enterprise would not vote for politicians who would end social security and other government programs. And even American Liberals who call themselves 'socialists' wanna live in nations with powerful capitalist economies. Just consider. If socialists are really and truly socialist, why not be like Amish folks? Why not get together and work on communes and share everything? But so-called socialists in US and EU don't act this way. They always try to move to the most affluent urban areas and try to live off capitalists. They write books and plays in the hopes that the affluent class will buy them. As 'artists', they seek rich patrons to sponsor and fund their projects. As academics, they teach at universities funded by rich donors. Consider the ton of money Harvard and Yale have due to donors. These donors made their money in capitalism, not socialism. And if these 'socialists' are into artisanal work, they make fancy stuff for rich folks. Artisanal beer, Artisanal candy, Artisanal candles, etc. They are 'socialist' in the sense that Europeans used to be 'Christian'. The label makes them sound noble, caring, and into 'social justice'. But they would never want to live in a socialist nation. They want to feed on capitalist success. Your average 'socialist' moves to glitzy cities like San Fran or NY.

    In the 60s, some 'socialist' types did try to live in communes, but it didn't work. Unlike Amish who are disciplined, humble, orderly, and virtuous -- I guess Mormons are free-market materialist Amish -- , the 'socialists' were into hedonism, drugs, orgies, and etc. They were more into bumming off others than working for the common good. It's like the hippie commune in EASY RIDER where the folks are more into long hair, weed, and skinny-dipping than getting up in the morning and doing chores like milking cows and making butter. Look what the hippie 'socialists' did to Woodstock. If not for the wage-slave Portosan man, the place would have been covered with shi*.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch6yn_toTbI

    Anyway, Alt Right seeks to move beyond this 'capitalism vs socialism' dichotomy. While socialism can be anti-right, so can capitalism. The root of rightism is nationalism and identity in race and culture. Capitalists will easily betray their own race and nation just for more profits or status. To a capitalist, profits and prestige matter more than anything. Anything for profits.
    Worse, once a society turns hedonist and shameless, capitalism begins to focus on vice industry to feed on people's weakness for fast pleasure in food, trash culture, sex, and etc. Shameless and hedonistic capitalism is the basis of globalist control of the populace.
    True Power comes from self-control. Those who lose control over themselves won't be able to control much else. It's like once American Indians surrendered to the pleasures of firewater, they lost the pride and will. And Chinese on opium were lost in lala-land while their families and nation were being sold off to imperialists. White people are lost because so many of them are addicted to the opiate of pop culture.

    And it's about mindless excessive appetites, indulgences, and therapies. It says pig out, hump all over, laugh like tard at OW MY BALLS(see IDIOCRACY), play dumb video games, and worship comic book super heroes. It promotes infantilism, and this is reflected in the political culture of celebrity, vanity, and therapy. So, there is babyish PC that divides the world in goodies and baddies. And progs cry and wail like babies and call people 'racist' and 'white supremacist' and 'homophobic' and chant slogans like 'black lives matter'. And then, there are all these therapies that, instead of telling people to get real and grow up, indulge them in their self-aggrandizing baby-emotions.... like General Silvestra who indulged that lowlife black 'hate hoaxer' who was responsible for the KKK vandalism.
    Indeed, it is interesting how the very people who push this EXTREMISM in appetites and ideology are the ones who accuse Alt Right and any basic patriots as 'far right' and 'extreme'. Alt Right is calling for self-control over appetites. It's not calling for globalist imperialism or war-mongering. It's calling for the right of each Western nation to survive as and for what it is. How is that extreme? In contrast, globalists call for More Wars and More Intervention even after such ventures destroyed much of the Middle East and led to useless 'new cold war' with Russia. Globalists also say the native peoples of US and EU must be replaced by nasty non-white ingrates. Yet, that is considered 'normal' while basic nationalism 101 that is pro-peace and pro-borders is denounced as 'far right' and 'extremist'. What a crazy world. Consider Francis Fukuyama, aka George Soros' dog. He should be called Fukyomama because this lowlife is so convinced that wars and mass invasions are justified because they hasten the 'end of history' when it's really hastening the End of Humanity.

    2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA

    Alt Right is that but it is also an alternative to old-style far right of white politics and white supremacism as represented by organizations like KKK and Neo-Nazis. It is also an alternative to the grim and dour racial apocalyptic views of men like William Pierce.
    KKK was too hick. Neo-Nazis were too deranged and demented. And men like Pierce came across as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, they were very bourgeois and respectable, but their views were nutty or insane.
    And then, there were men like William Shockley who didn't crank out nutter visions like TURNER DIARIES. But Alt Right differs from them as well. The problem with men like Shockley was they thought they could persuade people with rational arguments and facts alone. But any socio-political movement must have vision, passion, and the prophetic thing. Shockley never had it. Jared Taylor and his kind have a broader vision, but they too are focused on rational discussion. Alt Right understands that cautious rational arguments are not enough. People want to be swept up by a collective passion that stirs their hearts and minds. And this is why Alt Right is anti-stuffy and not very bourgeois in its attitude and approach. It is looser, even bohemian, and Spencer certainly has edgy tendencies. Also, Alt Right understands that even race-rationalists like Shockley(and perhaps even James Watson) are motivated by something more than facts and logic. They are pro-white because they are white and feel comfortable being white and want to preserve white civilization. It's not just about IQ. Would Shockley have been okay if blacks were to gain equal intelligence with whites and then humped tons of white women to make mulatto babies? My guess is NO. So, it's a vision of OUR PEOPLE and OUR CULTURE and OUR LAND. Alt Right is more honest about the roots of the movement. It's not mainly about rational discussion of IQ. It's about Race and Culture. In this respect, George Hee-Hawley is right in his wussy-boy book on the Alt Right. Hee-Hawley is too much of a Pee-Wee-Herman to be a proud white man. He has characteristics of CucKen Burns and looks like a dork. And by 'racism', he doesn't mean race-ism but 'nasty nah nah racism'. Still, he is right to understand that Racial Identity is at the core of Alt Right. Alt Right has a sense of racial and cultural family. And it is for this reason that Alt Right understands that nationalism must be a kind of ethno-socialism. After all, Zionism is a nationalism that necessitates racial-socialism. Zionism says that the richest Jew must see even poor Jews in Israel(and around the world) as fellow brethren. So, rich Jews in Israel must favor poor Jews than rich gentiles. He may do business with rich gentiles, but when all is said and done, even a poor Jew is more his brother than a rich gentile is. Indeed, Jewish-Americanism is racial socialism. After all, why did Jews push the US government to save Soviet Jews where there were plenty of people far worse off than Jews in the USSR? Because Jews cared about fellow Jews. Now, if Jews are totally beyond race, rich Jews should identify mainly with rich gentiles. But even as Jews told rich gentiles to betray and abandon their own kind, rich Jews never stopped caring for less fortunate Jews, like in USSR or Romania. Rich Jews bribed Ceucescu to let Romania's Jews to immigrate to Israel. This is the basis of Jewish Power. Racial-Socialism or Nationalism among all Jews. Jews fear that if white gentiles regain the same mindset(as white elites during the New Deal cared about poor whites like those in GRAPES OF WRATH), they will lead and serve white masses than serve rich Jews. This is why Jews push libertarianism on whites. It serves as a wedge between rich successful whites and masses of whites. Jews also push socialism on whites, but it's 'anti-racist' kind that forbids rich whites to care about less fortunate whites. If rich or successful whites are to be 'noble', they must take care of non-whites... .like Bill Gates spending billions of dollars to help blacks and others but never whites. Racial-socialism is good enough for Jews but never good for whites by rules of PC.

    This is what the Alt Right opposes, and this is why it is feared. To Jewish globalists, 'unite the right' sounds like Unite the White from top to bottom. This is why Spencer calls on Trump to pass Single Payer. All this 'muh free enterprise' has only helped to drive a wedge between white have-lots and white have-lesses.

    That said, another reason for Alt Right's appeal is it is the ONLY force out there that is willing to speak honestly about the Power. Mainstream Media of both 'right' and 'left' are all owned by the Globalist Establishment. Now, there are many alternative voices, organizations, and etc. Alt-Right doesn't own the 'alternative' label, which has a long pedigree. There are alternative voices on the Left, Libertarianism, white nationalism, anarchism, feminism, and etc. Esp in the age of the internet, there are tons of alternative voices with so many bloggers and cloggers.

    So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of the alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY 'movement' that really doesn't give a crap about PC. Now, I'm defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is 'politically incorrect' to Mainstream PC, it is also about mental straitjackets and iron dogma. For the white supremacist types, Hitler did no wrong, or it would have been better if Germans won. Or Stalin intended to invade first, and Hitler only attacked out of defense. Or everything Jewish is evil or suspect. Or the Shoah is one big lie and the only Jews who died was due to starvation under duress of war.
    What the white supremacists and proggy PC have in common is this kind of dogmatism. Anyone who has tried to discuss reality with a communist, BLM moron, homomaniac, radical feminist, libertarian, or some such know it's like talking to a brick wall. It's like Stefan Molyneux the baldie losing his last few hairs while trying to talk logic with a commie.
    And we don't expect too much from Evangelicals who just rely on faith and hallelujah and glory be and all that childlike stuff. They are sheeple. Even when Evangelicals oppose homo agenda, it's not based on truth or moral logic but on the Bible, as if modern society can be organized around what was written 1000s of yrs ago.

    Now, one would expect far-left commies and far-right white supremacists(for whom supremacism is a crutch because they are fat, low IQ, morons usually) to be thick-skulled. In contrast, we might expect liberals and moderate conservatives to be open-minded, intellectually honest, and respectful of free speech and etc. But not so. PC permeates into every corner of Western Discourse. So, moderate respectable conservatives will claim to champion liberty, constitution, and free speech(along with traditional values), but they run scared and shi* their pants when faced with honest discussion of race and Jewish power. Today, most of these conservatives don't even have the balls to say NO to homomania. Even Charles Murray the baldie cucked out on homo stuff. And these conservatives never oppose censorship of voices that speak truth to Jewish power. Mark Steyn talks big about Muslims but never about Zionists and their bad deeds in West Bank.
    As for liberals, most of them are illiberal. On many issues and subjects, they are indeed bona fide liberals in the best sense of the word. But when anything intersects with issues of race or steps on shibboleths of Proggy PC, the liberal minds close the shutters and turn illiberal.
    Liberals go for Compassion Supremacism or Sensitivity-Supremacism that says certain groups deserve more love, care, praise, and protection than others. So, even though Liberals will pretend to denounce all forms of 'bigotry', they care far less about negative things said about Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or Mexicans than about the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, while liberals are open to any general subject, they shut their minds when the subject encroaches on their holy taboos. Take the issue of Culture and Work Ethic. Suppose someone says the problem with Russia is the lack of work ethic compared to, say, Germans and Japanese. Liberals may agree or disagree, but they will listen to the argument with an open mind. But suppose you then say the same about blacks. Suddenly, the liberal will gets antsy and panicky and fulminate and call you 'racist' and etc.
    Or, suppose you say the problem with China is corruption. As such, any Western businessman who wants to do business should keep his guard up and learn something about Chinese culture, attitudes, and way of doing things. Again, the liberal may agree or disagree, but he will discuss the issue. But if you say Jews have become very corrupt and abusive and that we need to be more critical of Jewish power, the liberal(esp if Jewish) will have conniptions, tell you to shut up, and say the discussion is OVER. This is why liberals have become useless on certain key issues. They are still good on many subjects but they cannot honesty grapple with certain matters due to their holy taboos. No matter how committed they are to free speech and open-minded discourse, those principles are overridden by The Taboo. Liberal minds have been programmed that way.
    Also, PC won't allow honest discussion of Shoah. While Holocaust-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people just like to be the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked apollo landing), not everyone who questions aspects of Shoah are 'deniers'. David Cole is not a denier, but he's been labeled as such because he refused to conform to the Official Narrative that said 6 million died in such and such manner. Too many Jewish Liberals will label as 'denier' anyone who dares to raise questions. Or they will label as 'deniers' even though who adhere to the official narrative but try to understand WHY the Nazis did what they did as extreme reaction to radical excesses of Jews and the times(that sought scapegoats of one form or another all across the political spectrum).

    So, we have white supremacists with their dogma. Because they can't move beyond Heil Hitler, they can't be true members of Alt Right.

    As for everyone else, from the far-left commies to globalist liberals to far-libertarians to Conservatism Inc., they are all restrained by the Taboo of the Holy Three. They cannot speak honestly about Jewish Power. The far-left will denounce Zionism but is loathe to connect the dots between Zionism and Jewish power in the US. Libertarians claim to support total freedom, but they turn PC on issues related to blacks and homos. And Conservative Inc. denounces the Left without mentioning that the globalist Left is largely funded and led by Jews. Con Inc. won't even face the fact that Homomania is a Jewish proxy agenda. And even as Conservatives denounce crime, they will not state the obvious fact that blacks commit more crime because they are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is where Alt Right is different. You don't have to be nazi-tard to join. And on issues that command so much silence, cuckery, timidity, and cowardice, the Alt Right speaks freely: Jewish Power, Black thuggery, and Homo degeneracy.
    And yet, on issues like homos, it refuses to follow the dumb Evangelical handbook. While Alt Right opposes the homo agenda -- making homomania the New Normal -- , it accepts the science on homosexuality, i.e. that some people are born homo, it's not their 'fault', and they should be allowed to be homo and do their thing. And if they have talent, it should be praised and admired. If Alt Right had played a role in the homo debate, it would have been more interesting. But while the media and powers-that-be were going all-homo, what did we get from the Right? Silence from Con Inc. that was so afraid of alienating Jews(as even Neocons were pushing homo crap) and 'Muh Bible' from Evangelicals as if social policy can be decided by what's in the Bible.

    This is why Alt Right made a difference. And this is what the Alt Right must never lose sight of. As Alt Right coalesces more into a real movement, if it insists on dogma and taboos, it will lose its edge and its appeal even to those who detest what the Core Ideology of the Alt Right stands for. The fact is even radical anti-race-ists have been provoked and stimulated by the Alt Right that is so willing to talk about issues that are forbidden by PC all across the spectrum from far left to Con Inc. (And far-right Nazitards have their own PC taboos. 'Muh Fuhrer'.)
    It's like the European Marxists and Frankfurt School gained a degree of respect even from elements of the Right. While the Soviet Left turned utterly Stalinist and statist-dogmatic and predictable, the European neo-Marxists were interesting in their critique of modernity, materialism, capitalism, individualism, and Soviet communism. And even Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Gore Vidal had reluctant admirers on the Right because they approached and criticized American Empire from angles ignored by mainstream media or hardline leftist.
    Still, even alt-left figures were bound by the Taboos. Chomsky was critical of Zionism but didn't connect it with Jewish American Power, nor did he address the ethnic character of US media monopoly. After all, if US media were monopolized by Mexican-Americans or Muslim-Americans, the result would be different.

    Due to WWII and Shoah-guilt as New Religion of the Secular West, the West was loathe to speak honestly about Jewish Power. Also, due to Black Slavery narrative and anti-imperialism -- and blacks as the colorful face of 'social justice' -- , blacks became objects of semi-worship, culminating in the Magic Mountain Negro or Montenegro in GREEN MILE. And as pop culture turned the West into a hedonistic celebrapolis of narcissism and excess, it wasn't long before homos rode on that wave to become the neo-angels of globalism. Esp with the help of Jewish Media, homos spun their self-created disaster -- AIDS epidemic -- as their own kind of 'holocaust'.

    And then, the media and academia turned into endless fests of praising Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, Americanism(which also infects the EU) is about little more than praising Jews, blacks, and homos. No ideology tops the 'iconology' of the Holy Three. You can say you disagree with the fundamental principles of America's founding, and that's okay. But if you say anything that runs counter to the spirit of the Holy Three, you are done for.

    Alt Right is iconoclastic force against the Holy Three. It is more effective in challenging the Taboo because it doesn't play by the dogmatic White Supremacist neo-Nazi playbook. If anything, the Neo-Nazis could almost be seen as part of PC proggism. It's no wonder that so many Jews pretended to be Nazis. It's no wonder so many FBI types infiltrated the movement. According to PC, any kind of white identity or white interests is NAZI or KKK, thus automatically discrediting itself. And the white supremacist morons obliged this narrative with their retarded gestures, dumb narratives, and beer-belly ubermensch 'larping'.
    Even as proggy PC detested the Neo-Nazi-KKK morons, it saw propaganda value in white supremacists making total fools of themselves. It's like the Globo Media found the Westboro church so useful in making the anti-homo side seem like a bunch of Christian-tard nutters. According to the PC narrative, any pro-white person must be 'nazi' and anyone who opposes the homo agenda must be a crazy Christian lunatic protesting military funerals.

    But Alt Right didn't play to this script. It cogently laid out how it sees the Power Dynamic in the West, and it's been more right than wrong, easily done since PC has suppressed so much necessary criticism of the Power. The ripple effects have been that even anti-Alt-Right people are more willing to discuss certain issues. The Overton window has been shifted, if only slightly.

    5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

    Derb: No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism?

    The answer to Derbyshire's question is Localism. Let Spanish and Catalans arrive at what is best for them. Non-Spanish and Non-Catalans might offer their advice and opinions, but it should be handled as local affair between Cats and Spans.

    7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

    Actually, it's better to say Alt Right is honestly anti-equalitarian. Let's face it. NO ONE believes in equality. Everyone with sense knows that Jews are smarter than Gypsies, West Africans can outrun Hindus, and Germans are, on average, taller than Mexicans.

    Alt Right is just honest about what everyone knows. I mean do Jews really believe than any Bolivian peasant can excel in finance in huge numbers? Do blacks really feel that Chinese are suddenly gonna win in 100m sprints?

    8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption


    Derb:
    It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.


    Vox Day is a sci-fi writer and them fellers have these funny ideas. He's just being sciencefictionoid with terminology.

    Derb: a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision. Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.

    True enough, but I think Vox Day was talking about social sciences. After all, theories on atoms and stars have no bearing on matters of politics and society. But scientific matters relating to humans have huge relevance and implications. And there has been too much 'scientistry -- scientific sophistry -- in the field. Scientistry is like quack dentistry where the wrong tooth is pulled out. So, even though the black tooth must be removed to stop the pain, white ones are yanked out. It's Clouseauean Dentistry.

    https://youtu.be/ENOCJBGzS-E?t=6m42s

    Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?

    True, but if SK were to reunite with any nation, wouldn't it be easier with NK than with Japan even though SK and Japan are economically and politically similar?
    Or look at Israel. Jews came from capitalist nations, communist nations, Muslim-majority nations, Christian-majority nations, and etc. Many spoke different languages and few knew Hebrew. There were religious Jews, secular Jews, and etc. But they made it work because they were bound by identity as the basis.
    Now, imagine creating a new nation based solely on creed. Suppose German Christians, African Christians, Chinese Christians, Mexican Christians, Arab Christians, and etc all came together to form a nation based on Jesus. Would it work as well? Or imagine a new nation founded on shared ideology of capitalism. Suppose French capitalists, Swedish capitalists, Nigerian capitalists, Turkish capitalist, Japanese capitalists, Indonesian capitalists, Pakistani capitalists, and etc all formed a nation. How long would it last?
    Thus far, US and Canada has held together despite diversity because there has been a Core Majority and Core narrative. But as they fray, can these nations remain together or function well based on shared general credos in 'muh constitution' and 'muh liberty'?

    10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

    Derb: As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10.

    Indians don't count. They were savages and had no civilization and had no means to resist white invaders. Also, the world was yet to be fully navigated and explored back then. Today, it's different. Mankind has explored and mapped out and claimed every inch of territory. Also, the Age of Empire ended after WWII with non-whites telling whites to go home. So, we can have universal nationalism. Every part of the world has been CLAIMED by a particular people and culture. And this must be preserved and used as the fundamental principle for the world. After all, it's called United NATIONS, not United Empire or United Economy.
    This common sense view is called 'far right'. The real extremist forces are the far-globalists, far-imperialists, far-Zionists, far-profiteers(greed is their only creed), far-thugs(black criminals and lunatics), far-sluts(what has become of womenfolk), far-invaders(neo-colonialism with massive third world movements). Why should peoples be invading and colonizing other nations when all the world has been claimed? Also, the agreement after WWII was end of empire and imperialism. So, why do we have 'reverse-imperialism' whereby non-whites get to demographically swamp white nations?

    11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

    Derb: Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence.
    I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent.


    True enough, but by 'diversity', Vox Day surely means diversity as cancer than condition.
    Diversity as condition is a fact of any nation. Even the most homogeneous nations have some diversity, the presence of non-nationals and foreigners, some of whom are permanently settled. And those people can be tolerated as co-existing folks.

    But by Diversity in today's parlance, it means Diversity as a cancer. Diversity as condition is like a tattoo. Good or bad, that tattoo will not expand. Diversity as cancer or Diversinoma is like skin cancer that starts small but never stops growing. PC and globalism say this is the only kind of Diversity that is good and NECESSARY. This is obviously a fatal disease for any racial-cultural civilization, but this is pushed by globalist quacks as the cure. It's like Barbara Specter saying that, "In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode." Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe. But cunning witches like her work on the earnest and naive good-will of Nordics who are especially easy suckers since they've been raised on Holocaust Guilt and the notion that white homogeneity = Nazism.

    13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

    Derb: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

    It depends on what one means by Free Trade. Surely, the Brits had free trade long ago but didn't allow massive invasions of non-whites into Britain. Also, the leftist Scottish National Party is more pro-immigration. And Stalin moved plenty of people around in his empire.

    Still, what Vox means by 'free trade' in the 21st century is globalism. This is different from free trade in the past that meant commerce among sovereign nations with national governments that represented their own peoples. Today, free trade is based on globalist corporations who feel NO sense of allegiance to their own nation or people. So, 'free trade' now means free movement of capital and peoples for economic opportunity, investment, exploitation, colonization. It is a form of anarchy.

    Also, I think a kind of agreement has been made between rich and poor nations. It goes as follows. Rich nations can invest in poor nations, but just as First World industrialists gain access to Third World, Third World folks must have access to First World.. to work and toil and send remittances back home. It's like US industrial elites gained access to Mexico, but US has to be opened to Mexicans who come in huge numbers and send back remittances.

    15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses

    Derb: Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. What do the “unique strengths” of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?

    Bushmen and Austro-Aborigines are outliers. They are few in number and don't count. But when it comes to the major races, there are indeed advantages and disadvantages. While Japanese can make good gadgets and run an orderly society, they are short dorks and have no iconic value. So, even though they make all these electronic stuff, people prefer to see OTHER races on Japanese-made gadgets. Sony made a lot of TV and walkmans, and Japanese were good at making such stuff. But it was Negro athletes who were shown on TV. So, even though Negroes have little industrial value -- they can't run an economy -- , they have much entertainment value, and that means billions around the world will be watching Negro runners and footballers. Look at China. Over billion people and they're addicted to NBA Negroes. And look at all the Blapanese. They are almost all the result of black fathers and Japanese mothers. If Japan that has so few Negroes is going this way, imagine what is happening to EU.
    Sure, all those Negroes coming from Africa have little industrial value. They be jiving and messing things up. But blacks got more rhythm and funk and bigger dongs. And whites find black music, black muscle, and black meat very pleasurable and entertaining. So, blacks have superior hedonic value. As whites are addicted to Negropium, one can say blacks do have serious advantages over the white race. Derbyshire is a math-geek sort of person and judges worth by science and intellect. But most of humanity is pretty vulgar, trashy, and infantile. And they want fun, fun, fun. And since Negroes be flipping and jiving and humping more than others, Non-Negroes have come under the iconic-idolatrous power of the Negroids. Bongo, the power of Negroness, does have a decisive advantage in the modern world. Capitalism and West used to be about work ethic, virtue, and restraint. But with over-surplus of food, clothing, and production, the West no longer worries about enough-to-eat or essentials of survival. They care mostly about fun and pleasure. Vice industry has overtaken virtue industry. In PLACES IN THE SUN, the Negroes were willing to pick cotton for corn meal. But today, Negresses got fat asses from welfare and 'twerk' their fat asses as if having sex with bad boys, and white kids grow up to this music and dance as 'western values'.

    It’s like Barbara Specter saying that, “In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode.” Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe.

    I think what Specter means by “Europe” is the European Union version of Europe. Open borders Europe. “Anti-racist” (anti-white), cult marx Europe. Islamifying, negrifying Europe. That’s the Europe she’s talking about. And she’s right, because that Europe could not hope to survive if Europeans turn to ethnonationalism and embrace ethnic and racial pride rather than racial self-flagellation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. If one has read Derb’s fiercely Darwinist, anti-Catholic screed, “We’re Doomed,” which was apparently written for his good friend Richard Dawkins, one can’t help thinking he’s something of an opportunist. He’s adopted an amiable, ambiguous attitude toward all political factions, as if he’s waiting to see who wins. Above all, one must remain in print, mustn’t one?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. Dr. X says:
    @Anonymous
    No, you are not Alt-Right.

    You identify the problems affecting Whites, but you refuse to name the opponent who is creating these problems. You won't engage with the JQ.

    Fighting an opponent with no name is akin to tilting at windmills. it is too transparently double-think to be taken seriously. It is a stance that has no future as the noose tightens around the White world's neck.

    I know why you do it. You are old enough that you were able to amass wealth in the USA while the White sun was still shining. You do not engage the JQ so that you might maintain what you have earned, lest the Chosen take it from you.

    And yet you have lost so much potential wealth taking the path you have taken, even though it is a half measure... why come up short in your words when you surely know the truth?

    Perhaps you really agree with the left, in your heart of hearts, that racism is bad. You are, to be frank, an immigrant and a race-mixer, yes? These actions speak too loudly to be papered over with even the choicest of words.

    I accept that you would rather watch the fight from afar. So be it. Just don't stand in our way when we do what must be done.

    Steve Sailer, on this very website, is willing to engage with the JQ in a much more forthright manner. Steve, in my mind, therefore can be considered Alt-Right... a gateway to the Alt-Right, even.

    Derb is “Old Right.”

    As a Briton, he is the product of an imperial culture into which the Jews had comfortably assimilated into the power structure — Disraeli became Prime Minister in the 1880s, and modern Israel wouldn’t have existed without the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s.

    While Jews were accepted by British imperial culture, Negroes were regarded as absolutely inferior, and Asians (Orientals) occupying a sort of racial middle rank making them higher than blacks but not-quite-whites. This view of Negroes was accepted as “plain as day” conventional wisdom in all Western and Commonwealth nations until the 1960s or so.

    Derb basically clings to the old Victorian racial hierarchy.

    Given the fact that the contemporary culture is practically a cult of Negro worship, his willingness to speak plainly about the Negro makes him appear “alt” (and indeed, “out”) of today’s “conservative” movement, but certainly not an alt-righter as commonly understood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @jamie b.

    ...all you need is money, a heard mentality, and fear.

     

    Okay: those greedy, gullibility, fearful scientists.

    If you have scientific evidence of AGW, share it with us
     
    The burden of proof is on you. But fine. Note however, that there seems to be three stages of AGW denial: the claim that temperatures aren’t increasing at all, the claim that the world is indeed warming but that humans aren’t responsible, and finally the claim that human activity is indeed changing the climate, but that that isn’t a bad thing.

    If you’re at the first stage of denial, then I will present you with the NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report on ten different indicators of global warming: land surface air temperatures measured by weather stations, sea surface temperatures, air temperatures of the oceans, lower troposphere temperatures, ocean heat content, sea level, specific humidity, glaciers, northern hemisphere snow cover, and arctic sea ice.

    If you’re at the second stage of denial (the world is warming, but humans aren’t responsible) then I will present you with the following: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2 This report to the AMS takes into account the contributions of greenhouse gasses, solar output, ozone levels, volcanic emissions, and sulphate levels. The researchers found temp. measures never more than .02 C from their model for any year.

    I’m at the third stage. What do you have for me?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Ivan K. says:
    @Randal
    A good discussion, although my own default position is basically that "there is no there, there" as far as trying to define "the Alt Right" is concerned. The Alt Right is not a party, nor any kind of organisation, nor does it have any philosophy as such. It's surely best just defined as anyone who is on the right (and thereby hangs another long and complicated tale of definition) but not of the mainstream or establishment right, imo. That said, many desperately want to define it further, from Vox Day's valiant effort here described to Richard Spencer and his enemies.

    A couple of my own quibbles with Derbyshire's comments:

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.
     
    I think it's vitally important to maintain a recognition of the basic foreignness of judaism in Christian countries, especially now that there is an explicitly jewish state, which creates around them the kind of problem Catholics constituted for England in the C16th-C19th. I don't think of myself as meaningfully anti-Semitic, since I don't hate jews, but as a result of putting that opinion forward I was accused of having perpetrated one of the worst antisemitic statements he'd ever seen, by a jewish identity lobbyist with whom the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for policing hate speech nationally apparently agreed about my general heinousness in this regard. The jewish lobbies' attempts to promote the enforcement of this kind of speechcrime law is of course another strong reason to keep their basic foreignness in mind.

    That’s a kind of fielder’s-choice point, though.
     
    This appears to be a rather obscure reference to something derived from the American version of rounders.

    Vox Day: Judeo-Christian is not merely anti-Christian propaganda, but as one rabbi points out, it is also antisemitic ….
    This is not an isolated example.
    The Jewish Press is even more straightforward ………

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/09/judeo-christian-is-antisemitic.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. I am always suspicious of people who conceal their identity. First of all, people who haven’t the courage to stand up publicly for what they believe in are not worth bothering with. Secondly, the only reason I can see why internet authors conceal their identities is because they realise that if we knew who they were, we would realise that they were trying to bamboozle us. In this case, it’s clear from the mistake in English in point 7 and the gibberish in points 8, 9 and 11 that Vox Day is not a native speaker of English. At a guess, I’d say he is a Russian propagandist.
    Point 2. “The Alt Right is an alternative to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA…” OK, so it’s a purely American political movement, but:
    Point 4. What is an essentially marginal American political movement doing “supporting” European nations? What difference does it make if they do? Since when did “European nations” ask for or need the “support” of the American alt-right? And how about the European nation of Ukraine? The alt-right supports Putin!
    Point 5. All nations except, as mentioned above, the nation of Ukraine! And, for that matter, Chechnya. Moreover, what is a “nation”? That term cannot mean the same thing in the US as in Europe, for example. This, of course, also cuts across the alt-right’s anti-EU line. If nations have a “right to exist”, they must, by definition be allowed to exist as they see fit. The alt-right does not accept the right of (white!) European nations to come together in the EU.
    Point 10. Great news for Ukraine and Chechnya but runs totally counter to the alt-right’s support for Putin.
    Point 12. If that were true, Vox Day would never have felt the need to write his article!
    Point 13. Free trade does not require free movement of peoples.
    Point 14. As with point 5, we white Europeans (and we are, after all, the “original” whites!) seem to have no say in this or even the right to do as we think fit in our own countries.
    Points 15 and 16. Once again, except Ukraine!
    My only criticism of John Derbyshire is that he shouldn’t have taken this nonsense seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    I am always suspicious of people who conceal their identity.
     
    Vox Day is a pen name. Since he has written several science fiction and fantasy works he isn't an unknown individual- if you click the link and go to his website, you can see his name, face, family, nationality, current residence, company and skull pile (he is pretty open with these things).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @anonymous

    are still a pretty damned good people.
     
    Also;

    If you mean in an outwardly manner, say like everyone's favourite psycho, Hannibal, then yes, you fellows do seem quite agreeable... manners well cultivated to deceive.

    It is what is within the hearts and minds, and the actions those depraved organs set into motion, which is most chilling.

    Given the low murder rate by whites compared to everyone but east Asians, it isn’t clear what evil you are possibly referring to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @jtgw
    Regarding the free trade as "screwing over" your fellow citizen, I think you could present a nationalist case against that interpretation. The notion that trade screws people over requires that we look at people only as producers, not as consumers. As producers, we see people competing to produce goods for a market, and obviously the more producers are allowed to compete in a given sector, the more prices for goods and hence wages get bid down. But that's just part of the picture; the other part is the consumer. The more goods are allowed to enter the market, the more consumers save as prices are bid down. So your fellow citizen saves more when a free flow of goods across borders is allowed. So if you're going to support protective tariffs on the grounds that you're defending the economic interests of your fellow citizen as a producer, you have to also explain away the harm you're doing your fellow citizen as a consumer.

    I’m looking at it through the lens of
    Men get jobs to show their worth to attract women
    Free trade allows you to eliminate jobs
    Free trade allows you to lower the wages and status/worth provided by certain jobs
    People who get new jobs are generally worse off

    So free trade is a way for people who know their jobs are secure to raise their relative sexual market value.

    It is true it makes a nation richer in an absolute sense. That isn’t what gets you a mate. What gets you a mate is being a better catch then the other competitors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I think you're only looking at the transition period when people have to move from less efficient lines of work to more efficient lines of work. During that period, there can definitely be some pain and dislocation. But in the long term, everyone is better off.

    Think about it. Why do cheap imports win in the market? Because domestic consumers, i.e. ordinary people, prefer them. Now some of those same domestic consumers may also be producers of that line of goods, and they'll need to find new work. But if all domestic workers were put out of work and had no money, there would be no more market for those cheap imports. How then do those cheap imports continue to find buyers? Because domestic workers have found other lines of work that give them to income to keep purchasing those goods.

    I'm not saying that things like income stagnation are not real, but it's not because of trade. It's because of inflation mainly. As far as trade goes, our domestic workers have found new lines of work, like services, that afford them the income to keep buying goods manufactured abroad. However, inflation is constantly eroding the value of their wages; I believe the minimum wage is now worth about two thirds or so of the min wage in 1979, even though the nominal value is about three times as much.

    Protectionist tariffs might protect some blue collar jobs in some areas, but only at the expense of other blue collar and middle class workers everywhere else. It's not free trade but the Fed we need to focus on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Art Deco
    The Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled central Europe and when it fell, you got a bunch of new states that immediately set up their own economic policies and proceeded to be worse of then the empire. As long as you don’t have democracy or a welfare state, Mises proposition is true.

    The Hapsburgs established electoral and conciliar institutions during the 1850s, as did the German states. Universal male suffrage was instituted in 1907. Mises was 26 at the time.

    What was 'worse' about the successor states? They had economic problems during the inter-war period but that was a feature of life all over the occidental world. Parliamentary institutions had by 1935 failed everywhere but Czechoslovakia and (with some qualification) Hungary, but they also failed in a string of places that had no Hapsburg territory and often failed earlier (see Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany, and the Baltic states).

    The Empire of Japan also had universal male suffrage (1925). That isn’t what people mean when they talk about democratic.

    As for worse, Mises is an economist- he means poorer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Michael Kenny
    I am always suspicious of people who conceal their identity. First of all, people who haven’t the courage to stand up publicly for what they believe in are not worth bothering with. Secondly, the only reason I can see why internet authors conceal their identities is because they realise that if we knew who they were, we would realise that they were trying to bamboozle us. In this case, it’s clear from the mistake in English in point 7 and the gibberish in points 8, 9 and 11 that Vox Day is not a native speaker of English. At a guess, I’d say he is a Russian propagandist.
    Point 2. “The Alt Right is an alternative to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA...” OK, so it’s a purely American political movement, but:
    Point 4. What is an essentially marginal American political movement doing “supporting” European nations? What difference does it make if they do? Since when did “European nations” ask for or need the “support” of the American alt-right? And how about the European nation of Ukraine? The alt-right supports Putin!
    Point 5. All nations except, as mentioned above, the nation of Ukraine! And, for that matter, Chechnya. Moreover, what is a “nation”? That term cannot mean the same thing in the US as in Europe, for example. This, of course, also cuts across the alt-right’s anti-EU line. If nations have a “right to exist”, they must, by definition be allowed to exist as they see fit. The alt-right does not accept the right of (white!) European nations to come together in the EU.
    Point 10. Great news for Ukraine and Chechnya but runs totally counter to the alt-right’s support for Putin.
    Point 12. If that were true, Vox Day would never have felt the need to write his article!
    Point 13. Free trade does not require free movement of peoples.
    Point 14. As with point 5, we white Europeans (and we are, after all, the “original” whites!) seem to have no say in this or even the right to do as we think fit in our own countries.
    Points 15 and 16. Once again, except Ukraine!
    My only criticism of John Derbyshire is that he shouldn’t have taken this nonsense seriously.

    I am always suspicious of people who conceal their identity.

    Vox Day is a pen name. Since he has written several science fiction and fantasy works he isn’t an unknown individual- if you click the link and go to his website, you can see his name, face, family, nationality, current residence, company and skull pile (he is pretty open with these things).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Mulegino1 says:

    The speaker at the Mencken Club – of all places- declares himself a “philosemite”, which is really a weaselly and euphemistic way of saying: ” I am a shabbos goy- and proud of it.” How ironic, considering the words of the Sage of Baltimore, regarding the tribe:

    “The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.”

    A moderate antisemitism is merely the natural immunological response of a healthy society or culture to the inroads of Jewry’s inevitable corruption of its institutions. Unfortunately, American “culture” has been so infested with the kosher curse for so long (Hollywood, Broadway, the entertainment industry in general, kosher academia and finance) that it is no longer healthy or vigorous, but in extremis from the kosher cancer. A miracle alone can suffice for its restoration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Clyde says:
    @jtgw
    I'm not sure how much our current "free trade" system is actually free trade. I know a lot of the substance of agreements like NAFTA involves harmonizing trade-distorting regulation across borders and balancing free trade in some areas with continued protection in others. In other words, there's the potential for a lot more market-distorting activities that harm us. While I haven't gotten the chance to really look into the details, I do know that plenty of hard-core libertarians have been and still are against NAFTA and most official "free trade" agreements. So if you can show that NAFTA or another policy harmed us in some way, it may not be fair to blame libertarianism or free trade doctrine itself.

    There is a very simple answer to what you said. Go look at our trade deficit. This will tell you how “free trade” the US is. The people of NE Asia have high IQs and they don’t buy into the Anglo doctrine of free trade. Anglo nations are the only ones who buy into free trade theory 100%.

    Maybe the mercantilist nations of NE Asia are smarter than you and they are patriotic, nationalist and look out for their people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    The trade deficit doesn't tell you much except that our trading partners are saving a lot of our dollars and thus helping to dampen inflation here at home. What is the big deal with a deficit anyway? What are foreigners going to do with those dollars other than buy American goods?

    NE Asia has a lot of problems, most notably the ultra-low fertility rate. I think they definitely benefit from a high average IQ, but that alone explains whatever disparity in growth or living standards they enjoy; you don't need to appeal to their protectionism. And when you have as a big a population as China or Japan does, an economy can get away with a lot more protectionism than otherwise, since domestic trade is a much bigger proportion of overall trade. You don't see small countries like Switzerland getting prosperous with tariffs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. jtgw says:
    @Samuel Skinner
    I'm looking at it through the lens of
    Men get jobs to show their worth to attract women
    Free trade allows you to eliminate jobs
    Free trade allows you to lower the wages and status/worth provided by certain jobs
    People who get new jobs are generally worse off

    So free trade is a way for people who know their jobs are secure to raise their relative sexual market value.

    It is true it makes a nation richer in an absolute sense. That isn't what gets you a mate. What gets you a mate is being a better catch then the other competitors.

    I think you’re only looking at the transition period when people have to move from less efficient lines of work to more efficient lines of work. During that period, there can definitely be some pain and dislocation. But in the long term, everyone is better off.

    Think about it. Why do cheap imports win in the market? Because domestic consumers, i.e. ordinary people, prefer them. Now some of those same domestic consumers may also be producers of that line of goods, and they’ll need to find new work. But if all domestic workers were put out of work and had no money, there would be no more market for those cheap imports. How then do those cheap imports continue to find buyers? Because domestic workers have found other lines of work that give them to income to keep purchasing those goods.

    I’m not saying that things like income stagnation are not real, but it’s not because of trade. It’s because of inflation mainly. As far as trade goes, our domestic workers have found new lines of work, like services, that afford them the income to keep buying goods manufactured abroad. However, inflation is constantly eroding the value of their wages; I believe the minimum wage is now worth about two thirds or so of the min wage in 1979, even though the nominal value is about three times as much.

    Protectionist tariffs might protect some blue collar jobs in some areas, but only at the expense of other blue collar and middle class workers everywhere else. It’s not free trade but the Fed we need to focus on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    But in the long term, everyone is better off.
     
    People aren't interchangeable. You get rid of all the good jobs for manual labor and you'll find the people who can only do manual labor are totally screwed over.

    How then do those cheap imports continue to find buyers?
     
    The dollar is the world's reserve currency so we can print money to make up for the lack of American productivity.

    I’m not saying that things like income stagnation are not real, but it’s not because of trade. It’s because of inflation mainly.
     
    Inflation doesn't cause income stagnation. Income rising at the rate of inflation is a sign that income is stagnant, not the other way around.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Wally says:
    @Tiny Duck
    My lack of success with the females doesn't change the fact that you racists are about to get smacked

    It seems to me that blacks & browns are the ones in line for a smacking.

    Without whites there’s no one to pay their bills.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Without whites there’s no one to pay their bills.
     
    Now, about that $20 TRIllion worth of public debt...and ~$50 TRIllion of private debt...

    Oh, I forgot, debt is good and we owe it to ourselves, 'n Kroogman sez so, 'n he's intuitive and likes Hume, or so we've been told, so there! Even so, Whitey better get payin or izzat all black debt?

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFD
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Alt Right = Richard Spencer/AltRight.com, Greg Johnson, Kevin McDonald, The Right Stuff, some Southern nationalists like Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin/Daily Stormer (intersectional with Neo-Nazis)

    Neo-Nazis (old school) = Stormfront, David Duke, Vanguard, probably Heimbach/Traditionalist Workers Party

    Civic Nationalists/Dissident Right = Steve Sailer, Derbyshire, approximately a third to half of the HBDsphere

    Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite = Breitbart/Bannon, Milo, Gamergate, Loomer, Baked Alaska, etc, etc. Vox Day is here.

    NRx = Moldbug, Foseti, Social Matter, etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @Matthew Kelly
    This--this is the most succinct and accurate taxonomy of the various breeds of the political right I've seen here.
    , @Wally
    But it is the cucked Anatoly Karlin who prevents any on topic posts to his articles which refute the impossible 'holocau$t' storyline that he refers to in his articles. My my, hardly honest debate.

    He clearly has no rational rebuttals to informed Revisionist arguments and knows it.
    Hence he censors with the childish "I can't hear you."

    www.codoh.com


    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
     
    , @Vinteuil
    Is (was) Xenosystems NRx?

    Where are you, on this map, Мистер Карлин?
    , @jtgw
    Would you say the major distinction between Alt Right and Dissident Right is the position on the Jewish Question? Or is there a good write-up of what distinguishes these various branches?
    , @DissidentRight
    Vox Day is "Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite"? Vox Day is in the same category as Bannon and Milo? LOL.

    Vox Day is Alt-Right. He is far more right-wing than Spencer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. jtgw says:
    @Clyde
    There is a very simple answer to what you said. Go look at our trade deficit. This will tell you how "free trade" the US is. The people of NE Asia have high IQs and they don't buy into the Anglo doctrine of free trade. Anglo nations are the only ones who buy into free trade theory 100%.

    Maybe the mercantilist nations of NE Asia are smarter than you and they are patriotic, nationalist and look out for their people.

    The trade deficit doesn’t tell you much except that our trading partners are saving a lot of our dollars and thus helping to dampen inflation here at home. What is the big deal with a deficit anyway? What are foreigners going to do with those dollars other than buy American goods?

    NE Asia has a lot of problems, most notably the ultra-low fertility rate. I think they definitely benefit from a high average IQ, but that alone explains whatever disparity in growth or living standards they enjoy; you don’t need to appeal to their protectionism. And when you have as a big a population as China or Japan does, an economy can get away with a lot more protectionism than otherwise, since domestic trade is a much bigger proportion of overall trade. You don’t see small countries like Switzerland getting prosperous with tariffs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DIscharged EE
    buy up all the houses in the best urban areas from Seattle to San Marino (beside Caltech)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Anatoly Karlin
    Alt Right = Richard Spencer/AltRight.com, Greg Johnson, Kevin McDonald, The Right Stuff, some Southern nationalists like Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin/Daily Stormer (intersectional with Neo-Nazis)

    Neo-Nazis (old school) = Stormfront, David Duke, Vanguard, probably Heimbach/Traditionalist Workers Party

    Civic Nationalists/Dissident Right = Steve Sailer, Derbyshire, approximately a third to half of the HBDsphere

    Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite = Breitbart/Bannon, Milo, Gamergate, Loomer, Baked Alaska, etc, etc. Vox Day is here.

    NRx = Moldbug, Foseti, Social Matter, etc

    This–this is the most succinct and accurate taxonomy of the various breeds of the political right I’ve seen here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jamie b.

    ...all you need is money, a heard mentality, and fear.

     

    Okay: those greedy, gullibility, fearful scientists.

    If you have scientific evidence of AGW, share it with us
     
    The burden of proof is on you. But fine. Note however, that there seems to be three stages of AGW denial: the claim that temperatures aren’t increasing at all, the claim that the world is indeed warming but that humans aren’t responsible, and finally the claim that human activity is indeed changing the climate, but that that isn’t a bad thing.

    If you’re at the first stage of denial, then I will present you with the NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report on ten different indicators of global warming: land surface air temperatures measured by weather stations, sea surface temperatures, air temperatures of the oceans, lower troposphere temperatures, ocean heat content, sea level, specific humidity, glaciers, northern hemisphere snow cover, and arctic sea ice.

    If you’re at the second stage of denial (the world is warming, but humans aren’t responsible) then I will present you with the following: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2 This report to the AMS takes into account the contributions of greenhouse gasses, solar output, ozone levels, volcanic emissions, and sulphate levels. The researchers found temp. measures never more than .02 C from their model for any year.

    Note however, that there seems to be three stages of AGW denial: the claim that temperatures aren’t increasing at all, the claim that the world is indeed warming but that humans aren’t responsible, and finally the claim that human activity is indeed changing the climate, but that that isn’t a bad thing.

    There’s an additional stage: that human activity is changing the climate and that western nations are exclusively responsible

    The obsessive focus on Americans driving SUVs, while ignoring population growth and deforestation in Africa and Asia, is a matter of politics not science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Comrade Derbyshire

    From the archive:Hipsters on networks:How small Groups of Individuals can lead to an Anti-Establishment Majority…by Jonas Stuul ..Neils Bohr Institute….

    Let’s call it the mathematics of the Alt Right……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, you accuse the opponent of the thing you are doing yourself. So your full-court press for communism has you pointing fingers at the innocent, saying they have started some new and dangerous radical movement called “Alt Right”.

    It has a lot of horrible stuff in it like private property, jury trials, and search warrants. It has domestic citizens as a priority over the foreign enemies sworn to destroy them. Brand new, revolutionary principles at odds with our constitution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. J1234 says:

    You are Alt-Right, John, but only because such labels are being used by the left to implicate rather than illuminate. I also don’t know what “Alt-Right” means exactly, which is why I thought it was a stupid idea back before the MSM knew about it. I get the impression that Richard Spencer (or whoever) came up with the name as sort of a PR or image enhancing tactic or maybe something to rally around. Didn’t seem to turn out that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. Wally says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Alt Right = Richard Spencer/AltRight.com, Greg Johnson, Kevin McDonald, The Right Stuff, some Southern nationalists like Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin/Daily Stormer (intersectional with Neo-Nazis)

    Neo-Nazis (old school) = Stormfront, David Duke, Vanguard, probably Heimbach/Traditionalist Workers Party

    Civic Nationalists/Dissident Right = Steve Sailer, Derbyshire, approximately a third to half of the HBDsphere

    Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite = Breitbart/Bannon, Milo, Gamergate, Loomer, Baked Alaska, etc, etc. Vox Day is here.

    NRx = Moldbug, Foseti, Social Matter, etc

    But it is the cucked Anatoly Karlin who prevents any on topic posts to his articles which refute the impossible ‘holocau$t’ storyline that he refers to in his articles. My my, hardly honest debate.

    He clearly has no rational rebuttals to informed Revisionist arguments and knows it.
    Hence he censors with the childish “I can’t hear you.”

    http://www.codoh.com

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Wally
    It seems to me that blacks & browns are the ones in line for a smacking.

    Without whites there's no one to pay their bills.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Without whites there’s no one to pay their bills.

    Now, about that $20 TRIllion worth of public debt…and ~$50 TRIllion of private debt…

    Oh, I forgot, debt is good and we owe it to ourselves, ‘n Kroogman sez so, ‘n he’s intuitive and likes Hume, or so we’ve been told, so there! Even so, Whitey better get payin or izzat all black debt?

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFD

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Vinteuil says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Alt Right = Richard Spencer/AltRight.com, Greg Johnson, Kevin McDonald, The Right Stuff, some Southern nationalists like Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin/Daily Stormer (intersectional with Neo-Nazis)

    Neo-Nazis (old school) = Stormfront, David Duke, Vanguard, probably Heimbach/Traditionalist Workers Party

    Civic Nationalists/Dissident Right = Steve Sailer, Derbyshire, approximately a third to half of the HBDsphere

    Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite = Breitbart/Bannon, Milo, Gamergate, Loomer, Baked Alaska, etc, etc. Vox Day is here.

    NRx = Moldbug, Foseti, Social Matter, etc

    Is (was) Xenosystems NRx?

    Where are you, on this map, Мистер Карлин?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Art says:

    4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.

    Is there anything more pathetic than a white, begging to be accepted, by kissing Jew hinny?

    Derby displays his intellectual ignorance about the difference between Christianity and Judaism.

    The old testament is intellectual baggage for Christianity. Every time Christianity follows the old testament, it goes wrong. The tribalness pumped by the Jews is the bane of humanity.

    Jesus gave us a new view of God – a new universal God that is forgiving and loving, and that fosters cooperation between different biological peoples.

    Poor Derby – he is either intellectually ignorant or a sellout sycophant. (Probably both.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Is there anything more pathetic than a white, begging to be accepted, by kissing Jew hinny?

    You gotta show Derbyshire some respect. He paid his dues and then some.

    Also, I think Derbyshire's pro-Jewish sympathies are genuine. It's not a matter of sucking up.

    Why? He gains nothing from expressing it.

    In Charles Murray's case, he has something to gain by sucking up to the Power.

    Derbyshire is considered beyond-the-pale no matter what he does or says.

    The Power won't cut him any slack for being pro-Jewish.

    So, it must be personal and genuine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. notanon says:

    the current cultural Marxist hegemony is built on the “blank slate” premise and mainstream “conservatives” have to publicly accept this premise or be destroyed by the media.

    the problem with this is the “blank slate” is a lie invented by cultural Marxists in the 1920s to change US immigration policy and it being a lie is why no cultural Marxist solution to problems ever works and will never work until genetics is taken into account.

    the “alt” part of alt-right more or less boils down to denying the cultural aids of the blank slate and replacing it with biological reality including “race is real and it matters” (where race = clusters of particular gene frequencies and matters = these genes effect critical aspects of society and not just surface differences e.g. IQ, behavior etc).

    this foundational premise, basing policy on genetics and biology, creates a very broad umbrella under which multiple factions co-exist.

    #

    Voxday’s definition includes his phobias: socialists, libertarians etc can all fit under the alt-right umbrella as long as their ideology is adjusted to take into account biological reality. This is because the alt-right is only right wing because the Left is currently cultural Marxist.

    If/when biological reality is accepted as foundational there will be left, liberal, conservative, libertarian etc variants on how to proceed.

    #

    there’s also the alt-lite who accept the structure of the premise (race is real and it matters) but replace race with culture either to stay just within the range of respectable or cos their real focus is Israel/Islam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DissidentRight
    No, socialists are by definition not Rightwing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Art says:

    I am 100% pro Euro Christian culture – but NOT alt-right.

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually. Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess. It is the culture that drives success – not the skin. Although it has not been fully implemented, Western culture is a triumph of mind over biology.

    Whites do have two traits that are beneficial to them – they are both naturally aggressive and intellectually cooperative.

    Christianity, as a thoughtful practical philosophical mindset, channels the first into thinking about truth and the second into human teamwork.

    Tribal identity is a powerful biological driving force – clearly Christianity has not overcome this biological imperative – but its philosophy has the potential to balance human aggression with reason.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.
     
    Tribalism isn't about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.

    Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess.
     
    The Indians with great intellectual prowess are Caucasian.
    , @DissidentRight

    I am 100% pro Euro Christian culture – but NOT alt-right.
     
    Exactly. The Alt-Right isn't merely concerned with preserving a particular culture and religion.

    We are concerned with conserving the people. It's good to be white.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Following WWII and the demise of Nazism(and revelations of its horrors) and prior to the explosion of race problems in America(and now Europe as well), a decent intellectual honestly believed that race is essentially a ‘social construct’ and, if given equal chance and opportunity, all races could achieve more or less the same. If intellectuals were wrong about race and racial differences back then, it was more out of naivete and genuine idealism.

    But after several decades, it should be clear to any honest mind that racial differences are real and account for the persistent problems of race, especially pertaining to blacks. But because of the pervasiveness of PC as status requisite(as political INcorrectness will invariably lead to blacklisting or demotion), iconography(as Jews, Negroes, and Homos are now objects of mandatory reverence), and mob intimidation(as heretics & renegades face real danger of being physically assaulted by Antifa thugs, BLM lunatics, or screeching campus fanatics), nowadays all academics and media people are FORCED to be dishonest, FORCED to ‘not know’ what they, in the hearts of hearts, know.

    We can forgive a white liberal in the 1940s, 1950s, and even in the 1960s for believing that black conditions could be vastly improved with federal aid and support because, after all, blacks(along with other non-white races) had been denied equal opportunity in America. But after so much evidence of black advantage in muscle power, black impulsiveness, black aggressiveness, and black psychopathy that tends toward obsessive egotism & narcissism, one has to be disingenuous to insist that the racial problems in this country owe to the legacy of slavery and ‘Jim Crow’.

    It’s not Jim Crow but ‘Radio Raheem’, the kind who are all too common in black communities across America. The problem is too many Negroes who act like ‘nogs’ and carry this nig-gene that makes them makes them tougher, more aggressive, more impulsive, and more psychopathic. This is so obvious, but the power of political correctness prohibits honest discussion of race that locates the black problem in genetics. As a result, we are left with praising everything black(as if even Problem Blacks are really just misguided and misunderstood victims of the System).

    PC is an excuse-making machine that blames external white forces for everything wrong with the black community. (This is all the more disingenuous on the part of Progs since it is the problematic-ness of blacks that is also hyped and sensationalized as what makes black culture so ‘cool’ and ‘badass’. So, the very white progs who insist something must be done about black gangsta culture of violence also promote this thug culture as ‘authentic’ and something that young kids all around the world should emulate.) The idiot critic Andrew O’Hehir at Salon pontificated that Detroit’s decline owed to ‘punishment’ meted out by white ‘rightist racists’ who refused to dig Motown. Imagine such logic. In fact, most whites of all ideological stripes and ethnicity left Detroit because blacks got dangerous and aggressive, but odious & noxious O’Hehir blames the fall on the likes of Sean Hannity.

    To be sure, conservatives are hardly better on the Race Issue; they also play by the PC songbook. So, we are told that Detroit was ruined by Liberalism, socialism, and the Democratic Party. If so, why are some white-majority cities under Democratic rule among the richest in America? Why is San Francisco and Manhattan, two very Liberal cities, overflowing with wealth and privilege?

    Or consider how Ann Coulter blames lowly black behavior on the Democratic Party, as if blacks would have acted better under Republicans. So, how are blacks acting in Republican Alabama or Texas? Or channeling Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter muses that blacks learned how to be violent from Scotch-Irish hillbillies, a notion that would imply that Black Africa was an Edenic paradise of peace and harmony. Political Correctness isn’t just about ideas & issues but idols & icons. In a way, the matter of idolatry & iconography is more crucial to the power of PC. After all, even as the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ differ in explanations & proposals, they are agreed that blacks, along with Jews and even homos, must be treated as a preternaturally noble and holy people. Despite ideological differences, the American ‘right’ and American ‘left’ agree on the icons. It’s like the conflict between Catholics and Protestants or between Sunnis and Shias. Despite doctrinal differences, they worship the same gods or icons. So, ‘iconology’ > ideology. Ideology offers explanations. It is ‘iconology’ that determines the objects of worship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Well, one of those differences in the area of race is that whites seem to be far less tribal that most, if not all, other races. Libertarianism and tribalism conflict in many areas. Libertarianism may be an ideology that grows out of NW European DNA and may not work with other races who choose tribe over the individual.

    What use is economic and individual freedom if you lose your family, so to speak.

    However, you could shot for a "Tribal Libertarianism." An ethno-state with a very free-market bent. I'm all for free trade, tourism and exchange of ideas, but you can have all of that while maintaining an ethno-state.

    Japan comes to mind.

    Libertarianism may be an ideology that grows of NW European DNA and may not work with other races who choose tribe over the individual.

    You have been duped and hypnotized. The roots of Libertarianism are Jewish. Libertarianism is a dialectic of banker usury.

    Government = evil. Market money is required to make sure government stays in its subordinated (to Oligarchy) place. That basically is the message of Libertarians. Oh – and unlimited immigration.

    The “merchants” always camped outside of city gates and plotted ways to take down the city/state. Haibaru donkey caravaneer bones have been found outside of Sumer.

    The great luminaries of Libertarian thought are Jewish, they don’t want an organized movement to eject them from taking usury. Usury is the family business. Unlimited immigration is to take wage arbitrage, and to make “capital” above labor. Third world immigration is a twofer, it makes Jews less obvious, and weakens white unity. Unearned income is to be untaxed, and labor is to be taxed.

    It is all so obvious once you put on your glasses. Too bad we don’t have glasses to hand out, like in the movie “They Live.”

    The parasite has learned how to harvest the host, and one of those ways is pandering to white altruism and individualism.

    Libertarianism is fatal because it doesn’t understand that money’s true nature is law.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. notanon says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Since any alt-rightist worth his salt is anti-Israel, the answer to Derb’s question is, “no”.

    if the choice is bolshevism or zionism then zionism is better (however we currently have both)

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS

    bolshevism or zionism then zionism is better
     
    Bolshevism is Zionism. Zionism came into being with Herzyl. One of the very first things Herzyl did was try to get Rothschild onboard.

    Zionism is illuminist bankers... Zionism is Bolshevism.

    The original Bolsheviks were funded by Khun and Loeb out of Wall Street. Jacob Schiff was active in supporting Zionist movement. Shiff also helped finance Japan to attack Russia, to then weaken Tsar Nicholas.

    http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

    http://strangeside.com/russo-japanese-war-financed-by-jacob-schiff/

    The Zionists turned against Stalin when he had Trotsky murdered. One of the first things Trotysky did was try to install a wall street bank in Russia. OK. Stalin nationalized the bank.

    We don't have both bolshevism and Zionism.. We have cultural communism, which is Bolshevik. We have Zionism, which is closely related to "international banking." They work together, and cannot be separated. They are elements of the same thing.

    Stalin was a national communist, an enemy of Zion.

    If you went to publik skooooool, then most of what you know is wrong, and you will have to re-learn reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. notanon says:

    8. The Alt Right is scientodific.

    and

    9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

    is mostly just a way of saying race is real and it matters while avoiding saying the actual words.

    Given that “race” really means population structure there’s nothing wrong in using non triggering words when debating with neutrals but in a polemic document it’s better to actually use the word “race” precisely because it triggers people’s brain washing.

    #

    4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement

    I don’t believe that personally, or at least it might be objectively but i don’t care. I think the pre-pozzed version of Western civilization was the pinnacle of the people who created it because they created it i.e. it was an expression of them – other populations have (or had) their own pinnacles suited to them.

    #

    7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

    a lot of egalitarianism is actually a mislabeled desire for fairness – there’s no egalitarian who says blind people must be allowed to drive – and so people who have been indoctrinated into the cultural Marxist blank slate ideology will see unequal average group outcomes as unfair.

    accepting biological reality doesn’t mean “fair” is wrong – it just means “fair” and “equal” aren’t always the same (and sometimes they are).

    #

    3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude

    This is probably the most important part after race is real and it matters – cultural Marxist ideology is a crock and needs trashing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. MEFOBILLS says:
    @notanon
    if the choice is bolshevism or zionism then zionism is better (however we currently have both)

    bolshevism or zionism then zionism is better

    Bolshevism is Zionism. Zionism came into being with Herzyl. One of the very first things Herzyl did was try to get Rothschild onboard.

    Zionism is illuminist bankers… Zionism is Bolshevism.

    The original Bolsheviks were funded by Khun and Loeb out of Wall Street. Jacob Schiff was active in supporting Zionist movement. Shiff also helped finance Japan to attack Russia, to then weaken Tsar Nicholas.

    http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

    http://strangeside.com/russo-japanese-war-financed-by-jacob-schiff/

    The Zionists turned against Stalin when he had Trotsky murdered. One of the first things Trotysky did was try to install a wall street bank in Russia. OK. Stalin nationalized the bank.

    We don’t have both bolshevism and Zionism.. We have cultural communism, which is Bolshevik. We have Zionism, which is closely related to “international banking.” They work together, and cannot be separated. They are elements of the same thing.

    Stalin was a national communist, an enemy of Zion.

    If you went to publik skooooool, then most of what you know is wrong, and you will have to re-learn reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. notanon says:
    @yeah
    I am not very good at labelling games because I tend to get stuck in a pedantic pursuit of exactness and precision: what label goes where and why? Even after reading some brilliant and erudite posts on "Alt Right" here, I must confess to not feeling much wiser. How about a "For dummies", by example kind of explanation from some of you kind folk. How would you label the gents below and why? Never mind their self-affixed labels.
    Pat Buchanan
    Fred Reed
    President Trump
    Paul Craig Roberts (Yes, I know he may not be Alt Right, but what might be the best label?)
    Milton Friedman
    Ann Ryand (the only lady on this list)

    Thanks in advance!

    Pat Buchanan: paleo right
    most people in the past believed in heredity but the concept was very blocky e.g. black and white etc categories seen as solid blocks, which was predictive on average but had enough flaws it was easy to knock down. the modern conception of heredity is more flexible so can get around the standard objections. you could say the paleo right was the alt-right with one arm tied behind their back and thus often pushed into half-hearted civic nationalism as a result.

    Fred Reed: not sure

    President Trump: mostly straight forward civic nationalist (culture > heredity) with a bit of paleo right

    Paul Craig Roberts: hard to say as most of what i’ve read of his was focused more on international policy more than than domestic policy – i’d guess he was paleo right.

    Milton Friedman,Ann Rand: international capitalist
    the purpose of public policy should be things like security and affordable family formation imo so relative economic efficiency is important but only when subordinate to a higher goal – having economic efficiency as the goal itself is the capitalist version of poz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yeah
    Thanks for the detailed response. Helpful, makes me think what am I?
    Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @jtgw
    The trade deficit doesn't tell you much except that our trading partners are saving a lot of our dollars and thus helping to dampen inflation here at home. What is the big deal with a deficit anyway? What are foreigners going to do with those dollars other than buy American goods?

    NE Asia has a lot of problems, most notably the ultra-low fertility rate. I think they definitely benefit from a high average IQ, but that alone explains whatever disparity in growth or living standards they enjoy; you don't need to appeal to their protectionism. And when you have as a big a population as China or Japan does, an economy can get away with a lot more protectionism than otherwise, since domestic trade is a much bigger proportion of overall trade. You don't see small countries like Switzerland getting prosperous with tariffs.

    buy up all the houses in the best urban areas from Seattle to San Marino (beside Caltech)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Art

    4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.
     
    Is there anything more pathetic than a white, begging to be accepted, by kissing Jew hinny?

    Derby displays his intellectual ignorance about the difference between Christianity and Judaism.

    The old testament is intellectual baggage for Christianity. Every time Christianity follows the old testament, it goes wrong. The tribalness pumped by the Jews is the bane of humanity.

    Jesus gave us a new view of God – a new universal God that is forgiving and loving, and that fosters cooperation between different biological peoples.

    Poor Derby – he is either intellectually ignorant or a sellout sycophant. (Probably both.)

    Is there anything more pathetic than a white, begging to be accepted, by kissing Jew hinny?

    You gotta show Derbyshire some respect. He paid his dues and then some.

    Also, I think Derbyshire’s pro-Jewish sympathies are genuine. It’s not a matter of sucking up.

    Why? He gains nothing from expressing it.

    In Charles Murray’s case, he has something to gain by sucking up to the Power.

    Derbyshire is considered beyond-the-pale no matter what he does or says.

    The Power won’t cut him any slack for being pro-Jewish.

    So, it must be personal and genuine.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @geokat62

    In Charles Murray’s case, he has something to gain by sucking up to the Power.
     
    Speaking of sucking up:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy. - excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. dearieme says:
    @jacques sheete

    The only Jewish influence of much consequence on western civ, until recent times, was through Christianity.
     
    Only? That's gonna be a hard sell in my neck of the woods.

    You are correct that the always increasing sub-cults of Christianity (now Paulinity, really) have their roots as you say, but people who identify themselves as members of one of the many other Jewish sub-cult, especially if you include JINOs, have had lot of influence in what's poorly labeled as Western civilization. The influence started at least as far back s Moses' influence with the Pharaoh a couple millennia ago and can be traced through the halls of power to the present day.

    Jewish influence can be seen n the writings of Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, to name only two,for instance.

    “Jewish influence can be seen n the writings of Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, to name only two, for instance.” Both of whom were Christians, which is my point.

    “Moses’ influence with the Pharaoh a couple millennia ago”: (i) Moses didn’t exist – it’s a fairy-tale. (ii) But if he had existed it was a lot longer than two millennia ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Is there anything more pathetic than a white, begging to be accepted, by kissing Jew hinny?

    You gotta show Derbyshire some respect. He paid his dues and then some.

    Also, I think Derbyshire's pro-Jewish sympathies are genuine. It's not a matter of sucking up.

    Why? He gains nothing from expressing it.

    In Charles Murray's case, he has something to gain by sucking up to the Power.

    Derbyshire is considered beyond-the-pale no matter what he does or says.

    The Power won't cut him any slack for being pro-Jewish.

    So, it must be personal and genuine.

    In Charles Murray’s case, he has something to gain by sucking up to the Power.

    Speaking of sucking up:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy. – excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    ROTFL...

    Except that by 'admitting' he is sucking up, he is giving the game away by spilling the beans on Jewish domination of media and institutions.

    British are famous for their irony, seeming to say one thing while suggesting another.

    I guarantee... powerful Jews don't want gentiles to admit that they are sucking up. They want gentiles to say they freely love Big Brother with any fear or intimidation.

    Derbyshire is like someone being forced to act natural under duress, with a gun pointed to his back.
    But he says he's acting 'natural' because he's afraid of being shot.

    Brits will insult you by complimenting you.
    Brits will beg for help by saying they're just fine.

    This is why 007 always comes out on top. You never what he really means.
    Derbyshire is like 007's nerdy brother who opted for math than adventure.

    , @Art
    Derbyshire: Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am!

    geokat62,

    My beef with Derbyshire, is that he actually says things that further Jew lies. He not only, does not offend Jews - he supports their lies. He crosses the line of self-protection – to advocacy. At least he could say nothing.

    This has to end!

    Think Peace --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Rurik says: • Website
    @geokat62

    Derb - I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes.

    Rurik - no you’re not

    because as everyone with a brain and a shred of integrity knows by now, the 800 LB purple gorilla doing all it can to murder Western Civilization are the Jewish supremacists that you ‘prudently’ fail to mention, because mentioning ((them)) is exactly what the boy in the story would be doing.
     

    Good stuff, Rurik.

    This is indeed the real litmus test: anyone who refuses to discuss the 800 lb gorilla in the room should be called out for being the phony cuckservative they are.

    And this guy has the nads to suggest he is like the little boy pointing out the emperor has no clothes, when he has openly admitted his cringing fear of the emperor:


    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    Not sure why this guy still has a following after admitting something like that.

    His followers are like the frogs in that boiling pot of water who are oblivious to the fact that they are being cooked alive since he quickly reassures them there is no need to get out as everything is just fine.... the empower is just wanting a little snack.

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law

    Geo:

    Not sure why this guy still has a following after admitting something like that.

    I suspect a kind of Stockholm Syndrome Geo

    or a kind of craven ambition ;)

    and that wasn’t the only gem in that nice piece you posted Geo, there’s more..

    I therefore approached MacDonald’s work dispassionately, interested to see what he has to say. I found his first two books tough-going, jargony, and not very well written. The Culture of Critique, though, is an interesting book, and I think he says things that are true, uncomfortably true—for example about the tendency, on the part of 20th-century Jewish-led intellectual movements like the Frankfurt School, to pathologize Gentile culture.

    I was glad to see that someone [other than me, actually willing to say the emperor was nekked] had written about these things in a non-vituperative way. They are things that occur to any thoughtful American sooner or later, and it is satisfying to see someone who’s done a lot of reading on these topics, trying to fit them into some kind of coherent social-historical framework.

    he also points out how MacDonald writes for the real world

    I think MacDonald is in love with 1950—with the old Gentile supremacy, [over their own lands and their own people] when Jews were kept out of golf clubs and hotels [and didn't control our institutions and media and foreign policy in near absolute terms] advertised themselves on their stationery as “near churches” (translation: No Jews, please). He doesn’t wish any harm to Jews, but I do think he resents the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, the academy, and other elites.

    whereas Derby seems to have no problem with that “disproportionate representation” (and the catastrophic consequences), even if he’s carved a good career niche by lamenting the symptoms of - so long as he studiously avoids mentioning the actual cause.

    IOW mentioning that the emperor has no clothes.

    [emphasis and comments in italics are mine]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Rurik says: • Website
    @geokat62

    Derb - I’m the little boy calling out that the Emperor has no clothes.

    Rurik - no you’re not

    because as everyone with a brain and a shred of integrity knows by now, the 800 LB purple gorilla doing all it can to murder Western Civilization are the Jewish supremacists that you ‘prudently’ fail to mention, because mentioning ((them)) is exactly what the boy in the story would be doing.
     

    Good stuff, Rurik.

    This is indeed the real litmus test: anyone who refuses to discuss the 800 lb gorilla in the room should be called out for being the phony cuckservative they are.

    And this guy has the nads to suggest he is like the little boy pointing out the emperor has no clothes, when he has openly admitted his cringing fear of the emperor:


    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy.

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    Not sure why this guy still has a following after admitting something like that.

    His followers are like the frogs in that boiling pot of water who are oblivious to the fact that they are being cooked alive since he quickly reassures them there is no need to get out as everything is just fine.... the empower is just wanting a little snack.

    OK Geo, I posted a nice reply to this and it was censured.

    I’ll post this as a sort of test, I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    my bad

    (the 'censured' reply is above)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Rurik says: • Website
    @Rurik
    OK Geo, I posted a nice reply to this and it was censured.

    I'll post this as a sort of test, I guess.

    my bad

    (the ‘censured’ reply is above)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @geokat62

    In Charles Murray’s case, he has something to gain by sucking up to the Power.
     
    Speaking of sucking up:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy. - excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    ROTFL…

    Except that by ‘admitting’ he is sucking up, he is giving the game away by spilling the beans on Jewish domination of media and institutions.

    British are famous for their irony, seeming to say one thing while suggesting another.

    I guarantee… powerful Jews don’t want gentiles to admit that they are sucking up. They want gentiles to say they freely love Big Brother with any fear or intimidation.

    Derbyshire is like someone being forced to act natural under duress, with a gun pointed to his back.
    But he says he’s acting ‘natural’ because he’s afraid of being shot.

    Brits will insult you by complimenting you.
    Brits will beg for help by saying they’re just fine.

    This is why 007 always comes out on top. You never what he really means.
    Derbyshire is like 007′s nerdy brother who opted for math than adventure.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vinteuil
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Except that by ‘admitting’ he is sucking up, he is giving the game away by spilling the beans on Jewish domination of media and institutions.
     
    Of course, Priss. Without the nerdy 007, the goyim would have no clue that Jews dominate the media and institutions. What would we do without him?
    , @Rurik

    This is why 007 always comes out on top. You never what he really means.
     
    https://www.inquisitr.com/1692489/idris-elba-as-james-bond-sony-executives-want-him-to-be-first-black-007/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor
    ROTFL...

    Except that by 'admitting' he is sucking up, he is giving the game away by spilling the beans on Jewish domination of media and institutions.

    British are famous for their irony, seeming to say one thing while suggesting another.

    I guarantee... powerful Jews don't want gentiles to admit that they are sucking up. They want gentiles to say they freely love Big Brother with any fear or intimidation.

    Derbyshire is like someone being forced to act natural under duress, with a gun pointed to his back.
    But he says he's acting 'natural' because he's afraid of being shot.

    Brits will insult you by complimenting you.
    Brits will beg for help by saying they're just fine.

    This is why 007 always comes out on top. You never what he really means.
    Derbyshire is like 007's nerdy brother who opted for math than adventure.

    Except that by ‘admitting’ he is sucking up, he is giving the game away by spilling the beans on Jewish domination of media and institutions.

    Of course, Priss. Without the nerdy 007, the goyim would have no clue that Jews dominate the media and institutions. What would we do without him?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Art says:

    Is there anything more pathetic than a white, begging to be accepted, by kissing Jew hinny?

    Also, I think Derbyshire’s pro-Jewish sympathies are genuine. It’s not a matter of sucking up.

    If Derbyshire has Jewish relatives, I can understand the reason for his pro-Jew words. In that case, he gets a pass.

    We can suspect, that the reason behind his pro-Jew words is economic. He works in a pro Jew intellectual world.

    But to further Jew lies is a choice – an immoral choice.

    Pushing the lie that Jew tribal coercion in America is of no consequence is a grave matter.

    It is time to bring to light those who advance the Jew agenda at America’s expense.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  165. Rurik says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    ROTFL...

    Except that by 'admitting' he is sucking up, he is giving the game away by spilling the beans on Jewish domination of media and institutions.

    British are famous for their irony, seeming to say one thing while suggesting another.

    I guarantee... powerful Jews don't want gentiles to admit that they are sucking up. They want gentiles to say they freely love Big Brother with any fear or intimidation.

    Derbyshire is like someone being forced to act natural under duress, with a gun pointed to his back.
    But he says he's acting 'natural' because he's afraid of being shot.

    Brits will insult you by complimenting you.
    Brits will beg for help by saying they're just fine.

    This is why 007 always comes out on top. You never what he really means.
    Derbyshire is like 007's nerdy brother who opted for math than adventure.

    This is why 007 always comes out on top. You never what he really means.

    https://www.inquisitr.com/1692489/idris-elba-as-james-bond-sony-executives-want-him-to-be-first-black-007/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Art says:
    @geokat62

    In Charles Murray’s case, he has something to gain by sucking up to the Power.
     
    Speaking of sucking up:

    Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy. - excerpt from Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law, a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman:

    http://jewcy.com/post/wrestling_with_derbyshires_law
     

    Derbyshire: Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am!

    geokat62,

    My beef with Derbyshire, is that he actually says things that further Jew lies. He not only, does not offend Jews – he supports their lies. He crosses the line of self-protection – to advocacy. At least he could say nothing.

    This has to end!

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Art
    I am 100% pro Euro Christian culture – but NOT alt-right.

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually. Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess. It is the culture that drives success – not the skin. Although it has not been fully implemented, Western culture is a triumph of mind over biology.

    Whites do have two traits that are beneficial to them – they are both naturally aggressive and intellectually cooperative.

    Christianity, as a thoughtful practical philosophical mindset, channels the first into thinking about truth and the second into human teamwork.

    Tribal identity is a powerful biological driving force – clearly Christianity has not overcome this biological imperative – but its philosophy has the potential to balance human aggression with reason.

    Think Peace --- Art

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.

    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.

    Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess.

    The Indians with great intellectual prowess are Caucasian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik



    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.

     

    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.
     
    thank you!

    I missed that bit of idiocy (no disrespect) from Art

    do the Palestinians have to prove their 'intellectual superiority' before the world (and Christians) grant them the status as human, and therefor a God given right to a land of their own?!

    or is that not even good enough?

    WTF does it take to qualify as being worthy of having a right to live unmolested in your own lands?!

    Personally I think half of Australia ought to be set aside for the Aborigines. Not because they're necessarily intellectually superior, but because ALL people should be entitled to their own lands. (and also so the greedy white people don't pave over every inch of Australia's outback for tourism and mineral mining).

    What for me seems self-evident, is for so many people (especially Christians) a complete mystery. ~ That we humans are tribal (and spiritual) animals with corporal, (perhaps created by God or Gods) earthy bodies, and we need territory. DUH!

    When one tribe competes for the territory of another, then you have strife and war. DUH!!

    Are Christians too stupid to comprehend that simple and obvious truth? It's only been glaringly obvious ever since humans have been on planet earth.

    has something happened to their brains where its all dogma all day long, and they can no longer see the obvious in front of their faces?

    let me explains something very simple, OK?

    just because some people who happen to be white, don't want to be replaced with others,

    DOES NOT MEAN THEY WANT TO KILL AND ENSLAVE AND GENOCIDE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET, OK?!

    yes, I'm shouting. Sorry for that. But I'm trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states - 'when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn't want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders - then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of 'white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.

    there is this damnable idiocy that just wont die.
    , @Art

    Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess.

    The Indians with great intellectual prowess are Caucasian.
     
    That is further proof that it is not genetics - but that it is cultures that divines success.

    Clearly the Christian Euro Caucasians are more successful then the Indian Caucasians. One demands a better tomorrow - the other harmony. That is a major difference.

    Christian idealism matters.

    It is amazing how Western cultures keeps going down the tubes as Christian idealism is purged from daily life.

    When are EURO intellectuals going to rediscover the benefits of Christian idealism?

    Think Peace --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @jtgw
    I think you're only looking at the transition period when people have to move from less efficient lines of work to more efficient lines of work. During that period, there can definitely be some pain and dislocation. But in the long term, everyone is better off.

    Think about it. Why do cheap imports win in the market? Because domestic consumers, i.e. ordinary people, prefer them. Now some of those same domestic consumers may also be producers of that line of goods, and they'll need to find new work. But if all domestic workers were put out of work and had no money, there would be no more market for those cheap imports. How then do those cheap imports continue to find buyers? Because domestic workers have found other lines of work that give them to income to keep purchasing those goods.

    I'm not saying that things like income stagnation are not real, but it's not because of trade. It's because of inflation mainly. As far as trade goes, our domestic workers have found new lines of work, like services, that afford them the income to keep buying goods manufactured abroad. However, inflation is constantly eroding the value of their wages; I believe the minimum wage is now worth about two thirds or so of the min wage in 1979, even though the nominal value is about three times as much.

    Protectionist tariffs might protect some blue collar jobs in some areas, but only at the expense of other blue collar and middle class workers everywhere else. It's not free trade but the Fed we need to focus on.

    But in the long term, everyone is better off.

    People aren’t interchangeable. You get rid of all the good jobs for manual labor and you’ll find the people who can only do manual labor are totally screwed over.

    How then do those cheap imports continue to find buyers?

    The dollar is the world’s reserve currency so we can print money to make up for the lack of American productivity.

    I’m not saying that things like income stagnation are not real, but it’s not because of trade. It’s because of inflation mainly.

    Inflation doesn’t cause income stagnation. Income rising at the rate of inflation is a sign that income is stagnant, not the other way around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw

    People aren’t interchangeable. You get rid of all the good jobs for manual labor and you’ll find the people who can only do manual labor are totally screwed over.
     
    I absolutely agree that talents and abilities are not evenly distributed. However, historically we didn't see permanent mass employment as economies developed, since skills could be transferred in many unexpected ways, e.g. farm workers became factory workers. So I don't think attributing long-term employment now to the effects of trade is likely; there are other plausible explanations.

    The dollar is the world’s reserve currency so we can print money to make up for the lack of American productivity.
     
    Money on its own does not create wealth. Did Germany became millions of times wealthier because of printing million mark notes in 1923? Money is just a medium of exchange; actual wealth is found in our stock of usable goods.

    Inflation doesn’t cause income stagnation. Income rising at the rate of inflation is a sign that income is stagnant, not the other way around.
     
    You said inflation doesn't cause income stagnation and then you proceeded to explain precisely how it does! Inflation is not a fact of nature or the inevitable outcome of market transactions; it is the result of a deliberate policy of adding new money to the economy that is not linked to a corresponding growth in real wealth, i.e. real usable goods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Absolutely, Xenosystems = Nick Land = Core NRx

    Probably somewhere between Dissident Right, Alt Right, and the techno-commercialist wing of NRx.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. Rurik says: • Website
    @Samuel Skinner

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.
     
    Tribalism isn't about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.

    Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess.
     
    The Indians with great intellectual prowess are Caucasian.

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.

    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.

    thank you!

    I missed that bit of idiocy (no disrespect) from Art

    do the Palestinians have to prove their ‘intellectual superiority’ before the world (and Christians) grant them the status as human, and therefor a God given right to a land of their own?!

    or is that not even good enough?

    WTF does it take to qualify as being worthy of having a right to live unmolested in your own lands?!

    Personally I think half of Australia ought to be set aside for the Aborigines. Not because they’re necessarily intellectually superior, but because ALL people should be entitled to their own lands. (and also so the greedy white people don’t pave over every inch of Australia’s outback for tourism and mineral mining).

    What for me seems self-evident, is for so many people (especially Christians) a complete mystery. ~ That we humans are tribal (and spiritual) animals with corporal, (perhaps created by God or Gods) earthy bodies, and we need territory. DUH!

    When one tribe competes for the territory of another, then you have strife and war. DUH!!

    Are Christians too stupid to comprehend that simple and obvious truth? It’s only been glaringly obvious ever since humans have been on planet earth.

    has something happened to their brains where its all dogma all day long, and they can no longer see the obvious in front of their faces?

    let me explains something very simple, OK?

    just because some people who happen to be white, don’t want to be replaced with others,

    DOES NOT MEAN THEY WANT TO KILL AND ENSLAVE AND GENOCIDE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET, OK?!

    yes, I’m shouting. Sorry for that. But I’m trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states – ‘when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn’t want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders – then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of ‘white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.

    there is this damnable idiocy that just wont die.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.

    Hmm --- what comes first – aggression and greed for what others have – or rightfully keeping ones property? Doesn’t tribal offence come first?

    Maybe the tribal offence of an elite is the problem. Maybe, greed for power and wealth by kings and oligarchs is the founding starting problem.

    English common law settles property disputes between local folks. Now we need something that honors regional sovereignty and regional ownership.

    Clearly elitist government tribalism is the primary problem facing humanity.

    We can have peace – but only if we demand it. Making excuses for the current sad situation is not going to fix the problem. There are too many nukes – we must get serious about peace.

    Think Peace --- Art
    , @geokat62

    yes, I’m shouting. Sorry for that. But I’m trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states – ‘when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn’t want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders – then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of ‘white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.
     
    Hey, Rurik. You took the words right out of Ingrid Carlqvist's, a Swedish journalist, mouth:

    If we say that “I’m Sweden, I’m proud to be a Swede, I love my country, Sweden is the country of the Swedes, and I want us to take our country back.” Then I will always hear, “Oh, so you want another holocaust? Is that what you want? You are a nazi. Everyone who is a patriot, a nationalist, is a nazi. And that leads to one thing: to gas the Jews.”
     
    , @Anonymous
    Contrary to stereotype, most Aboriginals don't live out in rural areas but in or near the large cities. i.e. around white people. This won't change if you give them their own national territory, unless you're willing to force them to go live there, which no Australian government ever will.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. jtgw says:
    @Samuel Skinner

    But in the long term, everyone is better off.
     
    People aren't interchangeable. You get rid of all the good jobs for manual labor and you'll find the people who can only do manual labor are totally screwed over.

    How then do those cheap imports continue to find buyers?
     
    The dollar is the world's reserve currency so we can print money to make up for the lack of American productivity.

    I’m not saying that things like income stagnation are not real, but it’s not because of trade. It’s because of inflation mainly.
     
    Inflation doesn't cause income stagnation. Income rising at the rate of inflation is a sign that income is stagnant, not the other way around.

    People aren’t interchangeable. You get rid of all the good jobs for manual labor and you’ll find the people who can only do manual labor are totally screwed over.

    I absolutely agree that talents and abilities are not evenly distributed. However, historically we didn’t see permanent mass employment as economies developed, since skills could be transferred in many unexpected ways, e.g. farm workers became factory workers. So I don’t think attributing long-term employment now to the effects of trade is likely; there are other plausible explanations.

    The dollar is the world’s reserve currency so we can print money to make up for the lack of American productivity.

    Money on its own does not create wealth. Did Germany became millions of times wealthier because of printing million mark notes in 1923? Money is just a medium of exchange; actual wealth is found in our stock of usable goods.

    Inflation doesn’t cause income stagnation. Income rising at the rate of inflation is a sign that income is stagnant, not the other way around.

    You said inflation doesn’t cause income stagnation and then you proceeded to explain precisely how it does! Inflation is not a fact of nature or the inevitable outcome of market transactions; it is the result of a deliberate policy of adding new money to the economy that is not linked to a corresponding growth in real wealth, i.e. real usable goods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    A quick fix is a 32 hour work week – where the current unemployed fill in the lost productivity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. jtgw says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Alt Right = Richard Spencer/AltRight.com, Greg Johnson, Kevin McDonald, The Right Stuff, some Southern nationalists like Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin/Daily Stormer (intersectional with Neo-Nazis)

    Neo-Nazis (old school) = Stormfront, David Duke, Vanguard, probably Heimbach/Traditionalist Workers Party

    Civic Nationalists/Dissident Right = Steve Sailer, Derbyshire, approximately a third to half of the HBDsphere

    Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite = Breitbart/Bannon, Milo, Gamergate, Loomer, Baked Alaska, etc, etc. Vox Day is here.

    NRx = Moldbug, Foseti, Social Matter, etc

    Would you say the major distinction between Alt Right and Dissident Right is the position on the Jewish Question? Or is there a good write-up of what distinguishes these various branches?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Art says:
    @Samuel Skinner

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.
     
    Tribalism isn't about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.

    Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess.
     
    The Indians with great intellectual prowess are Caucasian.

    Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess.

    The Indians with great intellectual prowess are Caucasian.

    That is further proof that it is not genetics – but that it is cultures that divines success.

    Clearly the Christian Euro Caucasians are more successful then the Indian Caucasians. One demands a better tomorrow – the other harmony. That is a major difference.

    Christian idealism matters.

    It is amazing how Western cultures keeps going down the tubes as Christian idealism is purged from daily life.

    When are EURO intellectuals going to rediscover the benefits of Christian idealism?

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. JackOH says:
    @Randal
    Cheers, JackOH.

    I’ve only heard the expression “Alt-Right” on these pages.
     
    I come across it fairly regularly in the mainstream, such as in the UK's Channel 4 documentary blurb in my other post on this thread. It's mostly used as a synonym, as it is there, for Richard Spencer's lot and related politics.


    I may be off the beam, but my understanding of what’s going in these pages is that people of Euro-American ancestry have done a whole lot of good for the planet. Despite their obvious flaws, such as the murderousness of the 20th century, we Euro-American folks are still a pretty damned good people. That’s something worth defending.
     
    Exactly so (and Citizen's reply as well). It's a much-needed corrective to a longstanding thrust to uniquely demonize white/Euro-American people and culture for the benefit of radicals and various ethnic and other lobbies and interest groups.

    “Exactly so (and Citizen’s reply as well). It’s a much-needed corrective to a longstanding thrust to uniquely demonize white/Euro-American people and culture for the benefit of radicals and various ethnic and other lobbies and interest groups.”

    Agree 100%. Only have time for a very brief response. Our 1914-1945 Euro-American war seems to have lent to Africans, Western Asians, and others an undue, unearned virtue, at least in my opinion. Four generations later, Africa still has its begging bowl, despite those naughty, colonizing Europeans having disappeared or been tossed from power. Western Asia is a mess of low-grade wars and religious animus, and, there too, the colonizer-conquerors are mostly gone.

    Solution? We Euro-Americans are going to have to get past the 1914-1945 thing if we want to address today’s problems with uprightness. And one more thing. We Euro-Americans need to get off our high horses. We’re not as evil as some of us think, or as others wish to portray us.

    Again, sorry for the brevity. Best wishes. Thanks for your good comments on this site.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Art says:
    @Rurik



    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.

     

    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.
     
    thank you!

    I missed that bit of idiocy (no disrespect) from Art

    do the Palestinians have to prove their 'intellectual superiority' before the world (and Christians) grant them the status as human, and therefor a God given right to a land of their own?!

    or is that not even good enough?

    WTF does it take to qualify as being worthy of having a right to live unmolested in your own lands?!

    Personally I think half of Australia ought to be set aside for the Aborigines. Not because they're necessarily intellectually superior, but because ALL people should be entitled to their own lands. (and also so the greedy white people don't pave over every inch of Australia's outback for tourism and mineral mining).

    What for me seems self-evident, is for so many people (especially Christians) a complete mystery. ~ That we humans are tribal (and spiritual) animals with corporal, (perhaps created by God or Gods) earthy bodies, and we need territory. DUH!

    When one tribe competes for the territory of another, then you have strife and war. DUH!!

    Are Christians too stupid to comprehend that simple and obvious truth? It's only been glaringly obvious ever since humans have been on planet earth.

    has something happened to their brains where its all dogma all day long, and they can no longer see the obvious in front of their faces?

    let me explains something very simple, OK?

    just because some people who happen to be white, don't want to be replaced with others,

    DOES NOT MEAN THEY WANT TO KILL AND ENSLAVE AND GENOCIDE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET, OK?!

    yes, I'm shouting. Sorry for that. But I'm trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states - 'when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn't want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders - then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of 'white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.

    there is this damnable idiocy that just wont die.

    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.

    Hmm — what comes first – aggression and greed for what others have – or rightfully keeping ones property? Doesn’t tribal offence come first?

    Maybe the tribal offence of an elite is the problem. Maybe, greed for power and wealth by kings and oligarchs is the founding starting problem.

    English common law settles property disputes between local folks. Now we need something that honors regional sovereignty and regional ownership.

    Clearly elitist government tribalism is the primary problem facing humanity.

    We can have peace – but only if we demand it. Making excuses for the current sad situation is not going to fix the problem. There are too many nukes – we must get serious about peace.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Art says:
    @jtgw

    People aren’t interchangeable. You get rid of all the good jobs for manual labor and you’ll find the people who can only do manual labor are totally screwed over.
     
    I absolutely agree that talents and abilities are not evenly distributed. However, historically we didn't see permanent mass employment as economies developed, since skills could be transferred in many unexpected ways, e.g. farm workers became factory workers. So I don't think attributing long-term employment now to the effects of trade is likely; there are other plausible explanations.

    The dollar is the world’s reserve currency so we can print money to make up for the lack of American productivity.
     
    Money on its own does not create wealth. Did Germany became millions of times wealthier because of printing million mark notes in 1923? Money is just a medium of exchange; actual wealth is found in our stock of usable goods.

    Inflation doesn’t cause income stagnation. Income rising at the rate of inflation is a sign that income is stagnant, not the other way around.
     
    You said inflation doesn't cause income stagnation and then you proceeded to explain precisely how it does! Inflation is not a fact of nature or the inevitable outcome of market transactions; it is the result of a deliberate policy of adding new money to the economy that is not linked to a corresponding growth in real wealth, i.e. real usable goods.

    A quick fix is a 32 hour work week – where the current unemployed fill in the lost productivity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Ain't no such thing as a free lunch - or a quick fix.

    There is unemployment because the government in various ways makes human labor artificially expensive. For example, minimum wage laws mean that workers whose marginal productivity is less than the legal minimum wage can't get jobs, or at least can't get jobs outside the black market. So the first step is to recognize what actually caused unemployment.

    Whether the wages that would prevail on the market are "living wages" (whatever that means) or whether they provide a certain standard of living is a separate issue. The point is that unemployment qua unemployment is entirely the creation of the government. Without government intervention, labors costs would be bid down until full employment is reached or at least approximated far more closely than it is now.

    If a business could be more productive by employing more people at fewer hours, it would do so. This means any attempt to limit the working week further will simply drive down overall productivity. This will make foreign competitors that much more productive and profitable by comparison, exacerbating the trade imbalance even further. I assume that is not what you want.

    And in case you think you can quickly fix that problem by slapping more tariffs on imports, you will need to keep raising tariffs to match the rising costs of domestic goods that follow from the decreased productivity. What do rising costs mean? Even lower living standards.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Rurik says: • Website

    Hmm — what comes first – aggression and greed for what others have – or rightfully keeping ones property? Doesn’t tribal offence come first?

    no

    The Aborigines came first. Then the white man came with aggression and greed for what they had.

    Today the Aborigines languish, and should be given territory of their own, and the white people should also be given territory of their own. If the two nations (a fact on the ground today) want to intermingle, let them. But it should all be voluntary.

    Maybe the tribal offence of an elite is the problem. Maybe, greed for power and wealth by kings and oligarchs is the founding starting problem.

    yes, but does that mean there is no other way?

    English common law settles property disputes between local folks. Now we need something that honors regional sovereignty and regional ownership.

    I agree!

    Clearly elitist government tribalism is the primary problem facing humanity.

    that, and human over-population

    We can have peace – but only if we demand it. Making excuses for the current sad situation is not going to fix the problem. There are too many nukes – we must get serious about peace.

    that sounds a little platitudinous Art.

    you want to know the path to peace, I just said it to Talha on another thread.

    The long term solution to these intractable problems are separation and a respect of each people’s self-determination in their own lands.

    Think Peace

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    The long term solution to these intractable problems are separation and a respect of each people’s self-determination in their own lands.

    Rurik,

    Agreed!

    Think Peace --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. yeah says:
    @notanon
    Pat Buchanan: paleo right
    most people in the past believed in heredity but the concept was very blocky e.g. black and white etc categories seen as solid blocks, which was predictive on average but had enough flaws it was easy to knock down. the modern conception of heredity is more flexible so can get around the standard objections. you could say the paleo right was the alt-right with one arm tied behind their back and thus often pushed into half-hearted civic nationalism as a result.

    Fred Reed: not sure

    President Trump: mostly straight forward civic nationalist (culture > heredity) with a bit of paleo right

    Paul Craig Roberts: hard to say as most of what i've read of his was focused more on international policy more than than domestic policy - i'd guess he was paleo right.

    Milton Friedman,Ann Rand: international capitalist
    the purpose of public policy should be things like security and affordable family formation imo so relative economic efficiency is important but only when subordinate to a higher goal - having economic efficiency as the goal itself is the capitalist version of poz.

    Thanks for the detailed response. Helpful, makes me think what am I?
    Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik



    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.

     

    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.
     
    thank you!

    I missed that bit of idiocy (no disrespect) from Art

    do the Palestinians have to prove their 'intellectual superiority' before the world (and Christians) grant them the status as human, and therefor a God given right to a land of their own?!

    or is that not even good enough?

    WTF does it take to qualify as being worthy of having a right to live unmolested in your own lands?!

    Personally I think half of Australia ought to be set aside for the Aborigines. Not because they're necessarily intellectually superior, but because ALL people should be entitled to their own lands. (and also so the greedy white people don't pave over every inch of Australia's outback for tourism and mineral mining).

    What for me seems self-evident, is for so many people (especially Christians) a complete mystery. ~ That we humans are tribal (and spiritual) animals with corporal, (perhaps created by God or Gods) earthy bodies, and we need territory. DUH!

    When one tribe competes for the territory of another, then you have strife and war. DUH!!

    Are Christians too stupid to comprehend that simple and obvious truth? It's only been glaringly obvious ever since humans have been on planet earth.

    has something happened to their brains where its all dogma all day long, and they can no longer see the obvious in front of their faces?

    let me explains something very simple, OK?

    just because some people who happen to be white, don't want to be replaced with others,

    DOES NOT MEAN THEY WANT TO KILL AND ENSLAVE AND GENOCIDE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET, OK?!

    yes, I'm shouting. Sorry for that. But I'm trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states - 'when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn't want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders - then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of 'white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.

    there is this damnable idiocy that just wont die.

    yes, I’m shouting. Sorry for that. But I’m trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states – ‘when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn’t want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders – then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of ‘white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.

    Hey, Rurik. You took the words right out of Ingrid Carlqvist’s, a Swedish journalist, mouth:

    If we say that “I’m Sweden, I’m proud to be a Swede, I love my country, Sweden is the country of the Swedes, and I want us to take our country back.” Then I will always hear, “Oh, so you want another holocaust? Is that what you want? You are a nazi. Everyone who is a patriot, a nationalist, is a nazi. And that leads to one thing: to gas the Jews.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Sweden is the country of the Swedes
     
    if you type in 'Germany for Germans' into the search engine Bing, this is the first response I got

    https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Germany.htm

    the article begins "Hooded neo-Nazis give the Hitler salute ..."

    Now, who funds HRW?

    if we look here, according to this article

    Human Rights Watch is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department.

    http://www.antiwar.com/rep/treanor1.html

    that took me about three minutes to discover that this person

    http://incogman.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/BARBARA-SPECTRE.jpg

    was likely correct when she said Jews would have the leading role in transforming Europe into a 'multicultural' shit hole.

    Quote: "Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."

    "Europe will not survive"

    perhaps the most spine numbingly Orwellian words ever spoken

    what she really means by Europe surviving:

    http://www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/who_was_ellen_krantz.html

    granted, not all Swedish women and girls have been brutalized and bashed on rocks yet

    but Geo, if you ask me, sincerely, as I sit here typing on this keyboard..

    'Rurik, do you believe in your heart of hearts... that if Barbara Spectre (and George Soros, et al) had their druthers, that virtually every last Swedish girl in Sweden would be treated to the exact same horrific brutality and death by a Jewish provided orc?'

    I'd have to say 'yes, Geo, I believe there are people who're literally that consumed with tribal hatred, that they'd like to see virtually every last boy and girl in Sweden, not just butchered on some rocks, but brutally raped first.

    And it is this terrible pathology, that motivates the Barbara Spectre-type proponents of mass-immigration into the West. They hate like you nor I could hate in a thousand centuries. We're simply not equipped to hate like that. It is utterly beyond us. But unless we come to terms with the depth and depravity of their hatred, this world is going to descend into one big, bloody hell on earth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Anatoly Karlin
    Alt Right = Richard Spencer/AltRight.com, Greg Johnson, Kevin McDonald, The Right Stuff, some Southern nationalists like Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin/Daily Stormer (intersectional with Neo-Nazis)

    Neo-Nazis (old school) = Stormfront, David Duke, Vanguard, probably Heimbach/Traditionalist Workers Party

    Civic Nationalists/Dissident Right = Steve Sailer, Derbyshire, approximately a third to half of the HBDsphere

    Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite = Breitbart/Bannon, Milo, Gamergate, Loomer, Baked Alaska, etc, etc. Vox Day is here.

    NRx = Moldbug, Foseti, Social Matter, etc

    Vox Day is “Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite”? Vox Day is in the same category as Bannon and Milo? LOL.

    Vox Day is Alt-Right. He is far more right-wing than Spencer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    anyone who thinks a particular economic system is more important than physical survival isn't alt-right imo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @notanon
    the current cultural Marxist hegemony is built on the "blank slate" premise and mainstream "conservatives" have to publicly accept this premise or be destroyed by the media.

    the problem with this is the "blank slate" is a lie invented by cultural Marxists in the 1920s to change US immigration policy and it being a lie is why no cultural Marxist solution to problems ever works and will never work until genetics is taken into account.

    the "alt" part of alt-right more or less boils down to denying the cultural aids of the blank slate and replacing it with biological reality including "race is real and it matters" (where race = clusters of particular gene frequencies and matters = these genes effect critical aspects of society and not just surface differences e.g. IQ, behavior etc).

    this foundational premise, basing policy on genetics and biology, creates a very broad umbrella under which multiple factions co-exist.

    #

    Voxday's definition includes his phobias: socialists, libertarians etc can all fit under the alt-right umbrella as long as their ideology is adjusted to take into account biological reality. This is because the alt-right is only right wing because the Left is currently cultural Marxist.

    If/when biological reality is accepted as foundational there will be left, liberal, conservative, libertarian etc variants on how to proceed.

    #

    there's also the alt-lite who accept the structure of the premise (race is real and it matters) but replace race with culture either to stay just within the range of respectable or cos their real focus is Israel/Islam.

    No, socialists are by definition not Rightwing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    poz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Art
    I am 100% pro Euro Christian culture – but NOT alt-right.

    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually. Both the Chinese and Indians have great intellectual prowess. It is the culture that drives success – not the skin. Although it has not been fully implemented, Western culture is a triumph of mind over biology.

    Whites do have two traits that are beneficial to them – they are both naturally aggressive and intellectually cooperative.

    Christianity, as a thoughtful practical philosophical mindset, channels the first into thinking about truth and the second into human teamwork.

    Tribal identity is a powerful biological driving force – clearly Christianity has not overcome this biological imperative – but its philosophy has the potential to balance human aggression with reason.

    Think Peace --- Art

    I am 100% pro Euro Christian culture – but NOT alt-right.

    Exactly. The Alt-Right isn’t merely concerned with preserving a particular culture and religion.

    We are concerned with conserving the people. It’s good to be white.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. jtgw says:
    @Art
    A quick fix is a 32 hour work week – where the current unemployed fill in the lost productivity.

    Ain’t no such thing as a free lunch – or a quick fix.

    There is unemployment because the government in various ways makes human labor artificially expensive. For example, minimum wage laws mean that workers whose marginal productivity is less than the legal minimum wage can’t get jobs, or at least can’t get jobs outside the black market. So the first step is to recognize what actually caused unemployment.

    Whether the wages that would prevail on the market are “living wages” (whatever that means) or whether they provide a certain standard of living is a separate issue. The point is that unemployment qua unemployment is entirely the creation of the government. Without government intervention, labors costs would be bid down until full employment is reached or at least approximated far more closely than it is now.

    If a business could be more productive by employing more people at fewer hours, it would do so. This means any attempt to limit the working week further will simply drive down overall productivity. This will make foreign competitors that much more productive and profitable by comparison, exacerbating the trade imbalance even further. I assume that is not what you want.

    And in case you think you can quickly fix that problem by slapping more tariffs on imports, you will need to keep raising tariffs to match the rising costs of domestic goods that follow from the decreased productivity. What do rising costs mean? Even lower living standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    There is unemployment because the government in various ways makes human labor artificially expensive.
     
    There is unemployment because the government created an over supply of labor: Dems for the votes, GOPe for the cheaper labor.

    It's amazing to me how pro-capitalists ignore supply and demand when it suits them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Art says:
    @Rurik

    Hmm — what comes first – aggression and greed for what others have – or rightfully keeping ones property? Doesn’t tribal offence come first?
     
    no

    The Aborigines came first. Then the white man came with aggression and greed for what they had.

    Today the Aborigines languish, and should be given territory of their own, and the white people should also be given territory of their own. If the two nations (a fact on the ground today) want to intermingle, let them. But it should all be voluntary.

    Maybe the tribal offence of an elite is the problem. Maybe, greed for power and wealth by kings and oligarchs is the founding starting problem.
     
    yes, but does that mean there is no other way?

    English common law settles property disputes between local folks. Now we need something that honors regional sovereignty and regional ownership.
     
    I agree!

    Clearly elitist government tribalism is the primary problem facing humanity.
     
    that, and human over-population

    We can have peace – but only if we demand it. Making excuses for the current sad situation is not going to fix the problem. There are too many nukes – we must get serious about peace.
     
    that sounds a little platitudinous Art.

    you want to know the path to peace, I just said it to Talha on another thread.

    The long term solution to these intractable problems are separation and a respect of each people’s self-determination in their own lands.

    Think Peace

    The long term solution to these intractable problems are separation and a respect of each people’s self-determination in their own lands.

    Rurik,

    Agreed!

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. notanon says:
    @DissidentRight
    No, socialists are by definition not Rightwing.

    poz

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. notanon says:
    @DissidentRight
    Vox Day is "Tea Party Plus/Alt Lite"? Vox Day is in the same category as Bannon and Milo? LOL.

    Vox Day is Alt-Right. He is far more right-wing than Spencer.

    anyone who thinks a particular economic system is more important than physical survival isn’t alt-right imo

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. notanon says:
    @jtgw
    Ain't no such thing as a free lunch - or a quick fix.

    There is unemployment because the government in various ways makes human labor artificially expensive. For example, minimum wage laws mean that workers whose marginal productivity is less than the legal minimum wage can't get jobs, or at least can't get jobs outside the black market. So the first step is to recognize what actually caused unemployment.

    Whether the wages that would prevail on the market are "living wages" (whatever that means) or whether they provide a certain standard of living is a separate issue. The point is that unemployment qua unemployment is entirely the creation of the government. Without government intervention, labors costs would be bid down until full employment is reached or at least approximated far more closely than it is now.

    If a business could be more productive by employing more people at fewer hours, it would do so. This means any attempt to limit the working week further will simply drive down overall productivity. This will make foreign competitors that much more productive and profitable by comparison, exacerbating the trade imbalance even further. I assume that is not what you want.

    And in case you think you can quickly fix that problem by slapping more tariffs on imports, you will need to keep raising tariffs to match the rising costs of domestic goods that follow from the decreased productivity. What do rising costs mean? Even lower living standards.

    There is unemployment because the government in various ways makes human labor artificially expensive.

    There is unemployment because the government created an over supply of labor: Dems for the votes, GOPe for the cheaper labor.

    It’s amazing to me how pro-capitalists ignore supply and demand when it suits them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Increasing the labor supply can lead to lower wages (that is, if everything else stays the same); it does not lead to unemployment. Take those unskilled jobs that non-English speaking immigrants often do. Assuming they are competing on a level playing field, who would American employers rather hire at a given wage? The ones who speak English or the ones who don't? Obviously they want the English-speaking ones; only those are very expensive because they have to work at no lower than a minimum wage, while the illegal immigrants can bid as low as they like.

    So I'm not saying immigration is without problems; I'm just saying it's not responsible for unemployment per se.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Free trade and migration? Two causal pathways – one – trade from rich to poor destroys certain unlucky industries / farming in poor countries causing movement of peoples from poor to rich – case in point NAFTA, Mexico and US corn exports. Two – more trade means more specialization which means more demand for specialist labor which means transnational recruitment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  189. jtgw says:
    @notanon

    There is unemployment because the government in various ways makes human labor artificially expensive.
     
    There is unemployment because the government created an over supply of labor: Dems for the votes, GOPe for the cheaper labor.

    It's amazing to me how pro-capitalists ignore supply and demand when it suits them.

    Increasing the labor supply can lead to lower wages (that is, if everything else stays the same); it does not lead to unemployment. Take those unskilled jobs that non-English speaking immigrants often do. Assuming they are competing on a level playing field, who would American employers rather hire at a given wage? The ones who speak English or the ones who don’t? Obviously they want the English-speaking ones; only those are very expensive because they have to work at no lower than a minimum wage, while the illegal immigrants can bid as low as they like.

    So I’m not saying immigration is without problems; I’m just saying it’s not responsible for unemployment per se.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Increasing the labor supply can lead to lower wages (that is, if everything else stays the same); it does not lead to unemployment.
     
    You're right that in the absence of a welfare system, using mass immigration to create an over supply of labor to drive down wages might lead to mass poverty, revolution or starvation before mass long term unemployment

    (although in reality it doesn't as families act as welfare systems so some of the family can be working at any one time and supporting others who are unemployed)

    however we do have both a familial and state welfare system so...

    one of the big changes caused by mass immigration over the last 20-30 years is full time jobs being turned into multiple part-time jobs so instead of
    - 1 million people working 40 hours each
    you get
    - 2 million people working 20 hours each
    and unemployed the rest of the time with a "living wage" made up by the welfare system (family or state).

    #

    By using mass immigration to lower wages below (what is currently considered to be) the "living wage" and letting the welfare system* make up the shortfall, employers effectively transfer wage costs from themselves onto welfare i.e. it's an example of privatize the profits, socialize the costs.

    (*the welfare system includes bankrupting the country by borrowing money to pay for an ever increasing number of govt. jobs needed to keep the economy afloat once the blue collar part of the population no longer have any disposable income)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    yes, I’m shouting. Sorry for that. But I’m trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states – ‘when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn’t want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders – then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of ‘white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.
     
    Hey, Rurik. You took the words right out of Ingrid Carlqvist's, a Swedish journalist, mouth:

    If we say that “I’m Sweden, I’m proud to be a Swede, I love my country, Sweden is the country of the Swedes, and I want us to take our country back.” Then I will always hear, “Oh, so you want another holocaust? Is that what you want? You are a nazi. Everyone who is a patriot, a nationalist, is a nazi. And that leads to one thing: to gas the Jews.”
     

    Sweden is the country of the Swedes

    if you type in ‘Germany for Germans’ into the search engine Bing, this is the first response I got

    https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Germany.htm

    the article begins “Hooded neo-Nazis give the Hitler salute …”

    Now, who funds HRW?

    if we look here, according to this article

    Human Rights Watch is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department.

    http://www.antiwar.com/rep/treanor1.html

    that took me about three minutes to discover that this person

    was likely correct when she said Jews would have the leading role in transforming Europe into a ‘multicultural’ shit hole.

    Quote: “Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

    “Europe will not survive”

    perhaps the most spine numbingly Orwellian words ever spoken

    what she really means by Europe surviving:

    http://www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/who_was_ellen_krantz.html

    granted, not all Swedish women and girls have been brutalized and bashed on rocks yet

    but Geo, if you ask me, sincerely, as I sit here typing on this keyboard..

    ‘Rurik, do you believe in your heart of hearts… that if Barbara Spectre (and George Soros, et al) had their druthers, that virtually every last Swedish girl in Sweden would be treated to the exact same horrific brutality and death by a Jewish provided orc?’

    I’d have to say ‘yes, Geo, I believe there are people who’re literally that consumed with tribal hatred, that they’d like to see virtually every last boy and girl in Sweden, not just butchered on some rocks, but brutally raped first.

    And it is this terrible pathology, that motivates the Barbara Spectre-type proponents of mass-immigration into the West. They hate like you nor I could hate in a thousand centuries. We’re simply not equipped to hate like that. It is utterly beyond us. But unless we come to terms with the depth and depravity of their hatred, this world is going to descend into one big, bloody hell on earth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. notanon says:
    @jtgw
    Increasing the labor supply can lead to lower wages (that is, if everything else stays the same); it does not lead to unemployment. Take those unskilled jobs that non-English speaking immigrants often do. Assuming they are competing on a level playing field, who would American employers rather hire at a given wage? The ones who speak English or the ones who don't? Obviously they want the English-speaking ones; only those are very expensive because they have to work at no lower than a minimum wage, while the illegal immigrants can bid as low as they like.

    So I'm not saying immigration is without problems; I'm just saying it's not responsible for unemployment per se.

    Increasing the labor supply can lead to lower wages (that is, if everything else stays the same); it does not lead to unemployment.

    You’re right that in the absence of a welfare system, using mass immigration to create an over supply of labor to drive down wages might lead to mass poverty, revolution or starvation before mass long term unemployment

    (although in reality it doesn’t as families act as welfare systems so some of the family can be working at any one time and supporting others who are unemployed)

    however we do have both a familial and state welfare system so…

    one of the big changes caused by mass immigration over the last 20-30 years is full time jobs being turned into multiple part-time jobs so instead of
    - 1 million people working 40 hours each
    you get
    - 2 million people working 20 hours each
    and unemployed the rest of the time with a “living wage” made up by the welfare system (family or state).

    #

    By using mass immigration to lower wages below (what is currently considered to be) the “living wage” and letting the welfare system* make up the shortfall, employers effectively transfer wage costs from themselves onto welfare i.e. it’s an example of privatize the profits, socialize the costs.

    (*the welfare system includes bankrupting the country by borrowing money to pay for an ever increasing number of govt. jobs needed to keep the economy afloat once the blue collar part of the population no longer have any disposable income)

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Right I agree with most of that. The interesting question is what the economic consequences of limiting immigration would be, holding all else equal. I think on the one hand there would be less public expenditure, but also to some degree less public revenue, though I'm prepared to accept that the current low-skilled mass of immigrants, especially illegal ones, cost the state more than they contribute to it.

    Then there's the question of the effect on the market. Limiting labor supply will remove a downward pressure on wages; however, it will also lead to higher costs of goods. How will that end up affecting the average person's living standards? I'm not sure about that part, but I think I agree with Hans Hoppe that limiting immigration as a way of dampening the growth of the welfare state (both fiscally and politically in the form of swelling Democrat votes) is enough reason on its own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. jtgw says:
    @notanon

    Increasing the labor supply can lead to lower wages (that is, if everything else stays the same); it does not lead to unemployment.
     
    You're right that in the absence of a welfare system, using mass immigration to create an over supply of labor to drive down wages might lead to mass poverty, revolution or starvation before mass long term unemployment

    (although in reality it doesn't as families act as welfare systems so some of the family can be working at any one time and supporting others who are unemployed)

    however we do have both a familial and state welfare system so...

    one of the big changes caused by mass immigration over the last 20-30 years is full time jobs being turned into multiple part-time jobs so instead of
    - 1 million people working 40 hours each
    you get
    - 2 million people working 20 hours each
    and unemployed the rest of the time with a "living wage" made up by the welfare system (family or state).

    #

    By using mass immigration to lower wages below (what is currently considered to be) the "living wage" and letting the welfare system* make up the shortfall, employers effectively transfer wage costs from themselves onto welfare i.e. it's an example of privatize the profits, socialize the costs.

    (*the welfare system includes bankrupting the country by borrowing money to pay for an ever increasing number of govt. jobs needed to keep the economy afloat once the blue collar part of the population no longer have any disposable income)

    Right I agree with most of that. The interesting question is what the economic consequences of limiting immigration would be, holding all else equal. I think on the one hand there would be less public expenditure, but also to some degree less public revenue, though I’m prepared to accept that the current low-skilled mass of immigrants, especially illegal ones, cost the state more than they contribute to it.

    Then there’s the question of the effect on the market. Limiting labor supply will remove a downward pressure on wages; however, it will also lead to higher costs of goods. How will that end up affecting the average person’s living standards? I’m not sure about that part, but I think I agree with Hans Hoppe that limiting immigration as a way of dampening the growth of the welfare state (both fiscally and politically in the form of swelling Democrat votes) is enough reason on its own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    The interesting question is what the economic consequences of limiting immigration would be, holding all else equal.
     
    yes - i think you have to navigate between two reefs: over supply of labor on one side and a wage-price spiral on the other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. notanon says:
    @jtgw
    Right I agree with most of that. The interesting question is what the economic consequences of limiting immigration would be, holding all else equal. I think on the one hand there would be less public expenditure, but also to some degree less public revenue, though I'm prepared to accept that the current low-skilled mass of immigrants, especially illegal ones, cost the state more than they contribute to it.

    Then there's the question of the effect on the market. Limiting labor supply will remove a downward pressure on wages; however, it will also lead to higher costs of goods. How will that end up affecting the average person's living standards? I'm not sure about that part, but I think I agree with Hans Hoppe that limiting immigration as a way of dampening the growth of the welfare state (both fiscally and politically in the form of swelling Democrat votes) is enough reason on its own.

    The interesting question is what the economic consequences of limiting immigration would be, holding all else equal.

    yes – i think you have to navigate between two reefs: over supply of labor on one side and a wage-price spiral on the other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik



    At its heart, the alt-right movement is about tribal whiteness. This is wrong.

    Whites are not superior intellectually.

     

    Tribalism isn’t about superiority. It is about keeping others from taking that which belongs to you.
     
    thank you!

    I missed that bit of idiocy (no disrespect) from Art

    do the Palestinians have to prove their 'intellectual superiority' before the world (and Christians) grant them the status as human, and therefor a God given right to a land of their own?!

    or is that not even good enough?

    WTF does it take to qualify as being worthy of having a right to live unmolested in your own lands?!

    Personally I think half of Australia ought to be set aside for the Aborigines. Not because they're necessarily intellectually superior, but because ALL people should be entitled to their own lands. (and also so the greedy white people don't pave over every inch of Australia's outback for tourism and mineral mining).

    What for me seems self-evident, is for so many people (especially Christians) a complete mystery. ~ That we humans are tribal (and spiritual) animals with corporal, (perhaps created by God or Gods) earthy bodies, and we need territory. DUH!

    When one tribe competes for the territory of another, then you have strife and war. DUH!!

    Are Christians too stupid to comprehend that simple and obvious truth? It's only been glaringly obvious ever since humans have been on planet earth.

    has something happened to their brains where its all dogma all day long, and they can no longer see the obvious in front of their faces?

    let me explains something very simple, OK?

    just because some people who happen to be white, don't want to be replaced with others,

    DOES NOT MEAN THEY WANT TO KILL AND ENSLAVE AND GENOCIDE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET, OK?!

    yes, I'm shouting. Sorry for that. But I'm trying to bash into a thousand shards of idiocy the Pavlovian programming of a lifetime that states - 'when ever a white person (and ONLY a white person) says he doesn't want to give his country (or community or neighborhood or street) over to non-white invaders - then it must necessarily, absolutely mean that he or she is some kind of 'white supremacist type of crazed Nazi and wants to kill all non-white people and gas the Jews and enslave the blacks.

    there is this damnable idiocy that just wont die.

    Contrary to stereotype, most Aboriginals don’t live out in rural areas but in or near the large cities. i.e. around white people. This won’t change if you give them their own national territory, unless you’re willing to force them to go live there, which no Australian government ever will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Chris Mallory
    I am really surprised Day's cult followers haven't made it over yet. Theodore has been doing his superiority dance all morning.

    Oh, I was here, just tryin’ to put some information, before VD chimed in.

    Now that there’s been ample time for reflection does anyone want to compare and contrast “axiom” and “hypothesis” in the context of the scientific method? It’s a chance to display your mastery of epistemology, after all.

    Extra points for compare and contrast inductive with deductive epistemology. You can stop short of Goedel’s theorem. I’m pretty sure that would make your heads hurt.

    Then again, you could fling poo. That’s my hypothesis; this is my experiment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. iffen says:
    @Randal
    A good discussion, although my own default position is basically that "there is no there, there" as far as trying to define "the Alt Right" is concerned. The Alt Right is not a party, nor any kind of organisation, nor does it have any philosophy as such. It's surely best just defined as anyone who is on the right (and thereby hangs another long and complicated tale of definition) but not of the mainstream or establishment right, imo. That said, many desperately want to define it further, from Vox Day's valiant effort here described to Richard Spencer and his enemies.

    A couple of my own quibbles with Derbyshire's comments:

    I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.
     
    I think it's vitally important to maintain a recognition of the basic foreignness of judaism in Christian countries, especially now that there is an explicitly jewish state, which creates around them the kind of problem Catholics constituted for England in the C16th-C19th. I don't think of myself as meaningfully anti-Semitic, since I don't hate jews, but as a result of putting that opinion forward I was accused of having perpetrated one of the worst antisemitic statements he'd ever seen, by a jewish identity lobbyist with whom the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for policing hate speech nationally apparently agreed about my general heinousness in this regard. The jewish lobbies' attempts to promote the enforcement of this kind of speechcrime law is of course another strong reason to keep their basic foreignness in mind.

    That’s a kind of fielder’s-choice point, though.
     
    This appears to be a rather obscure reference to something derived from the American version of rounders.

    meaningfully anti-Semitic, since I don’t hate jews

    Anti-Semitism is not restricted to just “hating” Jews.

    Do you hate all the individuals in any group?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering