The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Conservatism and the Illusion of Exclusion
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In 1950, while being driven from contested Korean territory by the overwhelming force of the invading Chinese, the U.S. Army’s Major General Oliver Prince Smith Jr. told a journalist from Time magazine “We are not retreating. We are advancing in a different direction.” Depending on your perspective, the quote, which has since become almost universally attributed to Smith’s superior, General Douglas MacArthur, is either a masterpiece of positive thinking or a piss-poor method of deception or burying one’s head in the sand. I’ve always viewed it in the latter sense, and it’s a useful shorthand for the unending stream of failures by the mainstream Right. From immigration to gay marriage and the “war on Woke,” the conservative bloc has an innate talent not only for giving ground in its various culture wars, but for somehow reinterpreting or dissembling concession as an advance in a different direction. At the heart of “the conservative problem” is the issue of inclusion versus exclusion, and the fact the conservative bloc, wherever in the West it is found, leads its voter base on the same merry dance to defeat by endlessly hinting at the promise of exclusionary politics while bringing only an expansion to the “inclusive” state. This overwhelmingly takes the form of attracting votes by promising exclusionary action on immigration; retreating from this promise; then playing sleight of hand by trumpeting an advance in the direction of an “inclusive” economy.

“Culture Wars”

Even a brief look at the cultural career of conservatism from around the 1960s reveals a kind of political Attention Deficit Disorder. I can’t think of any single cause, with the possible exceptions of gun control and abortion (in America alone), that has held the attention of the conservative movement enough for consistent opposition or action. Just look at the current fixation on “woke” language and cancel culture. Historian Stephen Prothero wrote back in 2016 that “conservatives almost always lose, because they lash themselves to lost causes.” Despite the ideological rectitude of opposing woke nonsense, it’s essentially true that the issue is already a lost cause. The appropriate time to suffocate the rise of wokeness was years ago, when it was still in its infancy as a niche of left-wing academic nomenclature. In the same way, prior to the advent of woke, when conservatives offered tepid opposition to the eruption of transsexualism into public life, especially in the ridiculous use of pronouns and the question of restrooms and so on, they were at a loss to offer a meaningful challenge because of concessions already made on homosexuals years earlier. And on the homosexuals, conservatives were incapable of serious opposition because of concessions they’d already made around abortion, marriage, and the family, which had in turn created a childless, promiscuous sexual culture more tolerant of the sexually deviant. The conservative is someone who tries to prop up a domino that has many thousands of toppled ones behind it.

Endlessly distracted by new salvoes from the Left, conservatives always arrive too late to the fight, and they combine this with a particularly perverse kind of amnesia on prior defeats. The fundamental strategic difference between Left and Right is that the Left is aware that it is weaving a cultural tapestry, linking one threadlike advance to the next in an endless but coherent chain of social change, while the Right is engaged in political whack-a-mole, seeing everything it disagrees with as an isolated trend or event that can be defeated on its own terms or least milked for votes in the promise of such. The Right sees a series of independent “culture wars” when in fact, as the Left is aware, there is only one war for culture fought on numerous, related, and sequential battlefields. As Prothero points out, the results are conclusive: “In almost every arena where the contemporary culture wars have been fought, liberals now control the agenda.”

The link between gay marriage and the sudden rise of transsexualism to public prominence is an excellent example of the Right’s addiction to last-minute grandstanding on battles that have already been lost. It’s ironic, to say the least, that conservatives often appeal to the idea of a “slippery slope” when opposing a certain trend but are the first to forget they’re on a slope when it comes to the next challenge from the Left. When conservatives opposed gay marriage, part of their reasoning was that it was a slippery slope that would lead to further dilutions in identity, and that it would lead to a quest for “liberation” for the next putatively downtrodden sexual minority. They were right. Almost as soon as the “gay cakes” were finally baked and gay marriage was signed into law, trannies seemed to start walking into female restrooms around the country. And yet the slope was forgotten about as soon as gay marriage was written into law, and while a justified unease about transsexuals ensued there was no mention at all of how, in legislative or cultural terms, we’d arrived at that point. Quite the opposite in fact. Conservatives, consumed with political ADD, had no sooner given up on opposing gay marriage than they were literally championing Trump for advancing the ‘rights’ of homosexuals. Republicans hadn’t lost, they might say, but “advanced in
another direction.”

The Left often portrays the conservative Right as Draconian or heavily Christian on sexual aspects of the culture wars, but this is hardly accurate. In reality, the conservative Right is extremely erratic and divided on the sexual aspect of the culture wars because, with its commitment to visions of the primacy (and privacy) of the individual and the consumer rather that the folk or the nation, it has no solid ideological basis on which in could develop a robust, adaptive notion of the family. The difference is that the individual will always be boiled down to a mere atom of a global community while the family, with its additional obligations, responsibilities and immediate sense of heritage, is the basic unit of a nation. Although the Republican National Committee still technically calls for a ban on gay marriage and transsexuals in the military, this is mere lip service to the idea of sexual normality given the prominence of LGBT platitudes in the Republican top tier. There is currently no conservative political party anywhere in Western Europe, North America, or Australia that proposes the rolling back of protected status for sexual minorities, or even the tightening of laws around divorce and reduction in state provision of welfare that would curb the fracturing of families and rein in the culture of promiscuity and sterility. Without such measures, which conservatism is inherently incapable of introducing and imposing, endlessly debating these issues really is lashing oneself to a lost cause. David Brooks described Trump as “a culture-war president with almost no policy arm attached,” a description that is applicable to almost every conservative government.

Related to the ideological insistence on the individual is the conservative commitment to the fundamental principle of inclusion — a bias that taints all conservative political activity. In an interesting Newsweek piece titled “Why Conservatives Keep Losing the Culture Wars,” Marcus Johnson writes:

Winning the Civil War and World War II against deeply exclusionary societies created a cultural preference for inclusion in the U.S. This preference has become embedded in institutions and has become self perpetuating. It is this cultural preference for inclusion that prevents conservatives from winning the culture wars in this country. To win the culture wars, conservatives would have to fundamentally shift U.S. political culture away from inclusion toward exclusion. But this is extremely difficult to do in practice. It would require rejecting the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself about its past conflicts and reorienting how its political institutions work.

As stated above, conservatives are inherently incapable of doing the difficult but necessary work of introducing exclusionary policies, and their reluctance to even debate or discuss even the potential of such policies keeps the option of exclusion from the public eye; thus ensuring certain defeat in any culture war. It goes without saying that the inclusionary bias of conservatism isn’t entirely autochthonous, even if it is extremely popular in the conservative elite, but has been heavily cultivated both within conservatism and, much more significantly, in the culture as a whole, by hostile, often Jewish, intellectuals and their colleagues operating in society and politics. These aggressive actors have been shaping “ways of seeing” for decades, and “the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself,” referred to by Marcus Johnson, are linked more to pluralist and multicultural propaganda than to the events of history as they actually happened.

Despite the overwhelming tendency to inclusionary politics, even among conservatives, there is clearly an appetite for exclusionary laws among sections of the White population, even if this hasn’t been acted upon in recent decades by a compromised political establishment. Prior to World War II, most Western countries pursued exclusionary politics of some kind, from Britain’s Aliens Act (1905) which targeted Jews, through to the White Australia policy (1901̶–1949) and the Immigration Act of 1924. It’s interesting that two of the most popular and resonant proposals from Donald Trump’s original platform were essentially exclusionary, which is probably why they came to naught. The proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border to try to stop illegal immigration was supported by 86% of Republicans, while the attempt to stop immigration from Muslim countries, Executive Order 13769, was supported by the majority (55%) of the American population. Such statistics suggest that conservative avoidance of exclusionary policies is an elite-driven phenomenon not only strategically flawed, but which actually runs counter to the intuitions of their natural voting base — White America.

“Everyone I don’t like is Hitler”

Conservatism has drunk as heavily from the well of hostile “inclusive” propaganda as any other entity within contemporary politics, with the result that it can’t comprehend the existence of any enemy that is not in some way “Nazi” or “fascist.” Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative. Their disavowals, coupled with rampant accusations from the Left, create a rhetorical-ideological maze. A staid and tired conservative bloc fights the Left’s almost recreational allegations of Fascism by asserting that it opposes the “real Fascists”—cancel culture types, ‘woke’ protestors, the Democrats, Antifa, pronoun enforcers etc.

The various enemies of majoritarian culture can’t be viewed as opponents on their own terms (neo-Marxist, postmodernist, ethnically alien, Foucaultian, deconstructionist, etc.), which would require developing a full understanding of their myriad and complex behaviors and ideologies, but must be refracted through a single facile lens — that of World War II. Only then, with laughable visions of a latter-day D-Day landing against simplified purple-haired Hitlers, can conservatism conjure enough moral strength to wage a pathetic and doomed war against shadowy left-wing “fascisms” on cultural and legislative battlegrounds long since ceded to the enemy. Meanwhile, at the first accusation of racism, “nationalist” conservatives frantically defend and enunciate their doctrine as meaning there is nothing special about their nation beyond a set of abstract values rooted in individualism — values that are, in Steve King’s words, “attainable by everyone … people of all races, religions, and creeds.” Our contemporary political context is thus one in which the real Fascists are anti-Fascists who call the real anti-Fascists Fascists. The only thing we can sure about these days, it seems, is that everyone is a Nazi.

A fascinating example of this process in action is Brian Reynolds Myers’s 2010 The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters. I bought the book some months ago because I was led to believe it was a sober exploration of morality-based racial ethnocentrism and, in the context of Kevin MacDonald’s work on the formation of moral in-groups among Whites, I was keen to compare and contrast his findings with another ethnic group. Myers’s thesis is that, rather than being the last bastion of Stalinism, North Korea is in fact home to a race-based nationalism and far-right politics derived from Japanese fascism. Myers argues that North Koreans believe that they constitute a childlike innocent race and, being innocent and pure, the Korean race is morally superior to everyone else. Supporting his thesis he offers some statistics on Korean aversion to intermarriage, and a wealth of propaganda from North Korea that seems to be race-specific and ethnocentric. The book was lavishly praised by the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment (Christopher Hitchens embraced it as “electrifying”), which found it much easier to mobilize against a modern Hitler than a modern Stalin, as well as finding a warm welcome with the Obama administration. Myers’s text was even naively welcomed by some on the Dissident Right who saw the book as a kind of blueprint for an ethnostate. The problem, as I learned from both the text itself and criticism I subsequently consulted, was that the book featured a laundry list of exaggeration, omission, psychoanalysis, and ignorance of Korean culture, history, and politics, all of which combined to suppress the Communist footprint everywhere in North Korean politics in order to present the strange little nation of Kim Jong-un as an Oriental Nazi Germany. The book is a caricature.

A bigger concern for me than the bogus nature of much of The Cleanest Race was its lavish welcome. It should be considered an axiom that any thesis that enables the “Nazification” of an opposing movement, ideology, or nation will be warmly embraced by the conservative establishment. One of the recent trends on conservative Twitter is the hashtag #nuremberg2, which called for pro-vaccine politicians and medical officials to be put on trial and, presumably, executed. Regardless of one’s position on the vaccine question, the Nuremberg framing is symptomatic of a psychological fixation. Conservatives will never win if they believe their only true enemies are “Nazis.” Whether it’s the fear of antisemitic “Islamofascism,” North Korean “Nazism,” purple-haired “woke Hitlers,” or vaccine-toting Görings, it’s clear that conservatism is psychologically stuck on the beaches of Normandy while the country passes without struggle into the hands of enemies conservatives are totally incapable of understanding.

“Christ is King”

American conservatism’s commitment to a tactically disastrous emphasis on individualism is undoubtedly connected in some form to the peculiar trajectory and position of American Christianity, or rather, varieties of American Post-Protestantism. Demographically, conservatism remains overwhelmingly (85%) Christian. As scholars of religion have noted (e.g., Nathan Hatch’s 1989 The Democratization of American Christianity), American Christianity is significantly different from the classic European form, being much more democratic as well as essentially Gnostic and millenarian (these features are also extremely prominent in the indigenous sects of the United States: Mormonism, Christian Science, Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentecostalism, leading several academics to speak of an underlying ‘American religion’). American religion has long been preoccupied with the idea of a God who loves the individual, and the salvation of the American Christian, especially the Protestant, does not arrive communally via the congregation but via direct confrontation with a very personal Jesus.

A recent trend appearing on the t-shirts of young conservatives is the slogan “Christ is King.” The phrase is rapidly lapsing away from any hint of piety and into the role of a platitude, and carries with it a sense of escapism from disturbing political realities into comforting visions of higher but invisible authority. It also, however, recalls the more vulgar “Cash is King,” and both phrases meld into the pervasive and, in theological terms quite heretical, “Christian capitalism” that typifies the American conservative movement today. One of the more interesting texts published on this subject in recent years is Kevin Kruse’s 2015 One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The book explores the links between corporate executives, religious celebrities, and major politicians, all of whom, in contesting Roosevelt’s New Deal, were engaged in a range of organizations designed to spread a new gospel of inclusive prosperity and Christian capitalism. It was in the period 1930–1960 that “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States and printed on every dollar bill, and it was in the same period that “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. In the words of one reviewer of Kruse’s text, corporate America sought to

mobilize religious leaders and sentiments for a movement opposing New Deal labor rights, social policies, regulation, and tax laws. Second, they intended to restore the reputation of American business after the ravages of the Great Depression by combining the sanctification of American capitalism with a new gospel of prosperity. And third, they promoted “Christian libertarianism” as a political agenda to transcend denominational and theological divisions, thus paving the way for the Christian Right of the late 1970s.[1]Schäfer, A. R. (2018). Kevin M. Kruse. One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The American Historical Review, 123 (4), 1340–1341.

Contrary to much Left-wing bleating, Christian libertarianism, along with the gospel of prosperity, is not the strength but the weak bedrock of modern conservatism. Since the birth of the Christian libertarian Right, it can claim involvement in only one significant conservative legislative success, maintaining the basic right of Americans to own firearms (though this success is more attributable to significant lobbying and other cultural factors). On the Christian Right’s other major concern, abortion, success has been elusive, fleeting, or localized. Much of this ambiguity is probably due to the conservative Right’s habit of trying to meet the Left on its own terms — the question of ‘rights.’ The conservative Right, faced with the “right to privacy,” does not assert a vision of the destiny of a people, an elevated ideal of womanhood, or even a basic religious fanaticism, but offers instead the rejoinder of the “rights of the unborn” that the Leftist establishment is fully prepared to parry. As with gay marriage and the war on woke, I believe there is a moral and ideological rectitude in opposing abortion. I believe there are unfortunate circumstances when it can be a medical necessity, but I personally object to it as an automatic and universal “right” purely on matters of taste, decency, and demographics, since the universalizing of abortion contributes to a deadening atmosphere of cultural sterility and is, like widespread tolerance of sexual deviance, an apathetic and depressing hallmark of a society in steep decline. Such arguments, however, are entirely absent from the current “pro-Life” debate, which relies solely on the twin pillars of Jesus and Thomas Paine.

The clinging to rights-based “inclusive” argumentation is the reason why the Christian conservative Right has been utterly incapable of offering resistance to the advance of legislative special status for sexual minorities. By arguing on “rights,” Christian conservatives bake themselves into the GloboHomo cake. Just as Christians flee from being called anti-abortion into the more inclusive-sounding “Pro-Life,” so they flee from being anti-gay or anti-transsexual into faltering assertions that they are simply “pro” the sanctity of marriage. And yet without a broader and more honest exclusionary focus, in which they dispense entirely with the arguments that simultaneously acknowledge and strengthen their opponents, their legislative goals will always remain elusive.

“Cash is King”

Conservatism is, perhaps more than any other contemporary political ideology, wedded to a personal and national savior that absorbs constant, fervid, and attentive devotion. This savior isn’t Jesus Christ, but Gross Domestic Product, and it’s worshipped by conservatives everywhere. In Britain, news has emerged that Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party is about to celebrate Brexit, the most significant British conservative victory in decades, by signing a trade deal with India that will allow thousands of Indians to work and settle in the country. An unnamed “government figure” told India’s Economic Times “The tech and digital space in India is still hugely protectionist and if we could open up even a slither of access it would put us ahead of the game.” The last major survey of Conservative voters showed that “immigration is the most pressing concern,” with the economy in second place. We find ourselves, therefore, in a scenario in which a conservative establishment will again avoid the exclusionary imperative of its voting base and will instead present itself as not retreating (on immigration) because they are “advancing in another direction” (for the economy).

There is not, nor has there ever been, a debate or referendum on whether a given population is willing to purchase a higher GDP by turning several of its major towns or cities into outposts of Mumbai and Bangalore. No people has ever been asked if such a trade would really “put us ahead of the game.” The cheap labor of the Indian migrants certainly won’t put the native tech workers of England ahead of the game. Nor will it put those who will find themselves waiting even longer for public services ahead of the game. It will, of course, put a small elite of businessmen of multiple ethnic backgrounds ahead of the game, and this, presumably, is what matters most to Conservative Inc. wherever in the West it coheres politically. International finance, in its ceaseless search for cheaper labor and the transformation of peoples into mere markets, is inseparable from inclusive politics. Radical socialism insists that money can be the great equalizer. International finance capital makes the same argument, but from above rather than from below. When cash has rendered the peoples of the world into blank slate consumers, each with the same potential to buy, then we have truly become its subjects and it has truly become our king.

Conservatism thrives on offering the “illusion of exclusion” to its voter base while simultaneously doing nothing about immigration so that it can squat in power and suck profit from decay at home and international trade abroad. No-one has encapsulated this phenomenon more succinctly than Sir Oswald Mosley:

Every one of us in this hall was old enough to see before the war — every one of you know what happened — how the financial forces in the thirties went into these backward countries, into India within the Empire, into Hong Kong, into Japan, into China, and exploited these peoples, to produce cheap sweated goods which ruined the great industries of Britain and of Europe, which put Lancashire out of business in the cotton trade, Yorkshire out of business in the woollen trade, and these poor devils of coolies were exploited for a wage of a few shillings a week. For what purpose? To enable the City of London and Wall Street New York to make fatter profits! … Is that worthy of Britain? Is that to be the future of Europe? … It is childish nonsense to say that a British government rules Britain. It’s nothing to do with British government or the British people. The government of the world is the financial government; the power of money; and of money alone.

Concluding Remarks

Conservatism has a knack for superficially reinventing itself when it senses it’s getting perilously close to being found out. The litmus test for every astute observer should be an assessment of the extent and sincerity of the politics of exclusion espoused by any new manifestation of the conservative movement. I recently spent some time reading speeches from the 2021 “National Conservative” conference, which was organized by a couple of Zionists and is supposedly representative of a new departure in American conservatism and a new front in the culture wars. A single line from one of the speeches was enough for me to conclude my assessment: “We must strive to transcend racial particularism and stress universality and commonality as Americans.” National Conservatism is, in the final estimation, an inclusive doctrine. Anyone who supports it will find themselves both “in retreat” and advancing in a direction they never intended.

Genuine efforts to redress the deep problems of contemporary society will always be marked by their willingness to at least countenance the option of exclusion. This is one of the reasons for the intense backlash against the work of Kevin MacDonald, who, in the concluding chapter of Culture of Critique suggested (pp.308–9) that

Achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States.

This is an honest and necessary discussion of the potential of exclusionary politics, framed in the context of a persuasive argument that such measures might be required if an eventual overt ethnic conflict is to be avoided. Conservatism, inasmuch as it remains wedded to inclusive doctrines and unchecked individualism, is as much an arm of globalism as any segment of the Left it claims to do battle with. We should finish by returning to MacDonald:

The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. … The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.

Note

[1] Schäfer, A. R. (2018). Kevin M. Kruse. One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The American Historical Review, 123 (4), 1340–1341.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Didn’t mention this oft-forgotten crucial thing, the perhaps first vital ‘culture war’ that conservatives lost and ceded ground:
    Allowing women to VOTE.

    • Agree: RedpilledAF
    • Thanks: Sarah
  2. @Vergissmeinnicht

    The problem is even earlier than that–originally only property owners were allowed to vote.

    This made sense because they were the only ones with real “skin in the game”, something to lose if the politicians decided to get generous with other people’s money.

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy, HdC
    • Thanks: Sarah
    • Replies: @atp
    , @hoytmonger
    , @anonymous
  3. Will you be responding to the email I sent you on 8th January, Dr Joyce? The abrupt change in your personality continues to perplex me. It serves only to reinforce the divide between the autistic and the neurotypical brain.

  4. Conservatism is trash, indeed. Not to draw away from that, but the way the left creeps away from what its causes is about the same rate that the dumbass republicans cede ground to anything and anyone.

    I don’t know why metropolitan news stations even dare to interview the leftist stooges who own nichy small businesses in a gentrified part of town, but they do. Currently, the just allow them to their concern (they’re not allowed to oppose, just be concerned) with bum encampments and essentially no cops nearby. Things of that nature.

    I assume the neighborhood around their silly coffee shop is hosed when I see segments like that. But I can tell these people are slowly resenting the pound 0′ flesh they have to hand over to keep on whatever satanic metro they live in’s “good side”. These are the same people who willingly let their streets closed for some annual faggot march a decade ago and assumed they were on the up and up with the authorities. Now they have to pretend to celebrate heroin hovels across the street. I think they’ll manage a cheery smile and learn to embrace that too. They don’t have a choice.

    • Replies: @roberto1
  5. Right_On says:

    Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the “Nazi” pejorative.

    Conservatives used to call their enemies “Bolsheviks”, “Stalinists”, “Reds”, “Commies” and “Maoists”. Alas, it would sound comical to revive those slurs now; but we could treat labels like “Fascist” as equally risible.

  6. S says:

    Great post!

    Since the closely paralleling proto-Capitalist American (‘thesis’) and proto-Communist French (‘anti-thesis’) ‘progressive’ revolutions of 1776 and 1789, respectively, there has been a manufactured and broadly controlled (crimethink, I know) centuries old Hegelian Dialectic at play, a dialectic whose origins can be found in 18th century London.

    With the American Revolution, and it’s original nascent Capitalism, there has been an artifical hyper-individualism and ‘conservatism’ assigned. Similarly with the French Revolution, and it’s original nascent Communism, there has been an artificial hyper-collectivism and ‘liberalism’ assigned.

    The Revolutions of 1776 and 1789, each revolution being incomplete in and of themselves, are ultimately complimentary, the one to the other. In their historic dialectical struggles, ie the wars fought over Capitalism and Communism in Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, China, and the Cold War, etc, the American and French revolutions of 1776 and 1789 ultimately have worked towards forming a global Multi-Cultural ‘synthesis’.

    In theory, once the dialectical struggles are over and synthesis has occurred, an aracial New Multi-Cultural Man and Woman will have been born, each having radically new individual and collective traits to occupy a unified New Earth.

    Anyhow, neither Capitalism nor Communism, nor their derivatives of conservatism and liberalism, individualism or collectivism, etc, were ever intended, or, allowed, to ‘win’, in a global sense, but rather, were ever only allowed, and encouraged, to ‘converge’. Unique peoplehood, and, or, identity, has no place within this manufactured dialectic, and except here and there being momentarily cynically used, are generally ruthlessly suppressed.

    If you don’t care for this dialectic, and feel it is tainted in some way, don’t participate in it, but, rather expose and denounce it. Laugh at it’s promoters, and, don’t feed or add to the hatred this dialectic grows strong upon. Work towards imploding it, on your terms, while simultaneously offering something better, if at all possible, for the peoples of the world and for humanity as a whole.

    Bear I mind, at some point, as a final synthesis between Capitalism and Communism has been achieved, and this broadly controlled dialectic’s promoters feel their work is near completion, they themselves will implode it, ie the top down ‘Fall of Capitalism’ and the economic and political collapse of the United States and it’s Western bloc of nations, and allow you to think you were responsible, just as was done with the ‘Fall of Communism’, and the Soviet Union/Eastern bloc economic and political collapse thirty years ago.

    Projection being a real phenomena, it would make sense in this instance a Multi-cultural source, even a bit of an unexpected one,, would provide it. See the two links below for insight into certain dynamics of the Hegelian Dialectic which has been discussed here.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dove

    http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/66.htm

    • Replies: @apollonian
  7. Pheasant says:

    ‘In reality, the conservative Right is extremely erratic and divided on the sexual aspect of the culture wars because, with its commitment to visions of the primacy (and privacy) of the individual and the consumer rather that the folk or the nation, it has no solid ideological basis on which in could develop a robust, adaptive notion of the family. ‘

    Yes indeed but remember as late as the late 1980s this was not true. The rise of the neoconservatives using human rights to expand empire and the end of the cold war meant this too could be deconstructed.

  8. Pheasant says:

    ‘Since the birth of the Christian libertarian Right, it can claim involvement in only one significant conservative legislative success, maintaining the basic right of Americans to own firearms (though this success is more attributable to significant lobbying and other cultural factors).’

    Eh so far as it goes. Now the right to USE firearms in self defence in another matter….

    They have also failed to ensure ammunition supplies with the left using environmental laws to diminish the supply of ammunition and other special interest groups passing laws forbidding surplus ammo from Russia coming into the United States for example.

  9. Pheasant says:

    ‘Conservatism, inasmuch as it remains wedded to inclusive doctrines and unchecked individualism, is as much an arm of globalism as any segment of the Left it claims to do battle with. ‘

    Here here!

  10. The reason why conservatism loses is because churches are afraid they will lose their tax exempt status by getting involved with social politics.

    Let the IRS be damned, let the collection be damned and let the offended parishioners leave.

    I’d rather be the pastor of a rock in empty field than compromise to have a flock.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  11. apollonian says: • Website
    @S

    Right Process, Hegelian Dialectic, But Theses Could Be Adjusted

    I think u have the right process, Hegelian dialectic, but it’s ur theses which need adjusting, though they’re still pretty good on their own as u have them, not bad at all–but it would still just require a little more analysis.

    For the two proper theses which pre-dates urs, and should be interjected are the two fm New Test., that of Christian truth (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) vs. Judaic/satanic lies and lying (JOHN 8:44). For truth only exists in the OBJECTIVE (Aristotelian) reality, and the Jews want to impose their SUBJECTIVISM, understood as collective, held by all Jews collectively, directed by the rabbis. See Talmudical.blogspot.com, Come-and-hear.com, and TruthTellers.org for best Talmudic expo.

    So the communist naturally comes fm the Jews’ subjectivism/Satanism/Talmudism–following fm “midrash” (interpretation) method and “Oral Law Trad.” And the Christian individualism comes fm the objective/Aristotelian. So the opposed anti-theses could be either truth vs. lies, or objective vs. subjective, “Satanism” merely being extreme form of subjectivism, idea that consciousness/mentality creates reality, making the creator to be God-like, thus Satanism by definition.

    Top Jews know they’re Satanists, for example, pushing the present covid-hoax and poison clot-shots, but they rely upon the innate stupidity and hubris of so many corrupt and perverted, over-populated morons, especially among gentiles, even if not all the way Satanist, their hubris founded upon subjectivism, especially in form of non-existent “good-evil.”

  12. Dutch Boy says:

    A guest on Tucker Carlson had the perfect description of the Republican Party: the Placebo Party.

    • Replies: @nsa
  13. Thomasina says:

    I’ve been watching a few of the Timeline documentaries on Youtube with Tony Robinson, specifically the ones where he describes the various jobs the English peasants have held throughout different periods of history. A brutal rural existence. It was interesting to see how jobs changed as new innovations were discovered. People eventually left the countryside and flocked to the cities in search of work during the Industrial Revolution. They lived in filth and disease, whole families crowded into small dwellings. The elites didn’t care; they only cared that the engines kept running.

    One episode was on the Peasant Revolt of 1381. The poor peasants had just suffered through the Plague, which killed half of Europe, and now there was a shortage of workers. The elites knew the peasants would want to leave (because they now had power) in search of better work, so the elites passed laws prohibiting them from leaving the Manor (I believe) where they had been essentially slaves, and they also put a freeze on wages (to prevent the workers from benefiting from higher wages). They also levied a new Poll Tax on the people in order to pay for the never-ending war with France. This was too much for the peasants and they revolted, marched on London, with a few necessary beheadings along the way (tax collectors, lawyers, elites).

    The elites have learned over the centuries to never allow the people to get into a position of power. Patriotism or nationalism is a direct threat to the elites, especially when it’s not coming from them. It signifies solidarity, a kinship among the people. That’s why they’ve come down hard on the January 6th “insurrectionists”, keeping them in solitary confinement for over a year, and sending a message that this is what happens when you dare to question anything the elites do.

    In the past the elites were exclusionary because…well, there was always a fight going on between the British and the Spanish or the British and the French. They needed the people to have a strong sense of patriotism, of belonging, in order to get them to pay for and fight and die in their useless wars. The elites were NOT united; it was one country against another country.

    But today the elites of the world ARE united (most of them). If world leaders don’t play along, they will be sanctioned or assassinated (czars, kaisers). This Left/Right paradigm is nothing but a show. There is no difference between Liberals and Conservatives; they are on the same page – the elites against the people. If high amounts of immigration and inflation hold the people down, that’s what they’re going to do. It benefits them in a monetary sense (cheap labor) and a control sense (no nationalist sentiment can develop).

    “It is childish nonsense to say that a British government rules Britain. It’s nothing to do with British government or the British people. The government of the world is the financial government; the power of money; and of money alone.”

    Our elected leaders are not leaders at all; they are being directed by the financial governors who sit above them. I hope these traitorous leaders are being paid well. One thing is for sure: they don’t care about us. How many Conservative leaders are protesting the U.S./Mexico border invasion?

    These financial movers and shakers are leading us toward a one-world government where people will be consumers, and that’s all they’ll be. A product to be inventoried, complete with health passports, location trackers, surveillance and digital finance. Of course, we’ll be told that this is all for our own safety, our own good, just like we were told globalization would benefit us. All lies.

    The tide is coming in slowly, just so we don’t notice. We must find a way to combat this insanity. I did not bring children into the world for this.

    • Agree: animalogic, roberto1, HdC, Nancy
    • Replies: @Nancy
  14. “We must strive to transcend racial particularism and stress universality and commonality as Americans.” Sayeth the hyper-ethnocentric jew.

    The jews demand that whites stress universality, tolerance, inclusion….while their tribe observes old school particularism that borders on the satanic.

    It’s stunning that they can spout deceit and subversion in such a casual way without the slightest hesitation or pangs of guilt.

    https://archive.org/details/stefan-molyneux-jewish-hypocrisy-on-immigration

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @Nancy
  15. atp says:
    @Justvisiting

    Yep! Check out the book, “The Unknown Founding Father”, if you are not already familiar with 1787 Constitutional Convention delegate, George Mason! He forecast our day in September 1787 when he declined to sign the US Constitution as it stood! HIs reasons are available online in archives.gov.

    • Thanks: Sarah
  16. Wanna know why?

    Because conservatives don’t really care about all those issues. They’re just clubs to beat opponents over the head with during elections, if that.

    All conservatives care about is how they can pry more bribes out of the billionaires. That’s it. In a nutshell.

  17. @Robert Dolan

    Hazony’s national conservatism in Israel has zero problem completely excluding the Palestinians. If here were honest – hah – he would have to admit that western countries have their own “Palestinians.”

  18. Over the last eighty years fascism has been de-politicized and psychologized. Fascism has been made over into a personality disorder independent of historical circumstances or political content. Everyone agreed…Hitler was a “madman” – end of story.

    Fascism’s basic premises, that liberal democracy failed because it was corrupted by capitalism, and that the welfare of the nation takes precedent over the selfish whims of the individual, rarely figure in modern views of fascism. To the Left, fascism is pro-capitalist authoritarianism, and to the Right, it is communist tyranny in disguise. It is of course neither, but rather an astonishingly practical middle ground.

    There is nothing to suggest that capitalist rule is imminently challenged by a socialist insurgency today in the US as it was in Europe in the 1930s. In the last presidential election, the two parties of capital won about 95% of the vote. The owning class can be secure in knowing that one or the other of the parties of capital will always prevail in our pretend-democracy.

    Here’s a link to the full text of Richard Tedor’s study “Hitler’s Revolution,” the best one-volume account of what Germany’s National Socialism was actually about and what it accomplished: https://archive.org/details/HitlersRevolutionByRichardTedor_383 The print version is still currently available on Amazon

    We might consider Marx’s theory that in the modern world, nation-states function chiefly as agents of international capital. At the most fundamental level, Germany’s unforgivable sin was its refusal to become enmeshed in this web of global greed. Its independent success imperiled the survival of both capitalism and communism and explains why these mortal enemies made common cause of demonizing and annihilating this existential challenge. Today Germany’s unfortunate embrace of the American eugenics movement is all most people seem to know now about that most remarkable political and social revolution.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Thanks: Thomasina
  19. lavoisier says: • Website
    @BananaKilt

    Most pastors prefer to be well fed and affluent rather than virtuous.

    Have you taken a good look at Mr. John Hagee?

    In his case the spirit is not only unwilling, the flesh is very, very weak and flabby.

    Deluded fool or Jewish whore?

    Either way his parishioners should forsake his treachery.

  20. Rich says:

    There is a difference between a “conservative” and a “Republican”. The strawman Dr Joyce has decided to attack is a republican, not a conservative. 50% of repubs may indeed be “conservative”, but they don’t control the party and have to be smart enough to take what they can get when the dem party is attacking on every front. I’m not sure why attacking the largest bloc of right-wing, pro-White people in the country is good for the cause of securing a homeland for our people and a future for our children. Dividing Whites only makes our enemies stronger. Elect a majority repub congress, a repub president, and you won’t get everything you want as a conservative, but you’ll get a little more freedom, less forced integration, less regulation and a chance to raise your family in peace. Conservatives are at best 35% of the American public. That doesn’t set the agenda in a hostile country. Aligning with moderate-right repubs buys us enough space to prosper. On a level playing field, Whitey wins. We can still get the majorities we need calling for “race-blind” laws and regulations. We get that from the repubs, we get the opposite from the dems.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    , @HeebHunter
  21. saggy says: • Website

    ‘Conservatives’ like A. Joyce are a joke. What does Joyce have to say about the holohoax? As far as I can tell absolutely nothing. Ditto Kevin MacDonald, and as far as I know every prominent ‘conservative’. Prove me wrong.

    • Disagree: Robert Dolan, CelestiaQuesta
    • Troll: Nancy, HammerJack
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @Exile
  22. Just as American conservatives/republicans have largely accepted gays into their fold and now, apparently, even Trannies (e.g., Trump who wrapped himself in the LGBTQ flag, including the nonsense spewed by Charlie Kirk and the MAGA-Trannie), so they will also receive pedophiles into their fold. Pedophilia is fast becoming socially acceptable. Sure, it’s still occurring incrementally and not everyone is on board with it . . . . yet. But it’s going to be here sooner than most people expect.

    There are all sorts of educators, psychologists, social workers, social reformers, and influencers seeking to ‘make pedophilia great again.’ They have an array of sophisticated arguments which amount to nothing more than lies and word games, but there will be plenty of people, including ‘conservatives’ and republicans, who will claim to have ‘evolved’ on the question of pedophilia and welcome it with open arms.

    Never forget that conservatives have conserved nothing. Hell, they couldn’t even conserve the women’s bathroom!

    • Thanks: Sarah
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  23. Liberality is a blessing, both to the one who is blessed and the one who performs the blessing. On the other hand liberal-ism, like all isms and ologies of the political sort are social diseases. Meanwhile, those who call themselves conservatives are usually clueless of historical patterns and like the writer pointed out, are usually guilty of fighting yesterday’s war. The way the bank\$ters play them is as a mutual jag off chorus. Mama plays bass and papa plays fiddle. This Hegelian crock of crap is getting us precisely nowhere.

    Wanna get a little picture of the real resistance, check out the drive-in that thousands of Canadian truckers are assembling. Back in the day, country music stations were featuring “We gonna have us a convoy”. That’s exactly what’s happening. Beating the Senile One to the punch, Canuckistan’s boy dictator, Justin Trudeau, told his nation’s truckers that unless they took the jab, they could not do any more cross-border hauls back and forth to the U.\$. Get this: More than 70 THOUSAND truckloads filled with essential cargo cross that border every week. Notice the empty shelves in your favorite store or supermarket lately? Supply chain has developed a mess of missing links. Another 3 weeks of this and there may well be unprepared people on the verge of starvation.

    So what those brave men and women are doing is setting out on a massive convoy beginning on Vancouver Island, crossing over to the Mainland and then meeting detachments of truckers and their supporters all along the on and on forever TransCanada Highway clear on in to Ottawa. That’s the Canadian version of the Di\$trict of Corruption.

    Following the instructions of the ruling Bank\$ters, the little dictator, like all the rest of them right across the planet, has MANDATED the jab. Truckers too, he says. That bunch happens to be an independent lot, some of the last free-boosters out there. They drive tens of thousands of miles per year to keep that supply-chain hopping, right across North America.

    Do yourself a bit of a web-search, or if you wish you can just log-in to TGR intelligence.com and check out their video coverage directly from a trucker’s mouth—not from one of those lie-by-the-minute talking heads on Boobtoob Noose.

    It’s been my position for years that Truckers are the weak-link in the supply-chain. If they do a general strike by truckers here in the U.\$. as is now hitting the road in Canada, either they’ll get taken down or the regimes will collapse in on themselves. Those guys in the big rigs are not only going to their capital in Ottawa—their plan is to hold out until either the MANDATE is tossed out or the puppet regime collapses.

    Could be fun, but it might be a good idea to stock up on food when it’s still available. Those alleged “governments” will be under severe pressure by the NWO Globalist gangsters to crush the truckers. Politics as usual just does not work anymore. It’s time for mass peaceful resistance.

    Note: The link is “TGR intelligence.com”.

  24. nsa says:
    @Dutch Boy

    “……the placebo party……..”
    The Republicucks are more like the cringey Washington Generals……white, balding, can’t jump, can’t shoot, can’t dunk, enjoy being humiliated night after night by the esteeemed Harlem Globohomotrotters in fake contests with fake referees in front of a pie hole stuffing audience of white rubes with the proceeds pocketed by some yid impresario.

  25. Anon[205] • Disclaimer says:

    It will take a generation to bring back civilized values. All we can do is prepare the ground;

    1) homeschool your kids or grandkids
    2) be active in a church that fits your values
    3) starve the beast; do not consume any of their media, reduce your consumption to bare minimum to reduce your tax bite, etc.
    4) withhold your consent by refusing to vote
    5) convince all young people you know to never take gov‘t employment ( military, police, schoolteacher, etc)

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  26. Sarah says:

    As with gay marriage and the war on woke, I believe there is a moral and ideological rectitude in opposing abortion.
    I believe there are unfortunate circumstances when it can be a medical necessity, but I personally object to it as an automatic and universal “right” purely on matters of taste, decency, and demographics, since the universalizing of abortion contributes to a deadening atmosphere of cultural sterility and is, like widespread tolerance of sexual deviance, an apathetic and depressing hallmark of a society in steep decline.

    This paragraph is a strong and essential point.

  27. neutral says:

    If you take the most basic definition of a conservative, maintaining the status quo, then the conservatives in the USA are doing just that. A conservative in China is someone who wants less libertarian type capitalism and some kind of weird Mao nostalgia, in Iran it is someone who strictly adhere to Islam, in America it is to the US founding fathers. The problem is the US founding fathers wanted equality and individualism over blood and soil, everything that came after that is the natural result of that ideology, so US “conservatives” can never really complain about anything as long as they revere what was basically left wing radicals.

    • Replies: @imnobody00
  28. Jon Chance says: • Website

    Even Jews like Ron Unz who are apparently well-meaning will never be able to understand the core issues of history, politics and economics because as soon as they flee one ideological illusion (socialism or Judaism), they arrive inside another bubble (conservativism).

    If anyone wishes to understand the true intent of the American Revolution, toss “The Constitution” in the rubbish where it belongs.

    Examine the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) by George Mason, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and Article Eight of the First US Constitution (Articles of Confederation).

  29. roberto1 says:
    @Carthage Underground

    Do you live in Portland by any chance ?

  30. One of the tenets of troubleshooting is knowing how a machine operates when working properly.

    A properly operating gop offers brief, token resistance to radical shitlibs, then throws the fight. That’s their role as one-half of the uniparty.

    For the first two years of Trump’s presidency the gop could’ve passed anything they liked. We got no wall, no immigration reform, no crooked cankless investigation, no enhanced election security, just TAX CUTS as Whites devolve into scapegoated, second-class citizens.

    There are/were two times the gop fought/fights for real: destroying the Tea Party and shilling for, “our greatest ally” who provides no observable benefits to taxpayers but plenty of grief.

    The road we’re headed down ends in the dark dream of every evil degenerate: legalized pedophilia. (There is no peak clownworld, when it happens something yet worse will be waiting in the shadows.)

    WHEN it happens whatever sorry-asses repping the gop at that time will protest the new law as, “an affront to traditional gay polygamous unions,” then boldly declare they intend to form an investigative committee three months from now.

    A proper Secession would be from BOTH halves of the uniparty, but tyrants never step down willingly.

    There will be blood. There better be because the alternative is chaos and deviltry.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  31. HT says:

    Conservatives are fighting a war where they have no weapons and no idea who their real enemies are. The most powerful weapons of cultural Marxism are academia, Hollywood and the media, all controlled by the big nose terrorists that conservatives will send your kid into endless wars to protect. Conservatives will criticize those entities but will continue to praise and protect the Jews who run them. Endless insanity.

    • Agree: Sick of Orcs, HammerJack
  32. Anonymous[360] • Disclaimer says:

    “The Right sees a series of independent “culture wars” when in fact, as the Left is aware, there is only one war for culture fought on numerous, related, and sequential battlefields.”

    The Left has enough moolah to bribe the venal lot that the Right has become, where a dog eats a dog and to hell with the posterity.

  33. geokat62 says:

    The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.

    I wonder who is responsible for propagating these two pernicious ideologies?

    I’ll give you a clue…

    ideology of multiculturalism = diversity is a strength, goy!

    ideology of de-ethnicized individualism = we’re all just individuals, goy!

  34. @saggy

    You get the award for the dumbest comment in the thread.

    Joyce and KMAC are not conservatives….they are white advocates and they expose the nose as a full time job.

    In point of fact, Joyce and KMAC are thought leaders of the white dissident movement and both of them are brilliant and tireless.

    KMAC has written three huge tomes regarding the jewish question, and Joyce has written countless in depth articles as well.

    While you, of the saggy tits hanging down over your fat stomach….have done exactly nothing for white well being.

    Fuck off.

    • Thanks: HammerJack
  35. No idea what being conservative means any more. For that matter what is a liberal? Seems like all that matters is our banking overlords have fostered this illusion of liberal left- conservative right politics, when all we really are are mere slaves to their usury.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Rich
  36. AGuy says:

    Don’t worry the Richard Spencer wingnats are against those evil white conservative Christians. They vote Biden and shove black dildos up their asses, in the name of Thor and Odin.

  37. @Anon

    be active in a church that fits your values

    IOW, worship yourself

  38. Exile says:
    @saggy

    Kevin MacDonald has paleocon and academic sensibilities, not a revolutionary or radical, for sure, but it’s ridiculous to claim they’ve never questioned the Holocaust. I think Andrew Joyce is a bit more radical, FWIW. Neither of them are Hoaxed by any stretch.

    Thomas Dalton’s piece on “the six million” being referenced decades before the Holohoax was published at Occidental Observer and cross-posted here like last week. If you know any more credible Holocaust fact-checker than Dalton, please share links.

    Totally caved-in-head comment. Awful.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @saggy
  39. Rich says:
    @Old and Grumpy

    A conservative supports traditional Christian morality, limited government, low taxes, little regulation, law and order and pride in the history of America.

  40. @Rich

    What you’re describing is a compromise, which is anathema to most people while they’re writing comments on sociopolitical articles.

    You’re right that conservative/Republican is the same lazy lumping together as liberal/Democrat. For people who actually care about the meanings of words, they’re four very distinct positions. And conservatism is by definition doomed to retreat by virtue of its fundamental meaning: to maintain ground in a world that reveres progress.

    Most of us are largely “liberals,” as we care about the virtues derived from Christian civilization via the Age of Reason. Ironically, to be a conservative in this context means little more than to believe that these liberal values still have worth. And even most mainstream Democrats have a core of conservatism — in that despite what their media and government and employers make them say and do, at heart they would really prefer (at least for themselves) two-parent families who raise law-abiding straight children in clean and happy neighborhoods.

    Perhaps the appeasement-minded Republican goal is to reach these people. I’m sceptical that a politician of any sort has values much deeper than getting elected, and thereby collecting money and influence. But I can respect the maturity of a person who understands that you usually have to give something to get something. I can only fault them for being bad at making the deals they’ve made, not the inclination to make deals in the first place.

    The conservative goal is to keep the inevitable changes of the world from destroying the good things that have been done in the past. On that score, at least, even our Republican leaders have been found extremely wanting for many decades.

  41. Zumbuddi says:

    2000 word in I gave up trying to figure out what in hell Joyce was trying to say.

    • Replies: @RestiveUs
  42. Gdjjr says:

    I read these articles and comments- there is no saving our situation. Period.
    Enjoy your life and pass it on to your off spring…. piss on the alleged cream of the crop empty suits no matter what political stripe they wear, or religion they espouse.

    Live your life the best that you can: play the hand you were dealt, forget what their rules say, you know you win, when, you live life your own way.

  43. Ned Kelly says:

    Nothing is going to change till you get a party rolling. You’re going to have to take this very flawed Trump rebellion and make something out of it. They were never afraid of Trump, they are afraid of you.

    • Agree: Marcion
  44. ricpic says:

    It’s essentially a class issue. Official “Conservatives” are mainly upper-middle class and upper class. They purport to represent The People but are actually embarrassed by those retrograde neanderthals. Yes, that’s how they see US, Traditional Americans. Everything we believe in is horribly retrograde and square and BORING In other words it’s a wink wink operation. Wink wink fellow upper-middle and upper class Liberals, we have to make certain noises but we’re really with you….only slower.

  45. @Justvisiting

    The concept of the propertied only having suffrage was, in fact, cronyism. When only the land speculators, ship owners, merchants and industrialists could vote, they voted for an economic advantage for themselves. This is what led to the US Constitution, and the codification of cronyism.
    During the Philadelphia Convention, the majority of the delegates were Federalists, the same held true for the ratification debates. Only New York waived the property restrictions for voting for delegates and was the only convention that had a large number of anti-Federalists. The US Constitution was created by oligarchs, for oligarchs… that’s what the property restrictions on voting brought about.

    • Replies: @teo toon
  46. American Christianity is significantly different from the classic European form, being much more democratic as well as essentially Gnostic and millenarian (these features are also extremely prominent in the indigenous sects of the United States: Mormonism, Christian Science, Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentecostalism, leading several academics to speak of an underlying ‘American religion’).

    I am compelled to say the author has no idea what gnosticism is.

    • Agree: AGuy
  47. While people continue to bicker over left/right, conservative/liberal, Democrat/Republican, the banks continue to pick the pockets of both sides.
    The greatest redistribution of wealth in history took place during the past two years, and continues today.
    Try to keep your eye on the ball.

    • Agree: Thomasina
  48. Trump is as much part of GlobalHomoZioBIGsRxMIC3BLM as the babbling buffoon now wrecking havoc across America and the world.

    And this is from CQ, who twice donated money to his campaign and twice voted for him.

    Until the current system of government corruption is overturned, and thousands are held accountable and given death sentences, I’m never going to play nice again.

    • Replies: @Jimmy le Blanc
  49. Nancy says:
    @Thomasina

    Bertrand Russell
    ” …Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so….”

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  50. Nancy says:
    @Robert Dolan

    It’s not stunning, or hard to believe, when you understand how truly the Talmud Termites have absorbed their ‘dual morality’ religious dictats.

  51. Just remember every time some GOP hack talked about the “big tent”.

  52. @CelestiaQuesta

    One of Trump’s biggest blunders was listening to that Kardashian whore and cutting prison time for black felons. I was flabbergasted. He lost a few percentage of White votes for that mistake. I still voted for him because the alternative was horrific; we’re experiencing it now.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  53. anonymous[589] • Disclaimer says:
    @Justvisiting

    Yes…The Concept of CITIZENSHIP going back to Greco/Roman times..useless battle today.BUT some reflections about “conservativism/Nationalism/Right/FarRight” all those terms need more rigorous conceptualization. The Conservatives do not see it as a “culture/global” fight…It seems that conservative ideologos do not read or understand Grammcis pivotal contribution to Marxism. The power strugle is being express globally since BIRTH, education, sports, arts, media, etc. Everytime I hear conservatives talk about crime, poverty, welfare inmediately they go to RACE and IQ why?. They must break this BInomial vie of black/white or white vrs nonwite.There are more poor white “trash” communities than black, as there are many nonwhite conservative populations. When Jared Taylor (and others) spent all their time drilling people about race/iq they dont answer the crucial question so what about IT. Black and other non whites (Indians) had been part of the “America” since its inception and often times INvoluntaryly. The puzzling issue is that many conservative issues/candidates (TRUMP) gained huge support among whites as well as NONwhites. The case in point Trump won FLorida the most diverse nonwhite (RED) state..and thats the case for many other states in the USA. Another example is abortion among nonwhite conservative muslims/hispanics/asians which often times remain religiously “conservative”. Thats the CRUX of the matter for Conservative/Nationalists/Right movements rather than thinking extremely concentrated on race/iq and being ONE issue politics. they must become a NATIONALIST America First Movement (nationally)…Ironically the Conservative/Nationalists platforms and institutions had been open to nonwhites (women)since the days of Frederick Douglas, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, etc. RED States had been the pionners in electing NONwhite candidates to State/Federal positions. Trump triple the federal funding for traditionally black institutions, passed the second chance Act for minor/drug offenders (mostly black/brown), brought JOBS back that built the Black/Brown/Asian MIDDLE Classes. Maybe the Conservative/Nationalist/Right MUST STOP shooting themselves in the foot or stop playing victims of Liberal LEFT conspiracies…deliberately as the GOP had historically done.

  54. Anonymous[227] • Disclaimer says:
    @RockaBoatus

    Pedophilia is fast becoming socially acceptable.

    The only thing that has changed is that there’s this media campaign to call attraction to 17-year-olds “pedophilia.” Most people see acting on it as disreputable, but they aren’t going to get really outraged about it and think the kind of people who do are either mentally unbalanced or are LARPing white knights who are not going to be rewarded with sex.

    It’s very simple: if you’re not OK with your teenage daughter having sex, tell your teenage daughter she isn’t allowed to have sex. And if you’re not willing to do that whether because #MuhSlutShamingIsBad or just plain weak will, accept the inevitable consequences.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @RockaBoatus
  55. Boarwild says:

    Uh…a major error in the first line: OP Smith was a Marine General, not Army General & the quote to the press was “Retreat hell – we’re just attacking in a different direction.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_P._Smith

    The entire 1st Marine Division was surrounded @ the Chosin Reservoir. They had to fight their way out.

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

  56. Mefobills says:

    Economic conservatives are apologists for the Creditor class. Chamber of Commerce types are pro-immigration. They worship Mammon and are materialists. Is it good for me!

    ___________________

    https://michael-hudson.com/2022/01/on-debt-parasites/

    The creditors don’t care about resilience. Their timeframe is rather short. So there’s sort of an irony here. It turns out that if you look at history, the only kind of society that has protected populations from debt bondage and feudalism are societies with a strong central ruler. Well, in the modern Western world, they define free just like the Romans, as the oligarchs said: “Our liberty is the liberty to do whatever we want to those below us. Our liberty is our privilege of being able to enslave the 99 percent.” Right now, you have, thanks to the Chicago School, where I understand that you’re talking from, a free market is a market where Wall Street and the creditors have control of planning society’s allocation of resources. The idea of Western freedom is the freedom to oppress.

    The Chicago school is code of neo-liberalism, libertarianism, and Jewish mercantile materialism.

    It takes a special ruling elite trained in the use of power. The (((merchant))) is not suited to the job, and has usurped power by stealth and usury.

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  57. The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is using Totalitarian Inclusivity and Identity Stalinism and Anarcho-Tyranny to retain and maintain their perch on top of the power structure in the American Empire.

    Ruling Class Decapitation and Ruling Class Deposition must be utilized by White Core Americans to remove the JEW/WASP Ruling Class from power.

    White Core America will be the new Ruling Class in the American Empire and White Core America will explicitly advance the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    All members of the JEW/WASP Ruling Class and their minions must be financially liquidated and then they must be forcibly and permanently exiled to a walled and fenced compound community in sub-Saharan Africa.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  58. If what Andrew Joyce means by “Illusion of Exclusion” is that the resistance or the opposition too often commits Own goals, then no better example exists than what occurred at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC yesterday.

    Emile Nikola Richard posted this on the Unz NewsLink today:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10432995/Washington-DC-hosts-huge-anti-vaccine-mandate-protest-thousands-demonstrators.html

    The article describes the rhetoric used by leaders of the 20,000-strong protest against vaccines/mandates/masks:

    Robert F Kennedy, the messiah, the Brave One who formed an organization, Children’s Health Defense and wrote a book exposing the Fauci fraud that is so compelling that even skeptical Ron Unz praised it; Robert F Kennedy, leader of the resistance, relied on the example of Anne Frank:

    Kennedy compared the plight of the vaccine-adverse to that of Anne Frank on Sunday, saying that ‘even in Hitler’s Germany, you could hide in the attic like Anne Frank did.’

    Kennedy went on to “liken Fauci to Mussolini.”

    The Daily Mail reporter, Christina Coulter, reached into Lara Logan’s past in order to incorporate a Nazi reference:

    Former CBS correspondent Lara Logan, who compared White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci to infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele on a November Fox News appearance, also spoke to protesters.

    Coulter wrote that

    “The Auschwitz Memorial Museum responded to Kennedy’s comments, saying that he was ‘exploiting the tragedy of people who suffered, were humiliated, and murdered by the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany – including children like Anne Frank – in a debate about vaccines and limitations during [a] global pandemic is a sad symptom of moral and intellectual decay.’ ”

    Goshes.
    No one could have seen THAT coming.

    —-

    Kennedy, and Logan and the myriad others in the supposed resistance (I’m talking to YOU, Rick Wiles at TruNews) who use Nazi analogies are just plain stupid.

    Yesterday Kennedy’s speech to the protest rally in DC outdid Jan 6 in the damage to resistance to Wokeness;
    Kennedy’s speech to the protest rally in DC outdid Jan 6 in protest against the Brandon mal-administration;
    Kennedy’s speech to the protest rally in DC damaged 9/11 Truthers;
    Kennedy’s speech to the protest rally in DC damaged historical revisionists;
    Kennedy’s speech to the protest rally in DC undermined any attempt to resist and condemn Merrick Garland’s abuse of the legal system to shut down opposing voices;
    Kennedy’s speech to the protest rally in DC outdid Jan 6 on the very causes they were fighting for or against: AGAINST forced injection of an experimental drug; against an administration that is riding rough-shod over the rights of American citizens.

    Here is why what Kennedy said is so destructive: He reinforced the notion that Anne Frank, and by extension the holocaust and all its appendages and distortions of American culture, is THE central icon, the defining myth of the United States.

    Last week Roberta Kaplan and Amy Spitalnick broadcast a zoom conference titled (something like) “How we defeated the Nazis at Charlottesville.” Kaplan’s New York City-based law firm represented plaintiffs in a civil suit for (huge) money damages against organizers and protesters at the Unite the Right rally.
    Spitalnick, a former FBI agent, formed an 501XX organization, “Integrity for America” (IFA) with \$100,000 seed-money from ADL to pay for the lawsuit. The war chest grew to the millions of dollars.

    Defendants were impoverished, even if they could find attorneys who would risk their careers to contend with the likes of ADL & all its tentacles.

    In the course of the zoom conversation, Kaplan said ‘the case was NOT about Robert E Lee.’

    No, it was about Jews and antisemitism and how bad Nazis are and the holocaust.

    The point I’m trying to make is that the icons of the American mythos are being torn down, disparaged, silenced, while the phantasmagoria of fake Jews like Kaplan and Spitalnick and ADL are taking their place.

    And the otherwise courageous and energetic leader, Robert F Kennedy Jr used a visually and vocally powerful opportunity in Washington to endorse the Jewish mythos, not the American mythos.

    Every time an ostensible “defender of the American way” employs a Nazi analogy — in any way other than speaking and affirming actual truth about Nazism — he/she affirms the adversary and derogates his own cause.

    And that is a stupid thing to do.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Thanks: Sepp
  59. The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety and security and sovereignty of the United States of America.

    The perceptions of the young are right about the enemies of the American people and the historic American nation being domestic, inside the gate type treasonites.

    The globalizer JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire wants to smash the crud out of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States in order to atomize and splinter any cohesive force strong enough to resist the machinations of the ruling class.

    White Core America stands alone as the last holdout to the globalizer’s plan to make every man or woman bow down to their evil Totalitarian Inclusivity overlordship.

    These filthy evil thugs in the JEW/WASP Ruling Class are kept in power by electronics. How so?

    Electronic propaganda and an electronic currency.

    The evil JEW/WASP Ruling Class uses its control of the electronic propaganda to distract and manage the opinion of the American public.

    The evil JEW/WASP Ruling Class uses an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air to keep the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate inflated. This is a tactic designed to buy off certain generational cohorts to keep them quiet about the anti-White policies that the ruling class pushes.

    There is a reason that the nation-wrecking mass immigration law in 1965 was followed by the repudiation of the gold standard in 1971.

    Totalitarian Inclusivity must be crushed and all elements of the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class that push Totalitarian Inclusivity must be forcibly and permanently exiled to sub-Saharan Africa.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  60. Rich says:
    @Anonymous

    Were you ever a teenager? Do you have kids? We all wish raising kids was as easy as just telling them what to do. Teenagers are a bit rebellious, takes a lot of hard work, usually, to keep them out of trouble. I’ve known girls whose parents did all they could, but the girls fell in “love”, sometimes got knocked up. A “player” I knew as a kid told me how he and all his friends used to hang out by a deli near an exclusive all girl’s school and throw their lines at the poor, innocents until a couple would end up “ruined”. Girls have been getting knocked up since the beginning of time, all you can do is the best you can do.

  61. @Vergissmeinnicht

    Nonsense, Friend! The ancient Romans barred women from voting and holding office and they only lasted (checks clipboard) 1000 years!

  62. @Anonymous

    It may be 17 years olds now, but eventually they will lower the age of consent or legal pedophilia to 14, then to 12, and then to 6 years of age.

    The Bolshevik Left is never content with the level of societal dysfunction they’ve reached, no matter how many lives are ruined by it. Degeneracy must fall to its lowest point. It’s but a reflection of their souls.

  63. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Kennedy, and Logan and the myriad others in the supposed resistance (I’m talking to YOU, Rick Wiles at TruNews) who use Nazi analogies are just plain stupid.

    I think Rick Wiles thinks he’s figured out a way to release the pressure placed on him by the ADL/SPLC. He’s received multiple death threats to himself and family members. So, he’s decided to use rhetoric that will give him the opportunity to say, see… I’m not an anti-Semite. I hate the evil nahtzees as much as you do. He also deflects the heat by saying the chicoms are the number one threat to America.

    Sad.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Disagree: Sepp
    • Replies: @Sepp
    , @SolontoCroesus
  64. “the U.S. Army’s Major General Oliver Prince Smith Jr. told a journalist from Time magazine ‘We are not retreating. We are advancing in a different direction.’”

    O.P. Smith was a Marine officer commanding the 1st Marine Division at Frozen Chosin.

    (Don’t know if someone else already pointed this out; I couldn’t be bothered to check.)

  65. Gay marriage is simple or should have been, in a free society. While the government can’t discriminate, the church should be able to and should, you can’t get married here, (it’s okay if Muslims discriminate, just not Christians), as well as businesses, who choose not to bake cakes and individuals who choose freedom of association. But the oppressed sided with the other oppressed(?) and the other oppressed and so on in perpetuity.
    So you had BLM and LGBTQFRETEWSMKOUG, plus numerous foreign associations, Al Sharpton, and other color groups which is now the “LEFT” in totality, not like it wasn’t before but more so now. Then you have the LGHHYRTFGH “conservatives”, which is completely bullsht but the conservatives keep trying to hold on to it so that they aren’t anti-flavor-of-the-day so they can remain somewhat relevant. All the while politically they keep pushing out Christians in favor on non-Christians.
    People always say things like Jesus should accept everyone. This is entirely incorrect. If Jesus were to accept everyone, especially focusing on those who are not his people, and bringing those people into association with his people, what would be the long term effects? Eventually, Jesus, people would begin to emulate the other people that Jesus supposedly liked more. What if those people Jesus supposedly liked more, did not like Jesus? Jesus was always spending his time with those who did not like him or his people; what would Jesus people eventually do? They would become something else away from Jesus;No? Eventually Jesus would find himself very alone, having never accomplished God’s/His promise to the people who followed him in the first place. His temple mount beatitudes absorbed and tortured by both government and church. He would be giving up heaven to those who hate him and those who go to heaven for killing his people. With his people being killed, transformed and enslaved for the good they thought they were doing. Never standing for God. Never doing what is right, and in your heart. Never listening to God.

  66. Globo-homo Pinquisition

  67. Kart Head says:

    I’m sure the Christian/atheist argument will be started in force, so I’ll fire the opening salvos.

    Christianity is based! (Ignore all those woke Christians, they aren’t TRUE Christians)

    Christianity will unite our people in a common culture and belief system. (Ignore the millennia of sectarian conflict within Christianity. In the True Christianity we’ll all be in one church, or we’ll be in separate churches but get along swimmingly.)

    [Person you like] was a Christian. (Ignore the fact that [Person you don’t like] was also Christian, he wasn’t a TRUE Christian.)

    Christianity is your heritage! (Ignore our Pagan ancestors, that was a long time ago, we can’t be living in the past.)

  68. teo toon says:
    @hoytmonger

    Agree.
    “We the People” only applies to the commercial and financial classes, which, thanks to Miles Mathis’ investigations, coincide with the blue bloodlines of Europe, mostly English.

  69. Moron boob generals in the US Army and other American Empire bonehead slobs are pushing the nation-wrecking ideology of Totalitarian Inclusivity.

    A treasonous and unpatriotic baby boomer US Army general named Richard D. Clarke is treasonously using his bureaucratic position in the American Empire to attack and destroy the historic American nation by pushing Totalitarian Inclusivity.

    I would love to debate this US Army general Richard D Clarke on mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and monetary policy and American national identity and foreign policy and the Founding Fathers warnings about large standing armies necessitating increasing concentrations of political and financial power and any other damn thing. I would rhetorically crush this crybaby puke baby boomer Richard D Clarke in a debate.

    This coward crybaby puke Richard D. Clarke presides over the special forces — which happen to be primarily staffed by European Christian Americans — and this nasty weasel Clarke is crying about the need for more and more so-called “diversity and inclusion.”

    GO TO HELL RICHARD D CLARKE, YOU TREASONOUS US ARMY ARSEHOLE BABY BOOMER!

    • Replies: @simple mind
  70. “autochthonous”

    Gesundheit!

  71. Achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups

    is an obsession shared by almost nobody else. Only a jealous boomer complaining about his imagined “rivals” over the years comes up with this weird fantasy. Nobody can even see the difference or run into any “Jews” in most of the world, and everybody has “parity” in the city areas.

    The “parity” of NYC is 20% Jewish to begin with, but the “parity” of anyone remotely qualified for admission to prestigious universities and employment might be 50% Jewish (in NYC). In Omaha it’s going to be different, the whole mindset behind CoC is simply bizarre. It is literally the obsessions of the author which have almost nothing to do with 98% of the population anyway.

    would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities

    I never heard that Iowa State had any Jewish problem for being “overrepresented”. If 30% of Ivy Leagues are “Jewish” then 30% of the qualified admissions pool are Jewish. Or anyone else by their corresponding percentage. People don’t even live in “ethnic groups” anymore, is he saying qualified candidates are being screened out of random universities? You can go to MIT online for free at this point, only a morbid UNI professor ever comes up with this kind of delirium. I know of nobody ever who thought there were “too many Jews at college”, most people are concerned about something else.

    access to employment opportunities

    Sounds like “too many rabbis at the synagogue”… yes there should be affirmative action Kevin MacDonald can have HIS fair turn at the pulpit. Why come all those black hatted fellers don’t be fair already and just GIVE Kevin his turn at the Torah scroll? It’s practically genocide

    and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth

    You mean revert to 1393 and create “Jewish tax rolls” identified by local synagogues under the charter of a King or Duke? Maybe Jews should wear a purple star too so it’s easy to spot and make sure they pay all their taxes. Notice we leave the ACTUAL wealth alone, just “tax the Jews”, something that doesn’t exist and will never happen unless you happen to live in a medieval town with a Jewish quarter.

    We’ll never hear anything about taxing REAL sources of wealth like land and buildings and factories and mines and agriculture, as though “the Jews” were in “possession” of some land in Poland c. 1623. What does all this “Jewish” wealth consist of outside mental fairy tales from the Middle Ages? I can’t see it anywhere and neither can anyone else.

    Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States.

    You mean vastly REPRESENTED? That should be a feature not a bug, but it’s more like “vastly invisible”. It’s basically a pean to very obscure envy based on a grandly delusional fantasy about snippets of imagined experience taken way out of context.

    Nothing about any real “imbalance” though, like the near monopoly of the land records system on the presumption of title in America. Or the collection of rent and payments on the same thing FOREVER i.e. “usury”. Or the prison industrial complex, the warfare welfare education system, animal concentration and machine slaughter, predatory capitalism and mercenary conquest throughout the world… I can think of 1000 things worse than a 73 year old Jewish college professor who was 30 in 1978.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  72. @Charles Pewitt

    I would rhetorically crush this crybaby puke baby boomer

    And he would PHYSICALLY crush your actually crying pukey infantile self, and probably everyone else would cheer to see it. Of course YOU get to “make the rules” and “automagically win” in your “very important debate”.

    Why would a U.S. Army general waste time looking in your direction?

  73. @Charles Pewitt

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety and security and sovereignty of the United States of America.

    That’s impossible, since it is the FOUNDATION of the “United States of America”

    The globalizer JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire wants to smash the European Christian ancestral core of the United States

    The globalizer JEW/WASP Ruling Class IS the European Christian ancestral core of the United States, there is no other “core” to speak of. You mean the white rubetard dying breed red hats? The graybeards who “stormed the Capitol” last winter?

    The only ancestors they have are slave monkeys and bow legged peasants from the underbelly of Europe. Unfortunately, you are stuck with us and we are the core of the United States.

    Without the globalizer JEW/WASP Ruling Class there will BE no “United States”, and that will probably happen anyway, soon enough. I don’t see a lot of competence brewing anywhere, but the future is on globalisation, China and India.

    • Replies: @Anon
  74. The Totalitarian Globalizer Inclusivity Pushed By The Evil JEW/WASP Ruling Class Must Be Crushed.

    Patriotic Exclusivity Must Be Used To Deport All Illegal Alien Invaders.

    Patriotic Exclusivity Must Be Used To Deport All Non-Citizens Currently In The USA.

    Patriotic Exclusivity Must Be Used To Politically Decapitate And Deport All Elements Of The JEW/WASP Ruling Class Of The American Empire.

    The new political party called WHITE CORE AMERICA will certainly make a distinction between citizens and foreigners and I have decided that old stocker Americans — or part old stocker Americans — should get a hundred thousand dollar bounty for having blood ancestors who fought in the American Colonial Secessionary War from the British Empire. For each ancestor who fought against the British Empire you’ll get one hundred thousand dollars. I’ll get at least three hundred thousand dollars for my ancestors who fought in the American Colonial Secessionary War from the British Empire.

    Obama is Son of the American Revolution ready to go for at least a hundred thousand but Obama will not be eligible for the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) of ten thousand dollars a month from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank. Obama does not have all blood ancestors born in the USA or colonial America before 1924.

    Obama don’t need no PCLP because he’s grilling burgers at his mansion on Martha’s Vineyard and his mansion in Swamp City Rome on the Potomac DC.

    Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) further explained:

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will grant each American citizen with all blood ancestry born in the USA before 1924 or colonial America ten thousand dollars a month — tax free. The privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank shall conjure up the cash and dole it out like water.

    The evil and treasonous Republican Party puts the interests of foreigners and foreign nations ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation.

    The putrid and rancid Republican Party puts the interests of illegal alien invaders and the millstone client state of Israel ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation.

    The rancid Wall Street Journal faction of the Republican Party and the Republican Party donors and the Republican Party politician whores all put the interests of foreigners and foreign nations ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation.

    ELIGIBILITY QUESTION AND PATRIOTIC EXCLUSIVITY

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING

  75. @Vergissmeinnicht

    ‘Greater hate hath no cis-male Incel’.

  76. @simple mind

    Jews are c.20% of the Ivy League. That massive over-representation is not due to academic excellence (the Jewish Establishment are working hard to keep the more academically qualified East and South Asians OUT)but to Jewish money power through ‘endowments’ and through nepotism practised by the admissions boards. You know that, don’t you, ‘simple’?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @simple mind
  77. @SolontoCroesus

    Every time an ostensible “defender of the American way” employs a Nazi analogy — […] he/she affirms the adversary and derogates his own cause.

    Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.
    For your entire comment, but especially for the very clear ending. My God, there need to be more of us speaking on this. But so many are heading the other way. The truth and nothing but the truth is the only way to go forward. Not the convenient or the more palatable way.
    May blessings be showered upon your head.

    I commented on this article at TOO.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  78. @SolontoCroesus

    When under Judaic dominance (I’d say control in the USA)all public discourse must, in some way or another, directly or circuitously, find some Jewish analogy, connection or direct causation, to be judged relevant. They must be at either the centre, or close by, to all consideration. Of ALL the millions and millions of young children who have suffered from human barbarity, ONLY Anne Frank is raised to the status of sainted exemplar. Name ONE Gazan child blown to pieces by the Zionazis, from thousands.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  79. @Charles Pewitt

    All members of the JEW/WASP Ruling Class and their minions must be financially liquidated and then they must be forcibly and permanently exiled to a walled and fenced compound community in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Will you be moving to New York City after the Great Exchange? What a moron

  80. Anon[179] • Disclaimer says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Check out the names of the admissions officers at the 8 ivies. It’s stunning and explains why Christians are excluded

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  81. @mulga mumblebrain

    I really don’t know at all, nor do I care either way. The whole concept sounds absurd, talking about some people standing in buildings somewhere else. More monkey jabbering about other monkeys jabbering far as anyone can really tell.

    Jews are c.20% of the Ivy League. That massive over-representation

    doesn’t sound ANYTHING like “over representation”. I’m sure 20% of the applicant pool is “Jewish” in some way, considering it has to draw from a very limited selection of humanity who needs to qualify.

    working hard to keep the more academically qualified East and South Asians OUT

    huh? really? that’s sounds very strange, like I said there are millions of “college” opportunities out there and I cannot imagine how any uber smart Chinee is not “allowed” to attend Hahvahd as though “Ivy League” was even real in 2022 at this point.

    I think most classes are online now, but it’s hilarious how a decayed boomer professor living in his mind c. 1957 got transformed into a modern day “Chinese Exclusion Act”. I really don’t think the Asians are having any problem getting into elite universities because swarms of unqualified Jewish students are holding them back.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  82. @mulga mumblebrain

    all public discourse must, in some way or another, directly or circuitously, find some Jewish analogy, connection or direct causation, to be judged relevant

    Like the analogy of Chinese exclusion from Ivy League universities by the upper middle class of Greater New York and Boston? Can YOU name anyone at all? Nobody cares about your morbid obsessions is why nobody can remember something that doesn’t exist outside a cloistered mental realm. The difference between “Anne Frank” and the Gaza Child is one was hiding in a house within the Western World, while the other was the victim of their own people that still use them as human shields.

    When the Gazan Arabs return to their home countries so as to avoid being a frontline target, no Israelis will have to shoot anybody in Gaza. Palestine is a delusional fantasy that only exists in your mind, it is a vestige of the cold war, an artificial “cause” promoted through mass media indoctrination. It’s actually quite boring at this point, just watch youtube videos of life in Israel today and what it really looks like.

    • Troll: mulga mumblebrain
  83. “Christ Is King” can be interpreted two ways.

    1. The christ-tard way for true believers who believe Jesus is going to save them. In fact, what passes for Christian Conservatism is white women going as missionaries to Africa, getting infected with jungle fever, marrying some black guy, having mulatto kids, bringing them back to the US, and being cheered on by the christ-cuck ‘conservative’ Congregation that is so eager to prove “We are not racist”. Yech. This is why Christianity is OVER and cannot save the white race.

    2. A way to piss off Jews. This I support. Jews hate Jesus and Christianity, and have been trying to elevate globo-homo and other fashionable nonsense over Christian God. So, when some say ‘Christ Is King’, they don’t so much mean anything about Jesus and faith. They really mean to piss off Jews. It means the God that you Jews hate and want to demean is bigger than all your trendy globo-homo sham idolatry. That I can support.

  84. saggy says: • Website
    @Exile

    You cannot find one statement of Joyce or MacDonald where they even hint that the holohoax is a hoax. If pressed I can google up (again) a statement where MacDonald says it’s of no interest to him. I couldn’t find anything by Joyce by Joyce. ‘White advocates’ who go along with the holohoax are as useless as tits on a bicycle. It’s Jews who are wrecking the US, just as they wrecked Russia and Germany, and the lever that they are using to do it is the holohoax (in addition to money and banking of course).

    Prove me wrong, or … wake up.

    • Troll: James Forrestal
  85. Anon[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @simple mind

    the foundation of america is an enlightened project since its constitucional inception in 1787 inspired by clasical graeco roman institutions and built primarily with the hard work of europeans in a moments were jewish population was virtually nonexistant, you have no foundation to claim here .

    In fact usa was conceived from the very start as a second rome ,the founding fathers All of them were well educated people and the classical education was almost fully based on the Roman and Greek studies; the mayory having a very good understanding of greek and latin . Their heroes were the Roman republicans and defenders of liberty. “”All of the Founders’ Roman heroes lived at a time when the Roman republic was being threatened by power-hungry demagogues, bloodthirsty dictators and shadowy conspirators. The Founders’ principal Roman heroes were Roman statesmen: Cato the Younger, Brutus, Cassius and Cicero ” ”

    Its have been said multiple times already but the larping went as far that the founding fathers explicitly identified with the principal roman republican figures

    [MORE]

    “”””George Washington: others were calling him American Cincinnatus. While he preferred to call himself Cato the Younger,
    John Adams was called Cicero, the greatest attorney of the ancient world,
    Besides their differences with Adams, Thomas Jefferson was called Cicero too,
    James Madison was known as Publius (Valerius Publicola),
    Alexander Hamilton was most surprisingly identified with Caesar.
    John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, was identified with Publius (Cornelius Tacitus).””””

    The similarities between the Ancient Roman Republic and America’s political system are uncanny. America’s executive, judicial, and legislative branches were directly derived from the Ancient Roman model. Likewise the roman architecture art and symbols served as an inspiration to the mayority of the monuments of the early era of american republic , the examples are infinite .

    After the fall of Rome, the US became the first state to be fully led by laws. After the fall of the ancient world the idea of the rule of law was forgotten and the Term “right” was used only with some religious context , its in these time when the founding fathers the mayority of them graduated in law gave birth to the first fully constitucional state since the fall of the roman republic

    In fact the graeco roman classics became ” the best sellers” after the reinassance and the knowloadge latin and greek became obligatory in all the elite universities until 1880 in usa and 1960 the culture that served as a model to conceive the modern world and whose today descendants are condened to forget so the the usurper can shamelessly claim our civilization as their own .

    Even the proto masonry constitutions is fully european in origin , the founding myth of the regious poem narrate how ancient helenes gave birth to the arts and sciences and how they spread that knowloadge across the continent , is only when jews rose to prominance in england in the 18 century that the myth was changed putting jews as the divine seed that spread the art and sciences.

    The history of the jew is the history of the snake, the history of the usurper coopting the state throw a highly organized tribal mafia and parasitizing it to death , in fact the way the jews rose to prominance and their posterior expulsion in egypt marked the blueprint of all the ones to follow.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  86. Does Dr Joyce ever address comments here, or am I just wasting my time?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  87. @simple mind

    So, it just takes a little appeal for common humanity for a Zionazi maggot like you to viciously support the murder of children, while blaming the victims for their murder. A pretty typical Zionazi attitude, born of 3500 years of HATRED for the goyim, and the refusal of the Palestinians to disappear. Fortunately you represent the VERY worst of Jewry, thus of humanity, but that does NO good in attempting to end Zionazi child butchery. The transference from the Nazis and other murderous butchers throughout history, to Zionazi monsters like you is complete, but they had fertile soil in which to plant the seeds of genocidal hatred.

  88. Abbybwood says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Exactly!

    Back in the good old days women could just tell their husbands how to vote!

    • LOL: HammerJack
  89. @simple mind

    Your playing dumb has a ring of authenticity to it. Jews are 2% of the US population, so ought to be 2% of the Ivy League if the US is to claim egalitarianism as one of its myriad self-declared virtues. The Ivy League, after all, is the entry point to power and privilege in the USA, so it would best be shared equally lest problems of concentration of power and resulting nepotism, envy and rancour are to be avoid.
    But you love concentration of power, don’t you. You are ‘Chosen by God’ after all, so it’s best that power is in your hands. It’s just ‘God’s Will’. Look how the USA has prospered, how the ‘little people’ have done so well, since you took over. And you just adore rancour-you get it with your mother’s milk, don’t you. I must say that your attempts to downplay the significance of an Ivy League education, even denying its existence in 2022 (some chutzpah)and pretend that Jews get in due to their ‘..needs to qualify'(??/!!)is fecking dumb, even for you. You’re not a great advertisement for ‘Jewish genius’ are you?

  90. @Anon

    Everybody KNOWS that it is nepotism. Some Jews even boast of it, but Heaven help any goy, or critical Jew, who dares to mention it. ‘Antisemite’, ‘Holocaust denial’, ‘blood libel’ and all the old familiar epithets will fly, and careers and lives will be sabotaged and ruined. Standard Operating Procedure.

  91. RestiveUs says:
    @Zumbuddi

    I bailed out part-way through comment #6.

  92. @Rich

    You are the retard who keeps on insisting that the Vietnam war and other wars like it were anything other than a kiked shitshow that destroys the economy and dividing “huwhites”.

    You are just another bad actor, shut your mouth.

    • Replies: @Rich
  93. @simple mind

    Every kike on Earth will be exterminated. The third mammon temple will be “built” and destroyed shortly thereafter.

    Every unrepentant kike is literally hellbound. Good riddance.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  94. “At the heart of ‘the conservative problem’ is the issue of inclusion versus exclusion, and the fact the conservative bloc, wherever in the West it is found, leads its voter base on the same merry dance to defeat by endlessly hinting at the promise of exclusionary politics while bringing only an expansion to the ‘inclusive’ state.”

    At the heart of “the conservative problem” is “conservatives’” cowardice, opportunism, and class warfare against those who actually support conserving America. If I could, I’d ask each of these self-styled “conservatives,” for many of whom I’ve worked, even though they often didn’t know it, “Just what do you seek to conserve?” I doubt they could do any better answering my question than Ted Kennedy could answer Roger Mudd’s query why he was running for president. FIFY

  95. geokat62 says:

    Telegram comment posted by Jack Fell:

    As I’ve said previously with the politicians that came to Gab, all of the energy generated on Gab by White Nationalists will be funneled into accepting civic nationalism (AF) as the only answer to White anxiety over the Great Replacement and redirect it into voting for the GOP with a makeover, while Torba & company play kingmakers.

    In other words, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. You don’t beat the devil by making deals with him. The logical endpoint of civic nationalism is still going to be White disposession and becoming the minority in our own country.

    Thanks for clarifying where you stand, Andrew. I truly hope you didn’t use donor money to fund AFPAC. Considering the company you’re keeping, I don’t think longtime donors will be happy with this.

    https://gab.com/JackFell13/posts/107681693905752108

    https://t.me/TheFallout/7403

  96. Mefobills says:
    @Anon

    After the fall of Rome, the US became the first state to be fully led by laws

    The fall of Rome was because it became an Oligarchy. They had no idea of how to release debt to prevent polarization. Rome especially got onto the wrong track after the second Punic war, when she adopted precious metal money. The gold and silver was needed to pay mercenary soldiers in foreign lands. This then led to a oligarchy class (that had extra gold and silver) that insisted it was to own the making of military goods, something like today’s MIC.

    When Christianity was “uptaken” into Rome, it was converted from Original Christianity, and became a state “universalist” religion. This universalist approach appealed to the creditor class, as it kept the sheeple quiescent:

    https://michael-hudson.com/2022/01/on-debt-parasites/

    So gradually, the payment of the weregild, whether it was in money — or if it was really serious, it would be in slave girls or cattle — came to be the word for debt, meant the word for compensation payment, and at the same time, for the injury or for the offense, or the word for ‘sin.’ So the original meaning of the Lord’s Prayer in Hebrew and Greek was, “Forgive us our debts,” because their whole fight in the time that Jesus wrote all over the Roman world was a fight to cancel the debts that were enslaving everybody.

    It was St. Augustine that changed all of this. He said, forget the idea of monetary debt. The church in the fourth century had been banning usury, banning the charging of interest. And St. Augustine said, “Wait a minute. Now that Constantine has made Christianity the state religion, we’ve got to support the state.” And he ended up fighting against the original Christians who wanted to protect the poor from the rich, who were forcing them all into debt — especially in North Africa, which was the first part of the Roman Empire to really go feudal, huge land of Fundy law states with serfs called coloni who were tied to the land, just like serfs in the Middle Ages. And so Augustine said, “If we’re going to be a universal church, then universal means you can’t have any disagreement.” So the great authority on this period, Brown, wrote that Augustine was really the founder of the spirit of the Inquisition.

    Conservatism and Judeo Christianity has absorbed the “creditor class” mantra from Constantine to Augustine, and so did Rome.

    The founding fathers did a lot of great things, and I defend most of it. But, lets let history be our guide. They also screwed up.

    They most especially screwed up where they did not properly codify the money power. This allowed a giant inviting hole in civilization where the (((worst))) types could drive a truck through and take over from behind the scenes.

    They also did not create a sufficient mechanism for identifying (and training) meritorious and empathetic leaders, instead they left the gates open for charlatans.

    Rome went feudal because of the “greatest depression.” All of the money became consecrated to the vaults and civilization polarized into the land-holding and creditor ownership class.

    I don’t hold back against our (((friends))) but it is important to be even-handed, and notice when it is your own people accepting the Jewish methods of taking usury, rents, and unearned income.

    The “American Chamber of Commerce” types are a good example of people who have absorbed the lie because it benefits them personally.

    Returning Christianity to its roots (before Constantine) would be a good way to put glasses on people’s noses, so they can see.

    • Thanks: Sepp
    • Replies: @Sepp
  97. Sepp says:
    @geokat62

    I don’t buy that story. Rick Wiles has accused the Jews of committing genocide against the entire planet. I think that trumps jews lying about the 6 million hoax. Wiles also goes on and on about genocide in Palestine.

    I think Rick Wiles is deluded. He cannot accept that the narrative he has assiduously followed and based his entire world view on is a hoax. Likely some family members died in the conflict and he has composed some narrative in his mind that he just cannot bear to have proven to be a lie.

    There are sooo many “conservatives” who do precisely the same thing: Alex Jones, Mike Adams, Stew Peters, Tucker Carlson. The challenge is to find one populist “conservative” media personality who doesn’t believe in all these lies. I can’t think of one. The entire crew at VDARE, let alone Gateway Pundit or Breitbard kowtow to the Holohoax.

    But we have recognize that even Ron Unz, who recognizes that the holofraud narrative cannot hold water, is not really ready to “die on that hill” the way Ernst Zundel, the Schaeffers, or even Carolyn Yeager is. In fact, Ron Unz still hasn’t figured out how preposterous the “moon landings” were, or how ridiculous claims that the Jew-Jab is “safe and effective” are.

    I think we have to give our enemies credit for this. By continually muddying the waters of every debate, they have made it impossible for their opposition to come to any kind of consensus about any current, or even historical, event. This is the root cause of all the cognitive dissonance we see all around us. We must also recognize the extreme hypocrisy and projection of all their claims of dis-information

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @silviosilver
  98. Mefobills says:

    The illusion of exclusion is accelerating.

    Modern science and academia filters all historical understanding through a lens of political correctness.

    Political correctness stems from a new cult of diversity, tolerance, and globalism. Virtually all scientists and academics are dominated by this new cult, and if they don’t get along, they are marginalized by those that do.

    MONIED INTERESTS finance virtually every archeological dig, genetic study, every major analysis subject, and research topics.

    The universities only give grant monies if the conclusions fit into the present cultural “liberal” whims.

    All of this precludes even the possibility of honest research and discussion.

    The “current” (((class))) that dominates western thought is intent on rewriting history, to then make the world safe for them to move about and be invisible. Their project is based on lies.

    https://odysee.com/@earthempaths:6/part-1-our-subverted-history-mediarebell:c

  99. Sepp says:
    @Mefobills

    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those
    who trespass against us.

    I don’t know how many times I repeated that passage when I was growing up, but the use of “trespass” always seemed awkward and illogical. I remember Reverend Horace McClelland explaining “trespass” to us and it never make sense.

    Now that you, or Hudson who I don’t particularly like listening to or reading, explains it as “debt” it finally makes sense after all these years.

    This is clearly one of the many ways that the money changers have corrupted the very roots of our existence and culture and turned it against us. The Scofield bible comes immediately to mind. Another example would be the 10 commandments where commandment 7 post judaification says “thou shalt not commit adultery” while commandment 10 says “thou shalt not covet another mans wife”. These two commandments are clearly redundant. Are God and Moses retards?

    While looking up the 10th commandment just now, I see that google/wiki want me to believe that the 10th commandment was “thou shalt not covet”. ((They)) are changing our culture under our noses.

    The meaning of “adulterate” in the 7th commandment means miscegenate. As in “adulterated foods”. Or in plain English: Mudsharks not allowed. Jews have twisted and warped the 10 commandments in the same way that they have twisted and warped the lords prayer.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Mefobills
  100. Totalitarian Inclusivity vs Patriotic Exclusivity

    Globalization vs Patriotism

    The evil JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is using mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the United States of America.

    Tweets from 2015:

  101. Mefobills says:
    @Sepp

    Judeo Christianity is a propaganda operation, to then make you worship your slave masters.

    This sort of inversion of Christianity happened over time, including the Scofield Bible. (Our friends also printed Athias Bibles, in English, with their expensive printing presses while in Amsterdam.)

    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/12/michael-hudson-died-debt-not-sins.html

    The Ten Commandments Were About Debt

    People tend to think of the Commandment ‘do not covet your neighbour’s wife’ in purely sexual terms but actually, the economist says it refers specifically to creditors who would force the wives and daughters of debtors into sex slavery as collateral for unpaid debt.

    “This goes all the way back to Sumer in the third millennium,” he said.

    Similarly, the Commandment ‘thou shalt not steal’ refers to usury and exploitation by threat for debts owing.

    The economist says Jesus was crucified for his views on debt. Crucifixion being a punishment reserved especially for political dissidents.

    ”To understand the crucifixion of Jesus is to understand it was his punishment for his economic views,” says Professor Hudson. “He was a threat to the creditors.”

    Jesus Christ was a socialist activist for the continuity of regular debt jubilees that were considered essential to the wellbeing of ancient economies.

    ___________

    In those days, the Jewish Sanhedrin had, under Hillel’s prozbul clause, mounted a creditor take-over of the Jewish population.

    At the same time, Rome was inserting debt hooks into the mouths of its conquered populations.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  102. Mefobills says:
    @Sepp

    This is clearly one of the many ways that the money changers have corrupted the very roots of our existence and culture and turned it against us.

    The very roots of our existence are Sythian and Goth.

    The Scythians and their Kin.

    https://odysee.com/@Gen.JD.Ripper:8/VID_20211209_112356_996:a

    The objectives of fair play and honorable dealing that Jesus represented, are an Aryan characteristic.

  103. @Carolyn Yeager

    We had been corresponding for two months. We shared about 40 emails with each other, and during that time he was always punctual in his replies. Sometimes a few days would go by without one, prompting me to send a message asking if my email had been delivered to his inbox. Just before Christmas he went silent for ten days. When he finally came back, I asked him not to disengage from the internet without notifying me in advance. He then took on a completely different tone and is no longing responding. This is very childish and completely at odds with his character. I fail to see what was so unreasonable about my request. It seems to be yet another example of autistic rationality causing offence to the neurotypical ego. I thought he would have been above such silliness, but apparently not. Imagine getting offended by something as trivial as that.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  104. @Sick of Orcs

    A properly operating gop offers brief, token resistance to radical shitlibs, then throws the fight. That’s their role as one-half of the uniparty.

    Washington Generals vs. Harlem Globetrotters. Just part of the show.

    There are/were two times the gop fought/fights for real: destroying the Tea Party and shilling for, “our greatest ally” who provides no observable benefits to taxpayers but plenty of grief.

    And corporate deregulation/ other forms of pro-oligarch “conservatism” — where the Dems suddenly and inexplicably become just as impotent as the GOP is when “opposing” the sacralization of sodomy, open borders, etc.

    Incidentally, part of the problem with Trumpism seems to have been that his claim to oppose neocon wars meant that the Dems had to abandon their “anti-war” facade, openly claiming that ZOG “needed” to occupy other countries to promote feminism*, sodomy, transsexualism, pedophilia**, etc. — not really how the machine “operates when working properly.”

    And part of it was that the Trump narrative:
    1. Came a little too close to openly appealing to the collective interests of the White community, while
    2. Openly pursuing the interests of certain semitic supremacist regime in Palestine, without the customary obfuscating layers of neocon/ shitlib pilpul.

    The road we’re headed down ends in the dark dream of every evil degenerate: legalized pedophilia.

    You mean “healing the world from the ancient scourge of anti-pedophism,” you ignorant pedophobe. By the way, the preferred term is “minor-attracted person” in the current year.

    There is no peak clownworld, when it happens something yet worse will be waiting in the shadows.

    No way. The “slippery slope” is clearly a fallacy because reasons.

    *Though it’s interesting to note that the State/ CIA/ non-Gentile organization complex had been considering feminism as an important element of the marketing campaign for semitic imperialism at least as early as 2010:

    **OK, this wasn’t really a prominent part of the marketing campaign — just an indisputable consequence of the replacement of the Taliban with the, uh., brave defenders of human rights democracy and their US supporters.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  105. @Jimmy le Blanc

    One of Trump’s biggest blunders was listening to that Kardashian whore and cutting prison time for black felons.

    You spelled “Kushner” wrong. You’re welcome.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/21/jared-kushner-criminal-justice-reform
    https://time.com/5577434/jared-kushner-criminal-justice-reform-lessons/
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/24/trump-kushner-criminal-justice-snub-1507285

    Incidentally, while Jared claimed that he was driven by the purest of motives to promote the pro-crime agenda — a selfless desire to tikkun the kushim — it’s well known that his primary motivation was actually a desire to keep semitic criminals like his father* from being punished for their crimes.

    *Who was convicted for, not only a typical semitic financial fraud scheme, but for witness intimidation as well — he hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, filmed the resulting encounter, and sent the video to his sister. A real stand-up guy.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  106. @Sepp

    By continually muddying the waters of every debate, they have made it impossible for their opposition to come to any kind of consensus about any current, or even historical, event.

    You are doing precisely that by buying wholesale into every fruitcake conspiracy theory on the market. Getting people simply to reconsider the standard holocaust narrative is an uphill battle enough, but geniuses like you have evidently concluded that the best way around that hurdle is to concurrently yammer on about “the moon landings hoax.” This tendency should be the first indication that someone is either a fraud or simply unserious.

    It doesn’t really matter anyway, since holocaust revision, even when it’s taken seriously, doesn’t perform as advertised. There’s nothing preventing people from pointing out – quite rightly – that, whatever revisions may be required, the series of events that have come down to us as “the holocaust” remain a useful tool for teaching tolerance.

    • LOL: simple mind
    • Replies: @Sepp
  107. As with gay marriage and the war on woke, I believe there is a moral and ideological rectitude in opposing abortion. I believe there are unfortunate circumstances when it can be a medical necessity, but I personally object to it as an automatic and universal “right” purely on matters of taste, decency, and demographics, since the universalizing of abortion contributes to a deadening atmosphere of cultural sterility and is, like widespread tolerance of sexual deviance, an apathetic and depressing hallmark of a society in steep decline.

    Most objections ultimately come down to “abortion has negative effects on the culture” because on the direct effects of abortion itself the pro-life side has lost the debate. The women getting abortions are exactly those women we don’t want having children.

  108. @HeebHunter

    https://biblehub.com/zechariah/12-7.htm

    Jerusalem will be Attacked

    6 On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among the sheaves; they will consume all the peoples around them on the right and on the left, while the people of Jerusalem remain secure there.

    7 The LORD will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and of the people of Jerusalem may not be greater than that of Judah.

    8 On that day the LORD will defend the people of Jerusalem, so that the weakest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD going before them.…

    https://biblehub.com/zechariah/8-23.htm

    The Restoration of Jerusalem

    22 And many peoples and strong nations will come to seek the LORD of Hosts in Jerusalem and to plead before the LORD.”

    23 This is what the LORD of Hosts says: “In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue will tightly grasp the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’”

    Believe God and His prophecy!

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  109. @Mefobills

    All of the time limits are still there, but it has to be pleaded by “affirmative defense”. The legal presumptions got reversed, hence the institution of “default judgments”. The concept of waivers and estoppel was introduced, that defenses could be waived or protections “estopped”, and opposition “defaulted”.

    People are just lazy and stupid and refuse to get involved. Which is fair, because we have the right to be lazy, but in real life it causes a lot of harm. What difference does “debt” makes when there is an automatic exemption from levy? Right now you have to fill in the right form and tell the Sheriff or the Court that an exemption is being claimed, instead of automatically applied as it should. Hard wiring will cure many ills

    Hard wiring the “rules” into the system will be a huge leap forward someday

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Mefobills
  110. @James Forrestal

    It’s not about a “pro crime” agenda at all, it’s that the legal system became very abusive in America. The police state is not a free state at all, it is outrageous and violent tyranny. The State is the injured party remember so that changed the whole format and the expected outcome. Most “crimes” are just prohibitions now.

  111. @James Forrestal

    the Trump narrative:

    1. Came a little too close to openly appealing to the collective interests of the White community, while

    2. Openly pursuing the interests of certain semitic supremacist regime in Palestine

    IOW it made a lot of (narrative) sense because the two are nearly identical, but it made no PRACTICAL sense at all because there is no such thing as the “White Community”. It’s like you can’t handle being a continental civilisation spanning the oceans and would rather become a struggling minority hanging on to the past.

    Ok, you got your wish…maybe the roles will reach full reversal in the near future. The magatard is a dying species anyway

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  112. @simple mind

    More Old Testament. Daily reminder: for the murder and rejection of Jesus Christ, ALL kikes who haven’t repent and accept the Savior of Man in their heart now exist only as children of Satan. The covenant to the kikes is broken after countless inquities against God.

    All kikes are going to hell, as part of being satanic gypsy parasites.

    • Replies: @FloridaManAtHome
  113. lol. You can’t possibly be as “simple” as you pretend to be.

    Of course it’s a pro-crime agenda. President Kushner very much resented that his father had to go to prison for his crimes — as if he were some sort of goy peon or something. And of course, Jared’s motivation for letting thousands of Black violent criminals out of prison was not his supposed “unbounded love for the poor schvartzes who dindu nuffin,” but a desire to achieve ever-higher levels of anarcho-tyranny as a tool of control for systemic tribalism.

    The pro-crime/ anti-police/ anti-white narrative was not some sort of “grass roots,” “emergent,” or “viral phenomenon,” as so many teevee believers assume — and as you so naively (or disingenuously) imply — but was top-down from the start. The long-discredited “violent Black career criminal OD’s on fentanyl — clearly it must be the fault of the nearest White man” canard was unanimously shilled by all of the major semitic narrative promotion agencies for months on end. They all did their best to incite the antifa/ BLM riots, ignoring the associated looting, arson, and murder. And they did not hesitate to fire any of their minions who showed the slightest sign of deviating from the party line.

    Just about every major corporation openly supported the notorious anti-White hate group “BLM,” and the associated riots — not only verbally, but financially, giving billions to a group whose fundraising was directed by a jewish communist terrorist bomber. They did this solely out of the goodness of their hearts and their sincere desire to help these alleged “brave rebels against the establishment,” of course…

    And of course, “our” elected leaders literally kneeled to show their blind allegiance to the hegemonic anti-White narrative:

    And where would they be without the near-unanimous support of the structures of semitic supremacism?

    Of course, most minimally-informed people realize that the establishment-sponsored BLM/ antifa riots and the associated anti-White blood libels were intended to incite violent crime and to stoke anti-White hatred — as a campaign of stochastic terrorism leading to attacks such as the Waukesha Massacre, where a hate-crazed, virulently anti-White BLM terrorist named Darrel Brooks murdered 6 and maimed 60.

    But what many don’t appreciate is that, while this organized campaign of vitriolic hate propaganda and violent attacks was directed at all Whites, it was not aimed at all of law enforcement — just local/ municipal police. Go to a BLM/ antifa riot with a “defund the FBI” or “defund the ATF” sign and see how long you last…

    See, the centralized police state is not “abusive” at all, goy. It’s good for you. Everyone knows that the feebs are the good guys — it says so on the teevee. It’s only the municipal “police state” that is very bad and “White supreemist racist.” Because uh, you know, reasons. Of course, it makes sense that the feebs would be much less “racist” than the average municipal police force — because they have a much higher percentage of Blacks among their agents, right?

    • Thanks: S
  114. Sepp says:
    @silviosilver

    While the Jew muddies the water of a comments thread with accusations of moon hoaxery, he accuses you of muddying the water.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  115. Sanjay. says:

    This article describes the transformation of a traditional Group Selected Christianity to a contemporary Individually Selected version, aka Libertarian/Rosenbaumist Christianity. What I find interesting is how contemporary Europeans’ appeal for this new version of Christianity adds weight to the body of evidence that modern Europeans have genetically evolved towards a state of Individual Selectivity. Contemporary Christianity does not view its deities as the deities of the race that are looking out for its ethnic interests, but rather as deities that have personal relationships on an individual basis with each human organism. The deities are believed to not require any effort by the followers, except to sincerely accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Thus, followers are not required to be altruistic/ethnocentric or to work hard. If current Europeans are indeed now Individually Selected and possess relatively low altruism/ethnocentrism, as well as low Industriousness, then a religion that allows for Psychopathology (low altruism plus laziness) would appeal to the European masses.
    _____________________________

    Here is my response to another article by Mr. Joyce:

    I value these historical accounts of the behavioral interactions between Europeans and the Ashkenazim; it helps me visualize the changing genetic-evolutionary scaffolds upon which European behaviors are based. In this case, we have a situation in which even after the historical knowledge of almost two thousand years of hostile Ashkenazi ethnic competition, the British Europeans still have allowed the Ashkenazim to live within their national borders. As your article describes, the Ashkenazim are engaging in evolutionary healthy behaviors, but it’s the British that have been behaving in a maladaptive way due to possessing insufficient levels of Group Selectivity. I, with just my mediocre intelligence, can clearly observe the genetic incompatibility of Europeans and the Ashkenazim, yet the British people of the 1800s could not. The typical British person at that time had a level of ‘g’ far higher than mine, therefore the issue would have to do with their personality profile.

  116. Mefobills says:
    @simple mind

    Debt instruments grow exponentially and make claims against nature. The growth is a linear mathematical progression. Nature is cyclical. Natural growth curves are only exponential in infancy and then plateau during maturity.

    Making time linear, imposing creditor rules through Kritarchy, are typical of the Jewish world view, which is in rebellion.

    • Replies: @simple mind
  117. I’ve always viewed it in the latter sense, and it’s a useful shorthand for the unending stream of failures by the mainstream Right. From immigration to gay marriage and the “war on Woke,” the conservative bloc has an innate talent not only for giving ground in its various culture wars, but for somehow reinterpreting or dissembling concession as an advance in a different direction.

    But the ‘Mainstream Left’ has been losing as well. In fact, the ONLY winners are Jewish Supremacists. Conservatism has been eroded of all meaning, but so has Liberalism under Jewish Control. Liberalism used to mean being open-minded and skeptical about concentrated power. Now, liberality among so-called ‘liberals’ rings hollow because the shill-libs are in cahoots with the Deep State and shill for more controls and censorship. ‘Liberals’, just like ‘Conservatives’, have betrayed their core values. The only winners are Jews because both betrayals, Liberal and Conservative, serve Jewish Power.
    Now, some will argue that Liberalism Inc. has gained a lot more than Conservatism Inc., but those are brands, not principles. So much of what goes by the label of ‘liberalism’ isn’t liberal, just like so much of what goes by ‘conservatism’ isn’t conservative. Even if we agree that Liberalism Inc. has gained predominance, it’s in the service to globalist supremacism of Jews, not to uphold principles of liberalism or leftism. Bernie Sanders represents the so-called leftist wing of the Democratic Party, but look how far he got. The moment he showed any sign of traction, the entire power structure united against him. Tulsi Gabbard’s anti-war stance echoed certain progressive voices in the past, but she was shut out of debates and smeared as a puppet of Putin and Assad(aka ‘butcher of Syria’).

    At the heart of “the conservative problem” is the issue of inclusion versus exclusion, and the fact the conservative bloc, wherever in the West it is found, leads its voter base on the same merry dance to defeat by endlessly hinting at the promise of exclusionary politics while bringing only an expansion to the “inclusive” state. This overwhelmingly takes the form of attracting votes by promising exclusionary action on immigration; retreating from this promise; then playing sleight of hand by trumpeting an advance in the direction of an “inclusive” economy.

    One thing for sure, both ‘mainstream liberals’ and ‘mainstream conservatives’ are totally for the exclusion of Palestinians from foreign policy discourse. So, the problem isn’t really about ‘inclusion’ vs ‘exclusion’. It’s about submission to Jewish Power. It’s about appeasing Jewish Supremacism. If indeed Liberalism is triumphant and pushes INCLUSION over EXCLUSION, why are so-called the ‘blue states’ excluding BDS in government jobs, programs, contracts, and etc.? Why are so-called ‘liberals’ mostly silent about universities silencing BDS speakers and movements?

    If Liberalism Inc. is really about ‘inclusion’, how come it is totally okay with excluding white working class voices, which once used to be the bedrock of the Democratic Party? How come Liberalism Inc. is now pro-tranny and for excluding feminist voices who, like J.K. Rowling, insists that men with wigs are not women? If Liberalism Inc. is about ‘inclusion’, how come it ignores Muslim views on globo-homo and ‘gay marriage’? How come it insists upon ALL groups ‘including’ the globo-homo curriculum while ignoring the mostly anti-homo views and values of most cultures? Compulsory ‘inclusion’ of globo-homo agenda and ‘exclusion’ of critics of various cultures.

    If US under Liberalism is really about INCLUSION UBER EXCLUSION, then the principle would apply generally to all facets of life and discourse. But not only are Palestinian voices excluded from the official debate but anyone who dissents is shut out as well. Whether white, black, brown, or yellow, you will be sidelined if you dare to support BDS.
    Jewish Power compels Democrats and Republicans to EXCLUDE Palestinian concerns and pro-Palestinian sympathies. And both sides comply totally. If EXCLUSION is ‘conservative’, then US is surely ultra-conservative and ultra-right-wing on the issue of BDS and Palestinian justice.

    From a historical viewpoint, it’s problematic to push the traditionalist-conservative line in America given its history. After all, the US was created by forcing red savage natives to INCLUDE white conquerors and settlers in the New World. It was an offer the reds couldn’t refuse. Also, it was whites who, from the very beginning, imported hundreds of thousands of black jungle savages into America and then encouraged them to have lots of kids because each new child was a valuable slave. Given that whites forcibly INCLUDED all these blacks in the colonies and that US was founded on principles of liberty and equal rights, for how long could blacks be kept as slaves and denied equal footing under the law?

    Besides, given that US defined itself as a revolutionary and future-driven civilization in contrast to traditional Europe that, even until World War I, was largely dominated by kings and noblemen, of course the American meaning of conservatism was going to differ from the European kind. In Europe, it meant preservation of the power of kings, noblemen, clergy, and etc. In the US, ‘conservatism’ came to mean the preservation of the very engines of liberty, equality, progress, and development. We see this in the Western movie, often considered a conservative genre. But, what do Western heroes do? They defeat Indians and/or outlaws to tame the wilderness and open it to progress and development.
    Also, once Anglos conquered the vast territories, they simply didn’t have enough people for rapid development to exploit the resources. This meant Anglos had to ‘include’ non-Anglo Europeans from Southern and Eastern Europe, the kind of backward whites that Anglos and Germanics generally frowned upon. And Japanese were brought to Hawaiian sugar cane plantations and Chinese were put to work on railroad tracks.

    [MORE]

    Of course, there were varying degrees of resistance to mass immigration from the settled Americans. Many Anglos had anxieties about drunken Irish Papists who cussed and fought too much. The Anglos and Irish were often repulsed by Polacks(for being dumb) and Italians(for being greasy). During World War I, Anglos were paranoid about German-Americans who came under suspicion followed by persecution and were pressured to ‘assimilate’ fully into Anglo-American culture. (Craven German-Americans caved even though it was the treacherous Anglo World that waged war on Germany.) White Americans opposed mass Chinese immigration. And even though blacks were here before the arrival of immigrant-Americans, they were excluded from much of American Life, giving the lie to the professed principles of Americanism. But, because US was both a race-ist expansion of European civilization and an economic powerhouse obsessed with growth & expansion, there were increasing tensions between stronger identity and more industry. But then, could United States have secured its position in the world without industrial growth that relied increasingly on mass immigration in the late 19th century?

    Historian Stephen Prothero wrote back in 2016 that “conservatives almost always lose, because they lash themselves to lost causes.”

    Conservatives are bound to lose in a civilization committed to progress. Also, in any healthy forward-moving civilization, conservatism has to lose in the long run. (What was once new, in time, becomes the old and ‘conservative’, which then must be replaced by something newer and better, until it too becomes the old and ‘conservative’ to be replaced by yet more progress. The problem is what is often sold as ‘progress’ is anything but. So much of what carries the conceit of ‘progress’ is really a step backward or step into insanity. Also, American
    Conservatism has a point in preserving the very engine of progress. It’s like conserving the goose that lays the golden egg. Don’t fix it if it’s not broken. Problem is so many attempts to ‘fix’ the system only makes it worse, like the Great Society programs. On the other hand, no system is perfect and can always be improved.) Until the rise of the Western Ideal of progress, conservatism was the only game in town for the world. Ancient Egypt was ultra-conservative. China and India reached certain milestones and then hardly changed at all beyond what they deemed to be their zenith of power and achievement. Byzantine and Persian Empires were super-conservative. Those civilizations held that all great truths and wisdoms had been realized/revealed and established, usually in some golden age in the past. Therefore, the duty of man was not to seek out new ideas and discoveries but to maintain Timeless Truths and Iron Laws. Even in Western Science, it was taken for granted for the longest time that Aristotle, the greatest genius of all time, had provided all the answers that were to be learned than challenged.

    Such was the state of affairs for all of humanity. But something happened in Western Europe, especially following the Renaissance. It began in Northern Italy but gained increasing momentum in France, Britain, and Netherlands, later to be followed by Germany. It was the idea that mankind could be on the trajectory of ever new discoveries, findings, possibilities, and etc. It could be by adventure, technology, science, arts & creativity, philosophy, and political experimentation.

    In other words, because mankind is limited in knowledge and ability, it’d be presumptuous to claim humanity has arrived at the final truth or prophecy, the ultimate answer. Instead, mankind is forever on the path of discovery and realization. According to the ideal of progress, the notion of timeless wisdom is a form of hubris. Even when mankind feels it has figured out the answer, there are more questions and riddles to be solved. The quest never ends.

    Of course, conservatism also makes a claim of humility, i.e. it is in the reverence for God or respect for the ancient wisdom that they reject the perfectibility of man, the conceit of ‘presentism’, and the reckless Faustian impulse. In other words, the ultimate truth embraced by conservatism is not of man’s pride but man’s limitations before the ultimate power of God or the vast expanse of history. Thus, conservatism tends to suppress tendencies toward impatience, the urge to push the envelope, the temptation to eat from the Tree of Forbidden Knowledge or open the Pandora’s Box.

    But then, progressives could counter that their position is the one rooted in true humility because humanity, in any given moment in history, can only know so much, therefore, it must be followed by new studies, discoveries, and experiments in order for mankind to incrementally arrive at bigger truths. This is true enough in science and technology.
    When the West met the East, the latter was so sure that it had amassed all the wisdom, knowledge, power, and wealth it could ever want or need. The ancient sages in the Golden Ages had long ago figured out the timeless truths; therefore, Chinese only needed to study and honor Confucius and ponder the Tao. As for Western gadgets and tools, sure they may be clever and interesting, but Chinese had more than they needed and had no use for foreign devil stuff. Chinese may have thought themselves full of humility before their ancestors and vaunted sages, but they were also full of hubris in thinking that China had reached a level of civilization where no further change was necessary, welcome, or useful.

    In contrast, the West came to believe in ceaseless progress. It believed that there was more knowledge, better methods, and deeper understanding yet to be realized in the future. Therefore, they opted for more change and progress, indeed a matter of fierce competition among those vying to be the Great Powers. And the results were indeed spectacular. Consider the changes in science/technology between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. And between World War I and World War II. Look at the computer revolution in the past few decades.

    So, given the West’s investment in progress, of course conservatism is bound to lose out. It’s because a system committed to progress and change cannot sit still or believe with absolute certainty that what we have in the NOW is FOREVER. No, it believes something better is always possible, just out of reach. Therefore, it is the role of conservatism to lose.
    Now, if conservatism is meant to lose, is it without value? Of course not. It’s useful as a brake, a cautionary lever, a pausing mechanism. After all, everything needs to be paced accordingly. A marathon runner cannot be in speedy mode all the time; at times, he has to slow down. Cars come with brakes. Accelerator gets you to the destination, but the brake is essential in tight spots, uneven terrain, and dangerous areas, like around the cliff. Or if an animal or child runs into the middle of the road.
    Because the Modern West has been committed to change & progress and because its pride and prestige came to rest so much on being ahead of the curve and inventing the future, conservatism is more an instrument(a pausing or slowing mechanism) than an ideal or goal.

    Indeed, what set the West from the Rest? It was the rise of modernity, before which the West wasn’t all that more advanced or dynamic than other parts of the world. In certain respects, Persia, China, and India(and even Arabia) were ahead of the West. But the coming of modernity catapulted the West way past the Rest. It was like a breaking-the-sound-barrier moment. The West somehow broke out of the cycle of history and hurtled from triumph to triumph. Even calamities like the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II couldn’t turn back the tide of progress. By traditional standards, the devastation of something like World War II would have taken centuries to recover from, but the West rose from the rubble and ashes in a matter of decades. Japan(as de facto part of the Modern West) also recovered rapidly after great losses in World War II. Modernity was awesomely productive and rejuvenating.

    Given the West’s invention of and commitment to modernity, it’s only right that conservatism would give way to more progressive and dynamic forces represented by what is called liberalism. Yet, the history of radical leftism demonstrated the need for conservatism as a necessary counterbalance against the over-enthusiasm for change, or revolution.
    The radical left was so fanatically committed to its utopian ‘scientific’ and ‘justice’-driven formula that it adopted the end-justify-means mindset. Any amount of sacrifice in man and material was deemed justified on account of uniting earth and heaven. The result was communist tyranny that failed to create utopia. Do away with the slowing/pausing cautionary measures of conservatism, and radicals will run riot, harming not only conservatives but liberals and finally even themselves.

    The favored formula has been Liberalism-as-accelerator, Conservatism-as-brake. Though liberalism and conservatives are often portrayed as opposites, they are best seen as a partnership, though an uneasy one. Some social orders have been more brake than accelerator and vice versa, but in either case, it’s the reliance on both that have allowed for experimentation and caution. Just like the left side and right side of the brains must be in balance, the liberal impulse for release and conservative insistence on control must work together. Liberalism’s adventurous side is fraught with danger. After all, taking chances means you can break and fall. In contrast, conservatism plays it safe and cautious, sticks to what is familiar and comforting. It has less chance of falling and breaking but faces a danger of its own in the long term: It can grow complacent, unimaginative, and static. Stasis can lead to stagnation. It was conservative Spain that fell beyond the relatively more dynamic France and more liberal Netherlands & Britain. On the other hand, excessive liberalism can lead to rootlessness that leads to deracination.

    Of course, it needs to be pointed out that certain changes are more fundamental than others, therefore to be approached with far more caution and contemplation. For instance, change in fashion amounts to wearing different clothes. It doesn’t change the essential you. In contrast, organ-transplant surgery can save you or fundamentally worsen your condition, even leading to death. Or, in the case of sex-change operation(aka gender-reassignment surgery), it turns you into a freak. Buying a new car is less fundamental than moving to a new home. Changing friends is less drastic than changing spouses. Throwing away your movie collection is less significant than abandoning your children.
    Likewise, liberal experiments are far less problematic with certain matters. For instance, laws can be rewritten and economic policy can be reversed. Even terrible economic experiments may not fundamentally alter a civilization. Communism was very destructive in Russia and China, but both civilizations survived and re-emerged intact. In contrast, there is nothing more fundamental than demographic change. After all, whereas ideology is something in the mind, culture runs much deeper, possibly going back several centuries or even millennia. As for race, it the product of eons of evolution. The European race wasn’t created in the mind but painstakingly brought into existence over tens of thousands of years in the ice ages of Europe. Thus, for the West to experiment by importing other races and pretending that everyone’s interchangeable is an absolute folly. To replace a race with such deep roots in Europe with new peoples based on fashionable ideologies pushed by Jews is the height of craziness. Also, it is to fall for the biggest scam in history because Jews know Diversity is harmful to goy societies. Jews push it because they can play divide-and-rule over goyim and amass power for themselves. Notice Jews push Diversity on goy nations but do all they can to minimize it in Israel.

    At any rate, there is another problem for conservatism in the modern world in its respect, even reverence, for authority. Historically, conservatism was about hierarchy and obedience to one’s superiors, especially in East Asia. It was about dogma and tradition. In contrast, liberalism took shape as mode of thinking in favor of skepticism, individualism, and liberty. Liberalism was far more likely to question authority and examine dogma. Conservative nature craves certitude, order, structure, and routine/repetition. It is far more anxious about change, difference, novelty, and strangeness.

    But here’s the problem. The modern world is dominated by liberalism, therefore Liberal World Order is the authority, the power. So, even as conservatism may not agree with what liberalism has to offer, it is admiring of and even awed by the power and prestige of Liberalist Power. Given this servile and dogmatic side of conservatism, many conservatives end up serving the Liberal Power because it is the biggest show in town. It’s not so much that conservatives are enamored of liberalism per se but that they are entranced by its power and glory.
    And why would it be surprising that liberalism gains more power than conservatism? West shot past the Rest not by being as conservative than the Rest but by being more liberal, more open to change, novelty, innovation, experimentation, and series of revolutions in culture, attitude, fashion, values, economics, and etc. Just like the liberal bourgeoisie soon accumulated far more wealth than the conservative aristocracy, the liberalist tendency was more amenable to creating new systems of progress and productivity.

    Of course, things often got confused because, especially during the Cold War that pitted the capitalist West vs the communist East, the term ‘conservatism’ was often used to describe the liberal democratic capitalist order in its great struggle against the radical leftist communist order. But, there were two reasons for liberal capitalism’s opposition to communism. On the one hand, the latter was too extreme and revolutionary in its goal of egalitarianism and social justice by waging war on capital, private property, individual rights, and economic hierarchy. On the other hand, capitalism opposed communism for being, in more ways than one, overly conservative. After all, Karl Marx, though fully cognizant of capitalism’s revolutionary powers to turn the world upside down, hoped for a more stable and orderly post-capitalist future where, under state-sanctioned equality, people would be able to live without the hellish upheavals of capitalism that accelerated history to an insane level. As years passed, many Western Liberals lost interest in communism not because it was too radical but because it proved to be too conservative, even nationalist and traditionalist in culture and values.

    Despite the ideological rectitude of opposing woke nonsense, it’s essentially true that the issue is already a lost cause. The appropriate time to suffocate the rise of wokeness was years ago, when it was still in its infancy as a niche of left-wing academic nomenclature… conservatives offered tepid opposition to the eruption of transsexualism into public life, especially in the ridiculous use of pronouns… and so on, they were at a loss to offer a meaningful challenge because of concessions already made on homosexuals… And on the homosexuals, conservatives were incapable of serious opposition because of concessions they’d already made around abortion, marriage, and the family, which had in turn created a childless, promiscuous sexual culture more tolerant of the sexually deviant.

    Not necessarily true. One thing doesn’t necessarily lead to another. Also, certain cultural trends were a matter of socio-economic changes beyond the power of ideology. Classic leftism and Old School communists opposed and even denounced stuff like jazz, rock music, youth culture, consumer culture, materialism, and etc. But they, like the social conservatives and church authority, were powerless to stop it. The Old Left despaired of the emergence of the New Left, what Jean-Luc Godard called the ‘generation of Marx and Coca-Cola’. The Left couldn’t stop Rock n Roll, Beatles, and Stones. So, what could conservatives do about it? Post-war capitalist affluence meant bigger houses, more freedom, more liberty for young ones, more hedonism, more fun-fun-fun. Drugs like pot and stronger stuff were criminalized in the Sixties, but changes couldn’t be reversed and the culture got more libertine.

    Some communist nations had abortion and even promoted it. Nominally, communist nations were feminist and into equality between men and women. But they didn’t end up like capitalist nations. The Cultural Revolution in China was hellish and destructive. It was a massive blow against the Old Order, but the end result was very different from social revolutions in the West. If anything, society got more spartan, disciplined, and rigid, not more libertine and loose, in China.

    Also, the conservative failure to oppose stuff like the homo agenda was partly due to conservative psychology. Again, conservatives believe in hierarchy. They are more likely to admire success, wealth, and power. Well, guess what? Homos were more tireless in careerist ambitions to gain success and seek favors with the rich and powerful. So, even rich and powerful conservative men came to be surrounded by homo toadies who proved to be so loyal and attendant. And plenty of servile conservatives began to notice that many of the most intelligent, creative, and connected people were homos in high places. Of course, conservatism can be moralist and/or populist than elitist and servile, but it’s usually the latter kind that climbs up the ladder as power is about kissing ass to be let into the club.

    But the biggest reason was the Protected-Pipsqueak Factor. Jews are the most powerful group in the US and put out the message that homos are their favorite allies. Thus, homos became untouchable. Imagine you’re in attendance at an aristocratic court. Some dog keeps coming near to snap at you and to piss on you. So, you kick it away as a nuisance. And most people at the gathering would be on your side. But suppose the dog happens to be the favorite pet of a powerful prince at the gathering. Then it’s a very a sensitive matter to just kick it away lest the prince take offense. Thus, the ill-behaved dog is a Protected Pipsqueak and has ‘power’ beyond itself in association to the prince.
    Now, while it’s true that homos have long constituted a disproportionately influential and privileged group(even while in the closet), they on their own couldn’t have pushed the agenda that upended the values of the Western World. On their own, they were too pipsqueakish to take over. They needed the favors, backing, and support of a far more powerful group, and of course, it was the Jews.

    Already, Jews had become immensely powerful and used their control of academia, media, and whore politicians to override Free Speech and turn ‘antisemitism’ into a taboo. Jews became not only excessively rich but almost godlike. So, whatever Jews favored and supported got special protection and promotion. There was a time when homos were objects of ridicule even among liberals. In the suburbs were I attended grammar school, the mostly Democratic Jewish kids were always saying “It’s so gay” about everything, and making fun of homos was a favorite sport. The term ‘fag’ was liberally used in popular culture in the 80s, even among Liberals and of course blacks.
    So, what happened? Jews, as the most powerful group, decided to switch from Free Speech and Civil Liberties to Political Correctness and Speech Codes. And almost overnight, tell-tale signs were in place that it would soon go from ‘gay rights’ to Gay Rites, but it didn’t happen overnight but in carefully planned stages.
    Even in the 1990s, Clinton pushed for laws that defined marriage as only between man and woman with overwhelming support from both parties, but it really feint to buy time. Jews were preparing the grounds for massive changes. With every passing year, homos went from figures of sympathy to figures of sacredness. The AIDS crisis was exploited to present homos not as irresponsible sexual perverts but something akin to Holocaust victims. HIV = Homocaust. Rush Limbaugh used to make fun of homos all the time, but he soon read the tea leaves and knew he had to change course. Jews control the media, and his radio spot wouldn’t be so lucrative if he kept mocking homos. The advertisers might leave and then he might even be dropped from talk radio. It didn’t matter how big he was. (By 2020, Jewish Power used Big Tech to deplatform Trump, the president of the US.)

    While it’s true that liberals were more tolerant of homos, they didn’t think very highly of homos either. Liberals were opposed to “God Hates Fags” sentiments and calling homos ‘sodomites’, but they didn’t believe homos were anything special. But then, Jews used media to present homos as better, cleaner, more dignified, more conscientious, more capable, more everything. In time, homos were sacralized as especially tragic victims of ‘homophobia’. So, Liberals who used to tolerate homos came to fetishize them. They were vulnerable in this regard because liberalism, in ostensibly being anti-religious and secular, craves for something spiritual and holy. Then, it’s no wonder that liberal-types are especially open to embracing new gods and new fashions in flakey new age stuff. Now, which group has the power to invent and market new gods? Jews. And just like that, so many liberals came to not only revere homos but to regard LGBTQ as litmus test of who’s on the side of angels and who’s with the devil. So, stuff like ‘love equals love’ and ‘marriage equality’ became the new catechisms, the new sacraments.

    Now, given the absurdity of this all, why were conservatives unwilling to fire back? One reason is many conservatives are materialist and hedonistic, hardly grounded in old time values or morality. But the main factor was that, once the word was out that homos are the best buddies of Jews, conservatives got cold feet about opposing the homo agenda. Homos had the advantage of the Protected Pipsqueak Factor. They were not to be touched as the #1 pets of Jews. So, it wasn’t long before conservatives too accepted the term ‘homophobe’, and, instead of arguing “there is no such thing as homophobia”, they were professing, “I am not a homophobe.” And in time, ‘homophobe’ went from someone who made funny jokes about homos to anyone who said ‘gay marriage’ is wrong or that homo fecal-penetration is objectively gross and unhealthy.

    Even though globo-homo stuff is hardly conservative, the conservative concession follows a certain structuralist logic. Again, a facet of conservatism is about servility to power, obedience to authority, and admiration of privilege. Then, it’s only natural that conservatives would become so servile at the feet of Jews as the ultimate winners and overlords of the New West. In a way, it was a replay of what happened to the Pagan West. Roman Empire decided at some point that some dead Jewish heretic named Jesus is the Son of God, and all of a sudden, pagan Rome turned into Christian Rome. How could the once proud pagan Romans come to worship as the ultimate God some Jewish heretic killed haplessly by ragtag Jews and mighty Romans? Because the Emperor said so, and given most people are sheeple, they just went along. Even when great revolutions happen — the rise of Christianity or the Bolshevik takeover — , the conservative nature tends to cave to the new boss. If one thinks about it, Christianity is hardly a conservative religion. It freaked out conservative Jews, and Jesus preached a very radical message. And yet, once it was made the official faith of the empire, most people caved to it sooner than later, and it became the new official or ‘conservative’ doctrine. Likewise, Marxism-Leninism went from radicalism to the new conservatism in the Soviet Union. Over time, many Russians took to it as the new dogma, new stability, and established order that had arrived at the end of history.

    The globo-homo thing cannot be understood apart from the power of idolatry. It wasn’t ideology alone that pushed it over the top. After all, ideology is about ideas and can be debated. In order to shut down further debate, Jewish Power idolatrized homosexuality to the point where it was no longer a matter of debate but of faith. If you accepted the ‘rainbow’ faith of holy homos, you were with the angels. If you rejected the faith, you were a ‘homophobe’, a demon. But then, the same thing had already happened in regard to Jewish Power. Jews used the Holocaust to sacralize themselves into a holy people. So, one could either accept the Holocaust Faith and worship Jews as an eternally holy people OR be cast out as satanic ‘neo-nazis’ or ‘Anti-Semites’. Notice Jews will not allow any debate on Jewish power and privilege. Jews will shut down anyone who waves the BDS flag or questions the crimes of Zionism.

    The sacralization of Jews and homos(and blacks of course) is NOT liberal. True liberalism is about open debate, civil liberties, free speech, skepticism, and controversy. True liberalism was on display when the West stood with Salman Rushdie against the Iranian fatwa on him. True liberalism defends the right to read MEIN KAMPF and to burn the US flag as protest.

    In contrast, the sacralization of Jews and homos is neo-religious, neo-dogmatic. It is a perversion of both liberalism and conservatism. It perverts liberalism because it goes from discussion of rights to enforcement of Rites. True Liberalism argues Jews and homos should have equal protection under the law. But Jews exploited the sympathy for minorities(persecuted in the past) to enforce reverence for them. So, just because Jews experienced ‘antisemitism’, we must shut up about their power, abuses, and failings. There goes free speech. And because homos were once hidden in the ‘closet’, we must shut up about homo degeneracy and neurosis because such would be demonically ‘homophobic’. Such censoriousness is anti-liberal even as it plays on liberal sympathies for minorities.
    In consecrating Jews and homos as eternal holies, a kind of conservatism is employed. It’s about creating a new hierarchy of what’s holy and unholy. Conservatives love hierarchy, and homos play on the game of high and low. Consider how conservatives love to praise and pledge allegiance to holy and powerful Jews while spitting on Palestinians as a bunch of lowlife losers. And so many conservatives are now professing to love homos because their hierarchical nature sucks up to the powerful, rich, and authoritative.
    But this isn’t real conservatism but a sham perversion because Jews have elevated what is human to divine status. Jews may be a special people but they are not gods. As for homos, it’s one thing to tolerate the gross acts they indulge in but to elevate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting to the point of rapture and redemption? Sickening.

    Endlessly distracted by new salvoes from the Left, conservatives always arrive too late to the fight, and they combine this with a particularly perverse kind of amnesia on prior defeats. The fundamental strategic difference between Left and Right is that the Left is aware that it is weaving a cultural tapestry, linking one threadlike advance to the next in an endless but coherent chain of social change, while the Right is engaged in political whack-a-mole, seeing everything it disagrees with as an isolated trend or event that can be defeated on its own terms or least milked for votes in the promise of such.

    Speaking of amnesia, hasn’t the Left lost as much as the Right has? What happened to communism? Or class conflict? Or labor unions? How far did Bernie Sanders get? Is the so-called Squad winning any favors by calling out on Israel’s unequal treatment of Palestinians? How is it going with BDS? During the Covid ‘pandemic’, the superrich got superricher. So, just how is the Left winning?
    Indeed, the very fact that the so-called ‘left’ is into silly stuff like gender pronouns is proof that the True Left is deader than dead. If the True Left dominated America, its preferred ideological game would be to require everyone to state his income and wealth. So, instead of people stating their gender pronouns, they would revealing how much money they’re making and how much they got in stocks and banks. Wouldn’t it be more threatening to power that way? Imagine a ‘woke’ nobody saying he makes minimum wage at Starbucks and has \$50,000 in student debt while some Jewish start-up tech geek says he rakes in \$10 million a year and has a net worth of \$100 million. Now, that would make people more conscious of power and wealth differences. But if the ‘woke’ dummy says “I’m a bi-sexual” while the tech geek says, “I’m cis-gender though, of late, feeling a bit pan-sexual”, it’s all a silly game and no one comes off realizing the true character of power and privilege.
    The fact that the so-called ‘left’ has been reduced to such trivial pursuits is sure sign that true leftism is dead. If leftism is so alive, why are the rich getting richer without any opposition? Why are Jews, the most powerful and richest people in the world, getting ever richer and more powerful, again with virtually no pushback? I thought leftism is about equality and leveling the playing field. Where is that in the current order? Middle Class gets squeezed while the oligarchs grow richer in places like LA and San Fran. Yet, the ‘left’ is mostly into pink hair, ‘muh tattoo’, celebration of trannies and fatsos.

    Also, keep in mind that the so-called Right pushed for ‘free trade’, deregulation of Wall Street, lionization of capitalist oligarchs, libertarian worship of the rich, and reverence for authority and institutions of power, like the FBI and CIA. All those were ‘rightist’ pet causes. Today, the so-called ‘left’ is totally in cahoots with big money, big power, and the deep state. In other words, the Democrats, especially beginning with Bill Clinton, betrayed all the classic leftist agendas and adopted Republican ones. Not for nothing was Bill Clinton called the ‘most conservative’ president in modern times. On those grounds, one could argue that the Right won because the so-called ‘left’ adopted most of the GOP platform.

    The link between gay marriage and the sudden rise of transsexualism to public prominence is an excellent example of the Right’s addiction to last-minute grandstanding on battles that have already been lost.

    Stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and tranny nuttery are certainly not rightist, but they are not leftist either. They are power-games of ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacism. The utmost power in the US is Jewish. If rightism is about tribalism, then the US is, at its core, ultra-rightist because Jewish Supremacism is the puppet master.
    Why do ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacists employ ‘leftist’ tropes? Because Jewish ultra-rightists see goy rightism as a rival and seek to undermine the rightism of all their perceived ‘enemies’. But it’s also because Jews fear real leftism. Real Leftism, in the name of equality and fairness, would call out Jews as the biggest capitalists, main imperialists, and top racial supremacists. Karl Marx did just that. He discussed Jews and capital. Jewish Power fears true leftism.

    So, Jews hide behind a sham bogus ‘leftism’ to kill two birds with one stone. Jews use it to destroy goy rightism but also to sideline true leftism. By waving stuff like ‘globo-homo’ and BLM as ‘leftism'(when they are not), Jews fire up all the wanna-be-progressive suckers who can’t think on their own to forge a meaningful cogent leftism. Most people are minion-minded and rely on others to do the thinking for them. By pushing faux leftism, true leftist concerns about class inequality and Jewish tyranny over Palestinians get sidelined. Because so many people fall for the BS and take up this faux leftism as their battle cry, they are fired up against goy rightists. This way, goy right is weakened and the true left is marginalized. And that means ultra-right Jewish Supremacism grows ever stronger.

    It’s all about Jewish Power. Take ‘exclusion’ vs ‘inclusion’. If the argument is that conservatives are so weak and lack the balls to enforce ‘exclusion’, how come they’re barking mad in their total support of Zionist policy of excluding Arabs and ONLY ALLOWING JEWISH IMMIGRATION to Israel? If indeed the Right(which is about exclusion) hasn’t the guts to say NO to the Left(which is about inclusion), then why is the Right so aggressive and insistent on Israel’s right to protect its borders and keep out Palestinians who demand right-of-return?
    You see, it’s not about ideology. It’s about idolatry. After all, the American so-called ‘left’ also supports the exclusionary policies of Israel. The Right can’t oppose Inclusion in the US but can for Israel. The Left can say no to Exclusion in the US but can’t for Israel. Funny how that works. The so-called Right caves to Inclusion when it comes to the US, and the so-called Left caves to Exclusion when it comes to Israel. There’s no real ideology here. It’s about Jewish Power as the top gangster in the US, and so, both parties more or less suck up to Jews and do their supremacist bidding.

    American conservatism’s commitment to a tactically disastrous emphasis on individualism is undoubtedly connected in some form to the peculiar trajectory and position of American Christianity, or rather, varieties of American Post-Protestantism.

    The problem with individualism is atomization, but the real problem with the white race, ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, is that they are woefully lacking in individualist impulses and agency. The Covid hysteria amply exposed the Myth of White Individuality. True, the White West produced many great individuals, many more than any other civilization. But it was misleading to conflate the notable individuality of certain key figures with the general population. Most white people were conformists, human cattle or dogs or schools of fish. A bunch of church ladies, bleacher bums, mindless fans, or insipid cultists.
    Indeed, conservatism wouldn’t be in this mess IF individualism really mattered among those on the Right. Many more individuals would have been bolder in stating their views and standing their grounds. But instead, we so often see herd mentality, conformism, and fear of disapproval. Indeed, even most so-called libertarians are weak individualists. Their idea of individualism mainly comes in two flavors: Let me use whatever drugs I want so I can escape reality OR I worship the rich and powerful as the most awesome people on earth who deserve to do whatever they wish, even gaining monopoly power and abusing it to shut out entire peoples.

    Just like a healthy social order needs both liberalism and conservatism, a strong sense of community must be built on strong sense of individuality. We mustn’t see individuality and community as opposites. Rather, we must regard strong individuality as ideal building blocks for a strong community. Indeed, even a strong-seeming community can crumble without a network of strong individualities. A hard shell filled with iron pellets is sounder than a hard shell filled with Styrofoam pellets. The former is tough on the outside and inside whereas the latter is tough only on the outside.

    If the community is based on conformism and obedience(or weak individuality), all you need to do is change the elites and the masses will follow. Jews as a people and community survived for so long against great odds because their community is built on strong individuality. Even when Jews are dispersed and broken in community, each Jew is likely to be stronger in his individual will and conviction. Thus, he is less likely to yield to the larger goy community and instead bide for time to regroup with fellow Jews to rebuild the community. In contrast, Germans have lacked strong individuality. So, when National Socialism came to power, they were totally under its spell. But when it collapsed, those in East Germany became loyal servants to communism while those in West Germany became cucks to ‘muh democracy’. And German-Americans caved to Anglo-America during World War I even though it didn’t do anything wrong.

    American religion has long been preoccupied with the idea of a God who loves the individual, and the salvation of the American Christian, especially the Protestant, does not arrive communally via the congregation but via direct confrontation with a very personal Jesus.

    But Christianity in its original incarnation is an individualist faith. Jesus was a Jew with great individual will to break free of the Tribe. He did it His way. Also, He believed that each person must struggle within himself to be cleansed of sinfulness to gain entry into Heaven. You can’t be saved simply by belonging to a tribe or carrying out rituals. You must cleanse your own soul as an individual. And no one can do it for you. YOU must do it yourself. In this sense, Protestantism is closer to the original spirit of Jesus’s example and message. The real problem is few Protestants have anything like individual souls. Notice all those Evangelicals who never question the mindless support of Israel that puts on massive homo parades and stomps on Palestinian Christians. The real problem with Christianity is it makes hypocrites of its believers because it’s teachings are too lofty and impossible to live up to. How many can ‘turn the other cheek’ or give away all of one’s wealth to the poor and live in noble poverty?

    Related to the ideological insistence on the individual is the conservative commitment to the fundamental principle of inclusion — a bias that taints all conservative political activity. In an interesting Newsweek piece titled “Why Conservatives Keep Losing the Culture Wars,” … conservatives are inherently incapable of doing the difficult but necessary work of introducing exclusionary policies, and their reluctance to even debate or discuss even the potential of such policies keeps the option of exclusion from the public eye; thus ensuring certain defeat in any culture war.

    This goes to show how terminology affects the way we think. After all, ‘inclusion’ can be a euphemism for invasion. Spanish Conquistadors could say they didn’t invade South America. They just ensured that they would be ‘included’ in the New World. Or, African invader-migrants and white cuck-collaborators can pretend that White Nakba(or Great Replacement) isn’t about invasion but about ‘inclusion’. Though ‘inclusion’ can mean lots of things, positive and negative, it is often used to sweeten the sting of invasion. So, early Zionist immigrants pretended they were just being ‘included’ into Palestinian society when their ultimate goal was to carry out Nakba pogroms and replace the native Arab inhabitants. For this reason, we need to counter with the slogan ‘Inclusion Is Invasion’.

    Of course, ‘inclusion’ does have a nicer ring than ‘exclusion’. It sounds more open, generous, and kindly whereas ‘exclusion’ implies fear, anxiety, and stinginess. And it is true enough that a society should be inclusive in certain regards. The old aristocracy excluded the masses from possessing what are now considered basic human rights. At the outset of the American Republic, only 20% of white men could vote while the rest were excluded. It was only with Andrew Jackson that US became something like a ‘democracy’.
    In an ethno-state, inclusion would essentially be a good thing. It would mean all the people of the nation would be treated as members of a large family and included in power, discussion, and formation of policy. But under globalism, ‘inclusion’ has dark connotations because it suggests the West(and the developed world in general) should include masses of foreigners as New Nationals, which can only lead to Neo-Nakba scenarios where whites end up like Palestinians.

    Nationalists should welcome intra-inclusion while rejecting inter-inclusion. Include all those within the national family but exclude the masses of other nations, but also be sure to respect the rights of other nations to decide their own character and destiny.
    The problem of recent history has been that Western Imperialism and then Western Globalism stuck their noses into every corner of the world militarily, financially, culturally, and even demographically(look how whites utterly changed the landscape of the New World). In other words, modern Western History is about white people forcing all the world to ‘include’ white invasion, white interference, white exploitation, and etc. Blacks didn’t sail to the New World. White people brought millions of blacks to North/South America and West Indies. Blacks didn’t ask to be ‘included’ in the Western Imperialist enterprise. Whites insisted that blacks be ‘included'(as slaves). Britain insisted that its enterprises be ‘included’ in China.
    Sir Oswald Moseley may have rebuked British economic policy of the 20th century, but British pride and glory were inseparable from its imperial exploits of having forced much of the world to ‘include’ British intervention. I suspect part of the reason why UK, France, and Holland are so into multi-culti stuff is due to their imperial legacy. Having lost their empires, they’ve sought to restore imperial semblances within their own nations. So, make UK look like a mini-version of the British Empire. But then, given Sweden is into the same madness, maybe it owes more to Americanization of European ideology or Jewish influence to subvert white identity so as to gain control over whites via ‘white guilt’, diversity-fetish, ‘muh restaurant’, and jungle fever.

    Another aspect to the politics of ‘inclusion’ is subtler in its speciousness bordering on venality. It is really to mask the fact that the current elites practice their own form of exclusion but justify it on account of ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’. After all, Jews and most white cuck elites feel ZERO sympathy for the white hoi polloi. They love their own wealth, status, and privilege. They don’t care one iota about all the dead working class from opioids. Like Charles Murray said in COMING APART, the rich part of White America constitutes a world of its own and has the most hostile and exclusionary attitude toward white lower elements, aka MAGA folks. Of course, these elites also exclude poor browns, lower income blacks, and the rest. They are snotty, vain, and oh-so-precious in their attitude. They believe they are ‘more evolved’ and, in a way, the globo-homo stuff caught like wildfire among the elites precisely because homos are so terribly elitist, fancy-pants, hoity-toity, narcissistic, and neo-aristo. By celebrating globo-homo, the elites could have the cake and eat it too. As it was labeled as ‘leftist’, they could flatter themselves as ‘progressive’. All the while, they could bask in the undeniable whiteness and privileged character of globo-homo, mainly funded by super-rich Jews and enforced by well-placed Zio-Commissars in media and law firms.

    But these vain stuck-up elitists also use the ‘diversity’ card and Negrolatry to lord over the white hoi polloi. They regard themselves as so ‘tolerant’ and ‘anti-racist’, unlike all those ‘white trash’ and especially the ‘rednecks’ in the South. And such attitude has a long pedigree. Consider the novel UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. It was unsurprisingly written by a Northern woman with no direct knowledge of the reality in the South. And this tradition carries on today with Stephen King who spent most of his life in whitopia where he could cook up Magic Negroes of his dreams. It’s a kind of paradox. White ‘anti-racism’ or ‘inclusionary’ attitude toward blacks is usually inversely proportional to direct white experience of blackness. Generally, two kinds of whites are most pro-black: Those who are safely distanced from black thuggery & pathologies and those who are at the center of them. People like Stephen King in their affluent whitopias can dream of magical blacks full of folksy wisdom, and whites who are stuck in black gangsta paradise have no means of survival but as ‘whiggers’. Whigger white males ape black males, and whigger white females accept ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. They talk and act like biatches and produce mulattos from between their legs, often fathered by various black men. Whigger mentality is kind of like Stockholm Syndrome. If the likes of Stephen King are the way they are due to naivete and lack of contact with reality, the whiggers are that way due to too much reality, one from which they can’t escape because (1) they are too low IQ, like many ‘white trash’ elements left behind in Baltimore and (2) white society as a whole has given up on white solidarity. In the past, even affluent and middle class whites believed they should maintain some semblance of united identity and solidarity with poor whites(like the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH). Today, only Jews among whites are allowed to maintain racial-tribal sense of solidarity. Indeed, rich Jews are praised for caring for poor Jews or vulnerable Jews in West Bank. But any rich white guy who expresses concern for poor whites is slammed as a ‘racist’. It’s noteworthy that Donald Trump’s populism was fired by the sense among the white hoi polloi that here finally was a white leader who cared for white masses. But even if Trump personally felt that way(which is dubious), he mostly muttered about how he created more jobs for blacks and nonwhites(and of course how he went out of his way to suck Zionist manhood).
    Rich whites in ‘blue’ suburbs can weep and groan about ‘saintly’ George Floyd because they live in security and prosperity. They can fantasize about or even indulge in washing Negro feet because their asses aren’t kicked by it. The only reality they know is the safety of whitopia, which might have some nice well-heeled token Negroes, further lending the impression that Negroes are nice — the socio-economic class filter tends to elevate the better Negroes up the ladder, which means rich whites deal with the likes of Barry Obama than with the likes of Mike Tyson.
    Their other ‘reality’ comes by the way of highly biased and selective Jewish-dominated academia and media that, to this day, go on and on about Emmett Till and MLK, as if the US is caught in some groundhog day of recurring Civil Rights Movement when, if anything, it has changed so much since then. Harking back to Emmett Till is like Christians, even with supreme power and tyrannical rule over others, re-enacting the death of Jesus and stories of Early Christians fed to lions. The legacy of Christian Sanctimony that eternalizes nobility of a moment in time has had a most pernicious impact on history.

    Of course, despite all the bias and censorship, some truth does leak out to privileged and well-sheltered whites about black crime and thuggery. But, two factors prevent white elites from facing the music. One is fear. As they fear being called ‘racist’ and fear black rage(as blacks get awful aggressive, demanding, and violent real easily), they would rather pretend that blacks are still a victim race in need of white sympathy and assistance. They hide their white cowardice with postures of white magnanimity. Another factor is the power of narrative that contextualizes raw reality. So, even if white elites do become aware of black thuggery and violence, they contextualize them as black rage/resistance against ‘systemic racism’ or ‘history of discrimination’. (Besides, the usual victims of black rage are lower income whites and immigrants, not rich whites.)
    But seriously, if blacks were smaller and weaker than whites, would this problem even exist? Isn’t black thuggery more the product of evolution than slavery? How serious would the black problem be if whites had brought over only Pygmies than big tough Negroes from Nigeria? But then, the American South also deserves blame as it was incapable of speaking honestly about blacks. The South should have said racial equality is impossible with blacks because they are tougher and more aggressive. Social equality would only lead to black biological thug-supremacy over whites. Not only would black males beat up white guys but use their bigger dongs to turn white women onto jungle fever and colonize white wombs. Imagine how US history could have been different if Woodrow Wilson had spoken along these lines, especially as an admirer of D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION that warned the white race along those lines(and proved to be prophetic). Or imagine how things could have been different if Southern States had come to an understanding with the race-ist Abraham Lincoln who wanted blacks out of the US. Lincoln and Southern States could have agreed to a program of gradually ending slavery and shipping blacks back to Africa or some place in South America. But nope, the Southerners insisted on keeping their dreaded institution that relied so heavily on blacks.

    Recently, some snobby bitch at Davos conference said the elites of the world are in mutual agreement and understanding. The problem is the national masses are increasingly hostile to these elites. (This is hardly surprising as most globalist elites are shills of the Lone Superpower, the US, which is dominated by Jews. In the US, its satellites, and its puppets, individuals with traits for consensus, conformism, obedience, and opportunism are favored up the ladder. As they’re mostly career-oriented, their priority is to serve the global hegemon than represent the particular demands of their own national folks. No wonder the elites the world over care more about globo-homo and BLM than about their own peoples and their problems. The more globalism advances, the more the elites prioritize appeasing the the world hegemon than serving their own people who increasingly seem ‘provincial’ and ‘atavistic’ for those accustomed to their globe-trotting privileges.) And I’m sure that the elites believe they are indeed for ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ because their ranks are open to different races. If in the past the European Empires were ruled mostly by Europeans, today the elite positions in institutions and industries are open to blacks/Africans, Hindus, Chinese/East Asians, Arabs/Muslims, Latin Americans of all stripes, and etc. Yet, even if elite realms are racially and culturally more ‘inclusive’, they are more exclusive than ever in class terms(except when it comes to blacks who benefit from affirmative action, but then, AA policies also favor rich blacks from privileged backgrounds over talented & industrious whites from lower classes).

    In a way, this emphasis on racial diversity is to serve as moral cover for class exclusion. Increasingly, the modern world is divided between haves and have-nots. With each passing year, the upper classes get richer while the middle class shrinks and the poor are sinking into the abyss. So, how does the rich class justify its power and privilege? It points to nonwhites among its ranks and says, “We are so inclusive while those white hoi polloi are Sooooo Very Raaaaaacist by calling for xenophobic border security and complaining about black crime.” Of course, it’s a matter of perspective. For white elites, more nonwhite immigrants mean more peons and cheap hirelings, whereas masses of newcomers mean more competition for the white masses(and blacks as well, though blacks haven’t even been trying to compete). For super-rich Jews especially and the likes of Bill Gates, all those Hindu professionals mean cheaper high-tech labor. For white middle class, they mean more competition.
    But then, as the white middle class folks are educated in Jewish-controlled academia and get their ‘reality’ from Jewish-controlled media(and as they are so anxious for status approval), many of them also fall for the dominant narrative, as do the dog-like yellows.

    UK is a perfect illustration of the use of racial diversity by the elites to rob the masses of moral advantage. In the distant past, British elites used class politics to feel superior to the masses. Supposedly, the upper castes/classes were superior in intelligence, culture, manners, and the like. And the lower classes existed to serve their superiors, and to attain middle class respectability, they had to learn manners by emulating social superiors. But the industrial revolution radicalized many working folks, and there was also the influence of socialism. So, the moral advantage moved to the Left and the Labour Party that championed the white working class as the productive backbone of society. It was in this period that the upper classes were up against the ropes by Working Class politics that gained the moral advantage.
    So, how could the upper classes regain their sense of superiority over the working classes? How about turning Leftist Politics from one of class to one of race? Instead of upper classes exploiting and excluding the lower classes, the new narrative would focus on whites exploiting and excluding nonwhites? If the upper classes pushed for mass immigration of nonwhites and coddled them in the name of ‘diversity’, they would win plaudits in the new order where ‘racist’ became a worse slur than ‘bourgeois’. And if the white working class objected to mass immigration, they could be accused not only of ‘racism’ but ‘xenophobia’ and insufficient enthusiasm for the magic of ‘diversity’. As ‘inclusion’ became part of the mantra, those opposed to mass immigration could be vilified as ‘exclusionary’. Of course, the elites were less alarmed by mass immigration because they would lord over both the white masses and the newcomers. What about nonwhites gaining elite status and competing with white elites? Well, most of them are too dumb to compete with whites, and even those who did join could enter ONLY BY pledging allegiance to elitist cults like globo-homo. Of course, in the long-long run, white elites could end up in bad straits like the rest of the white population. But they don’t think in the long term. They are incapable as their minds are essentially ‘fashional’.

    But then, white elites feel this way because they’ve been defanged of awesome race-ism, and this owed largely to Jews. The biggest beneficiaries of the New World Order are Jews. Jews want white elites to serve Jews. If white elites were inclusive toward the white masses, it would lead to white solidarity that excludes non-white competitors and would-be-usurpers. White class inclusion leads to white racial exclusion. This was true even during the New Deal in the US, which was like a milder version of National Socialism. FDR may have been a leftist-leaning Democrat with a soft spot for Stalin, but he got overwhelming support from the white working class and southern agrarian folks because his message and policies appealed to them and ‘included’ them. Also, his policies favored working men in order to bolster the family.
    This is why Jews pushed libertarianism from the ‘right’ and ‘anti-racism’ from the left. It was to convince whites to think only as individuals and/or to regard white racial consciousness/solidarity as a grave ‘racist’ sin. Jews persuaded white elites to open their hearts to all the world, thereby severing the ties between white elite and white masses. But if whites welcomed all the world, would they not become hostile to Jews? After all, much of the world is either indifferent or hostile to Jewry. Muslims and Arabs certainly don’t care for Jews due to Zionism. But Jews knew that the demise of white ‘racism’ via Diversity would lead to whites sucking up to Jews. Why? Diversity has too many faces and voices. There’s no way white elites could lend an equally sympathetic ear to all sides. In essence, elites are focused on power and privilege. So, once white elites were disconnected from the white masses, they would naturally look to work with whomever that happened to have the most money, power, connections, and influence. Yes, the Jews. When white elites stopped worrying about the white working class, they weren’t going to care about brown peons or Muslim hordes except in milquetoast rhetoric about the wonders of ‘diversity’. No, they were going to be mainly focused on serving their own class prerogatives, and that meant sealing a deal with Jews, the richest and most powerful people on the planet.
    Then, it’s no wonder that the white elites seem so schizo in their outlook. They denounce ‘tribalism’ and ‘racism’, but they are fully in support of Jewish tribalism and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. White elites profess to care about all peoples equally but turn a blind eye to all the victims of Zionist-led wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and etc. They don’t care about the impact of sanctions on Iran.

    Conservatism has drunk as heavily from the well of hostile “inclusive” propaganda as any other entity within contemporary politics, with the result that it can’t comprehend the existence of any enemy that is not in some way “Nazi” or “fascist.” Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative.

    This is especially amusing as Zionism has many similarities with Fascism and National Socialism. Even though Israel is ostensibly a ‘liberal democracy’, its core foundation is racial, cultural, and historical, i.e. it is a fascist democracy meant to serve the interests of a certain tribe. It’s about democracy serving Jews than Jews serving democracy(with implications that anyone can be a ‘Jew’ or ‘Israeli’). Of course, the reason why Jews denounce fascism is like their reason for attacking nationalism. Jews want it only for themselves, just like the British Empire encouraged nationalism for white Britons but denied it to their subject peoples. Jews know the fascist formula is a winning one. Why would Jews want other peoples to use the same formula and gain in power? It’s like Jews and guns. Jews know the value of gun power, and that is precisely why they want to concentrate it in the institutions they control. Jews don’t want us to have guns because they don’t have direct control over us. But Jews control the state, and therefore want all guns under state control. Jews are also for gun ownership in Israel because their tribal brethren are the majority there and a well-armed Jewish Population can keep the Arabs at bay.

    At any rate, the reason why ‘fascist’ is used as a universal epithet is actually to its credit. People don’t like the grim/raw truth. Fascism comes closest to understanding how power really works. No system wants to admit to this and would rather convince itself as well as others that its power is animated by some higher principle or abstract concept. In truth, power is gangsterist in all forms, and fascism admits to this. This is why every side calls the OTHER side ‘fascist’. It’s like the term ‘hate’. All sides hate, and politics is driven by hate and hostility, but it’s always the OTHER side that is about ‘hate’. It goes to show that people fear honesty and truth, preferring fairy tales about how their side is about ‘justice’ and etc. Yeah, just ask the Palestinians.

    Another definition of fascism is about being liberated from the dogma of ideology. Benito Mussolini started on the radical left but came to the realization that the best system is one that fuses the revolutionary spirit of the left with rich themes of the right. Thus, fascism is a left-right ideology. In being such, it comes closest to understanding why Jews are so powerful. Core Jewish Strategists don’t think in terms of dichotomy of left vs right, inclusion vs exclusion, or this vs that. Rather, Jews seek ways to meaningfully fuse the reverence for the past with the vision of the future. Jews are like boxers who fight with both fists. In order to gain supremacy, they push dichotomy-thinking among the goyim, whereby white ‘leftists’ only use the left jab and white ‘rightists’ only use the right-across. Jews use both the left jab and the right across. This is why any white person who still sees the world in terms of ‘right’ vs ‘left’ just doesn’t get it. The winning formula isn’t a zero-sum game. It’s about arriving at a meaningful unity between right and left, between ‘exclusion’ and ‘inclusion’.

    The various enemies of majoritarian culture can’t be viewed as opponents on their own terms (neo-Marxist, postmodernist, ethnically alien, Foucaultian, deconstructionist, etc.), which would require developing a full understanding of their myriad and complex behaviors and ideologies, but must be refracted through a single facile lens — that of World War II.

    But toxicity on the Right has been similar. If Conservatism Inc. tends to label its enemies as ‘nazi’ or ‘fascist’, the White Right has the tendency to cling to the WWII prism of Hitler as standard bearer of Western Civilization against Jews and Communists. But Nazi worldview was just another cartoon reality. Also, the reason why Hitler and Germans alienated so many Europeans was because they had no respect for the national sovereignty and aspirations of others. It was one thing for Germany to gobble up German-majority Sudetenland but quite another to make a move on Czech territory. Whatever faults the Poles had, Germans pulled a dirty trick by working with Stalin to divvy up Poland, causing tremendous misery. No wonder the main resistance against Germany in Poland came from the Polish Right. This Hitlerist Sentimentality has been toxic to the White Right. True, there were fine things about National Socialism, and some of Hitler’s demands were legit, but it should be obvious to all by now that Hitler was pathologically megalomaniacal and driven by murderous anti-Slavicism. Also, even though National Socialists were right about Jewish perfidy, they went way beyond sane measures, much like communists were right about the problems of capitalism but went to extremes in the name of ‘social justice’. One can be justified in one’s rage but very wrong in the application of the rage toward extremes.

    Myers’s thesis is that, rather than being the last bastion of Stalinism, North Korea is in fact home to a race-based nationalism and far-right politics derived from Japanese fascism… The problem, as I learned from both the text itself and criticism I subsequently consulted, was that the book featured a laundry list of exaggeration, omission, psychoanalysis, and ignorance of Korean culture, history, and politics, all of which combined to suppress the Communist footprint everywhere in North Korean politics in order to present the strange little nation of Kim Jong-un as an Oriental Nazi Germany.

    Myers is as right as he is wrong. It’s ridiculous to compare North Korea with Nazi Germany for the simple reason that North Korea isn’t for world aggression. Unlike Germany with its lebensraum plan, North Korea just wants to survive as a unique civilization and unite with the South(on its own terms of course). Indeed, National Socialist Germany would hardly have been problematic without territorial ambitions. Racial-national consciousness becomes a problem ONLY WHEN your people rule over another people. It’s like Mongolian national pride in Mongolia is no problem. But when Mongols, centuries ago, trampled all across China, Persia, and Russia, Mongol pride of identity was a big problem. Whereas Nazi Germany sought to emulate the great Anglo Empires that conquered and ruled over other peoples(especially in the US where the natives were decimated and replaced), North Korea had no such ambitions, never. If anything, its racial ideology is in reaction to foreign invasions. It’s also absurd to compare it with Japanese ‘fascism’ because, if anything, Japanese regarded Koreans as fellow Yamato racial brethren and sought to ‘convert’ them to Japanese-ness. Japanese racial ideology was imperialist and expansive whereas North Korean racial ideology is insular. Also, by ‘cleanest race’, North Koreans don’t mean racial superiority but racial resistance against foreign imperialism. After all, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and Vietnam became whorehouses of US G.I.s. Japanese women became mamasans. South Korea and Philippines developed huge prostitution industries, not least to serve foreign men. During the Vietnam War, the US used women in Saigon as whores. So, empire = interracist prostitution. And of course, Latin America is the product of white mass ‘rape’ of native women.
    Then, North Korean racial ideology isn’t supremacist but nationalist-resistance against the imperial tendency to reduce satellite nations into puppets and its women into whores. Indeed, Jewish Hegemonism is now doing this to the white race. White women are the new Saigon whores in the eyes of Jews. During the Vietnam War, the US regarded South Vietnam as a whore state. Its women existed to sexually service US soldiers. Today, Jews and blacks regard white women the same way. White women exist to serve the likes of Jeffrey Epstein or to become groupies of black rappers and athletes. In UK, black Africans and Jamaicans are celebrated for clobbering white athletes and impregnating white women. This interracism isn’t about equality but about black supremacy over whites. The idea is that black guys can kick white butt and also got bigger dongs. So, black males are superior to white males, and so black men deserve the prize of white poon. As for whites, they must welcome this interracism as not only ‘anti-racist’ justice but natural justice, i.e. superior black men deserve white women while white men, being inferior, should either turn tranny, ‘gay’, incel, or marry some Asian chick and have kids who look like Sean Lennon the dork boy. Indeed, there’s a pattern to media portrayals and commercials. If indeed the official dogma is colorblind interracism, there would be as many images of black women with white men as black men with white women. But the Jewish/Black line is black men and white women are ideal because black men are tops in masculine prowess and white women are tops in feminine beauty. Best men and best women. Thus, Western interracism is really a kind of supremacism.

    Interracism can be supremacist. Mongols raped women all over the place. Jewish men raped countless Arab women during Nakba, and Jewish women laughed at the screams of Arab women in prison cells. Latin America was created by mass ‘rape’ by white men of brown women. And today, black-on-white sex is a form of interracist supremacism. It’s a message that black men now own white women and that white men, being inferior dorks, should accept their cucky-wuck status in the new order. This is why Jews prize blackness so much. Jews are brains but lack muscle. But allied with black muscle, the combination of Jewish brains and Black brawn can beat the white race and reduce it to total cuckery

    My guess is Myers’ vilification of North Korea has something to do with globalist hegemony over the South. Though divided by great powers, both south and north had strong ethnic sense. That was the ONE unifying theme despite the political division. People like Myers want a permanently divided Korea where the south is always servile the West, now controlled by Jews. So, the West showers praise on South Korea for embracing globalism, interracism, globo-homo, diversity cult, feminism, and mass immigration. It tells the South that it is so much better than the North, which is supposedly ‘racist’.

    As for North Korea’s communist legacy, it’s true that Kim Il Sung gained power as a loyal Stalinist. But we need to understand why so many nonwhites around the world became communist in the past. It wasn’t always out of ideological commitment. Through much of the first half of the 20th century, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Indeed, modernizing Japan was part of the capitalist world order and worked in cahoots with capitalist West in its imperialist expansion. In contrast, when the USSR came into existence, it condemned imperialism. So, naturally many nationalist-minded nonwhites around the world gravitated toward communism as the weapon against capitalist-imperialism. Thus, there was always a rightist element in Third World Communism. Fidel Castro himself began as a fascist and then moved to communism. But fascist or communist, he was always a Cuban nationalist. North Korea’s political structure has been Stalinist, but its political themes have been national-familist. Mao was more the ideologue when he waged war on Chinese cultural past with insane campaigns. Such never took place in North Korea where the theme was closer to national filial piety to the Kim Clan. Indeed, when North Korea opted for political succession from father to son, the Soviet Union was highly critical.

    At any rate, it is Zionism that is closer to Nazism because it isn’t only racially conscious but racially supremacist. When North Koreans yammer they are the ‘cleanest race’, they mean they’re least soiled by the seeds of imperialist rape. When Jews feel racial pride, it is as the Chosen, the superior race uber alles. Also, unlike North Korea that has no territorial ambitions outside Korea, Jews have been using their control of US and its puppets to destroy neighboring countries all over the Middle East and North Africa. The Yinon Plan is into lebensraum and mass mayhem for Jewish Supremacist Power. But how clever of Jews to project ‘nazi-like’ features onto other peoples while disseminating the false notion that Jewish Power spearheads the ideals of ‘liberal democracy’. Yeah, just ask the Palestinians.

    Conservatism is, perhaps more than any other contemporary political ideology, wedded to a personal and national savior that absorbs constant, fervid, and attentive devotion. This savior isn’t Jesus Christ, but Gross Domestic Product, and it’s worshipped by conservatives everywhere.

    But there’s another meaning to ‘cash is king’. After all, most politicians are whores, and whores go where the money is. Jews got the most money, and so ‘cash is king’ translates into ‘Jews are god’.
    And so, GOP is beholden to Las Vegas which is run by super-rich Jews. But then, if indeed GOP believed in ‘cash is king’, it would oppose sanctions against Russia and Iran. After all, more business with Russia and Iran would surely do wonders for the GDP of US and EU. But isn’t it funny how the ‘cash is king’ mentality doesn’t argue for more economic relations with Iran and Russia? It’s because cash in US politics is controlled by Jews. And anyone who calls for better business relations with Russia and Iran will be denied of political contributions. Also, as Jews control the gods, there is something bigger than cash among the so-called conservatives. The highest of the high is Jewish Holiness. Jews are holy, so their wish is our command EVEN IF it means diminished GDP. If the likes of Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz really believed in ‘cash in king’, they would call fore more business with Iran, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and etc. After all, more business means more opportunities for US corporations to invest, sell, and rake in the bucks. But notice Jewish Gods > King Cash.

  118. Mefobills says:
    @simple mind

    People are just lazy and stupid and refuse to get involved. Which is fair, because we have the right to be lazy, but in real life it causes a lot of harm. What difference does “debt” makes when there is an automatic exemption from levy? Right now you have to fill in the right form and tell the Sheriff or the Court that an exemption is being claimed, instead of automatically applied as it should. Hard wiring will cure many ills

    I explained the role of the Sheriff to you already:

    https://www.unz.com/article/my-paper-on-jewish-influence-blows-up/#comment-5107413

    Sheriffs came about precisely because of Jewish creditor insistence on putting “land next to land,” which of course is in rebellion against their own doctrine.

    In the link above, the Magna Carta came about to give Sheriffs power to protect the population against Creditor sordid gain-taking.

    These sort of things cannot be reduced to “you have to fill out the right form” legal nonsense, typical of Jewish obfuscation.

    Basically your argument boils down to: Its the victim’s fault.

    The victim is not hard-wired to resist the Parasite, but instead the victim is hard-wired to have high trust.

    LET ME BE A PARASITE PLEASE, SO I CAN PASS FALSE NARRATIVE, drain the host of life energy, AND TAKE RENTS AND USURY FOREVER.

    • Agree: Lurker
    • Replies: @simple mind
  119. Sepp says:
    @Priss Factor

    I think PF wins the UR award for longest comment ever. Pretty soon Ron Unz will have to read a TL;DR button.

    It’s about submission to Jewish Power. It’s about appeasing Jewish Supremacism. If indeed Liberalism is triumphant and pushes INCLUSION over EXCLUSION, why are so-called the ‘blue states’ excluding BDS in government jobs, programs, contracts, and etc.? Why are so-called ‘liberals’ mostly silent about universities silencing BDS speakers and movements?

    Liberals are inclusive to everyone but the Amaleks.

  120. @HeebHunter

    If the k**** are going to hell for denying Christ, they’ll have plenty of company from White Europeans who don’t see the purpose of this foreign superstition.

    There should be an equivalent of Poe’s law that as a discussion on a pro-White forum grows, the probability some mentally unbalanced person will tell Whites we should be angry because a group of Jews killed a Jewish religious dissident 2,000 years ago approaches 1.

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  121. @Autisticus Spasticus

    I am surprised that he replied to you 20 times! Probably he took some interest in the subject you promote, which is anti-natalism. Joyce, of course, would be opposed to it. He has a wife and 3 young children, a firm marriage, and a full-time professorship. So “ten days before Christmas” he ended the exchange. But compulsive you cannot accept that it’s over. He is not being unreasonable, you are.

    I know you are very smart (intellectually) and polite, but very lacking in common sense and understanding human nature. You claim you are autistic. You say you cannot see what was so unreasonable about your request that he “not disengage from the internet without notifying you in advance”!! He was already probably at the end of his willingness to tolerate you. This is what you should now ask yourself: Who the hell am I that people owe me their time? — instead of complaining about the neurotypical ego

    Joyce published this article at The Occidental Observer, not here. I doubt very much he follows comments at TUR. Maybe you already tried to get his attention at TOO and you were blocked there. Just give up and accept it. No one owes you anything.

    • Replies: @Autisticus Spasticus
  122. Rich says:
    @HeebHunter

    Any luck with your “heebhunting”? A tough guy commenter like you, I figured I’d have heard about you somewhere by now. I know that “Heebs” keep such a low profile they’re hard to find, but I’m sure you’re working hard to root them out. I read somewhere, I don’t know if it’s true, but they say there’s a whole country filled with them in the Middle East, and someone else told me he spotted a couple in NYC. There’s even a rumor there might be one or two in Biden’s cabinet. You’re the tough guy, though, so I’m sure you know better.

    • LOL: Carolyn Yeager
  123. @Carolyn Yeager

    Namaste

    the divine light in me bows to the divine light in you

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  124. @Carolyn Yeager

    I meant that we sent about 40 emails both ways. You misunderstand, though. Most of those emails were about philosophy and history, but sometimes I would talk about my own life. After two months of very good relations, I shared some information about myself that I knew could potentially be received negatively. I intended it as a sign of trust. It was at this point that he vanished for ten days. My mother suggested that she send a message asking him to just say that he no longer wanted to talk to me, rather than put me through unnecessary guilt. He didn’t respond to her, but he replied to me, saying that his ten day absence was merely coincidental and that he often disengages from the internet during the holidays. I said not to do that without notifying me, given my susceptibility to fretting. He then turned quite hostile, saying he didn’t care what I think. It seemed to be a very politely worded “screw you.” I asked him to call the mobile number attached to my email, but he declined to do this. I realised that his ego had probably been bruised and sent a very long email trying to clarify the situation. I wrote to him,

    [MORE]

    “I was very dismayed to see that you had taken my comments so personally. I believed they were perfectly innocuous when I typed them. Your response was so out of character, it was like you had transformed into a completely different person. You seemed to be taking a very defensive position, which was extremely confusing to me. I do not regard relations between us to have soured, but if you do, then I am at a total loss as to why you would think that. I feel there is still a great deal for us to discuss and I would be very saddened if, after so much work, you chose to throw it all away over what is, to use one of your own terms, a complete non-issue. However, I don’t want to feel like I’m walking on eggshells every time I type, having to change words and reformulate sentences so as to eliminate the slightest possibility that I could be misconstrued. We’re in a straightjacket of woke censorship already. We must not cultivate a similar fear and hesitation to speak among ourselves.

    One thing that has always troubled me about people is how passive-aggressive they can be. Their entire demeanour can change in an instant, without any warning, without any indication as to why they have gone from agreeable to hostile in such a short space of time. At that point, it becomes incredibly difficult to talk to them, because they will be absorbing everything you say through the lens of their offence. I have to ask, how much experience have you had talking and interacting with autistic people? I doubt someone who was very familiar with autistic traits would have reacted the way you did. In my life, I have found that many people interpret any kind of well-intentioned advice as a challenge and defiantly push against it. One would think that they would choose to act spontaneously and go against type, rather than fulfil my prediction as to what they would do, but they don’t. Recall how Steven Pinker refused to read MacDonald’s book because MacDonald predicted that he would refuse to read it. Confronted with that mentality, what is to be done? I don’t know. Nothing I said was an attack on you, so why you interpreted it that way is a total mystery. The situation we’re in now is a radical departure from what I’ve been accustomed to for the last two months. I explained it all to my mother, and she couldn’t see what the problem was either. She noted how ironic it was that the email I had initially feared might provoke a negative reaction did not, and the one I thought was innocuous is what created a problem. I had thought exactly the same thing.

    First impressions set a precedent, and because you had been remarkably consistent in the quickness of your replies, I came to expect it as the norm. Occasionally I would not receive a reply after a few days, and would then send a separate email in order to find out if the main one was successfully delivered. This is perfectly sensible. I am aware that, unlike me, other people actually have lives, and that any number of things can happen that could keep them from communicating with me. However, since you said that you check your email via your phone, and it only takes a few seconds to do this, it seemed unlikely to my autistic mind that anything could have prevented you from doing so for ten days. Given the sensitive nature of what I had conveyed to you in that email, it seemed a virtual certainty that it had made a negative impression on you, and the most plausible explanation for the delay was that you were upset by it and had decided to end the correspondence. I fail to see anything unreasonable in my wishing to be notified of your absence in advance. You are free to disengage with the internet, but it would have been very helpful if you had told me beforehand, in order to avoid a protracted period of uncertainty and fretting on my part. It would be just my luck that you would decide to take a break at the exact same time I sent an email that could have been interpreted negatively. The circumstances were simply too perfect for me to conclude otherwise. Another option would have been to text me a brief confirmation of receipt, but you declined to use the phone number I gave you.

    While I don’t care what my enemies think about me, I do very much care what my friends think about me, and after exchanging many emails over a two month period, which was initially sparked by my concern for your reputation after attacks from a particularly obnoxious detractor on Quora, I had come to consider you a friend. I hardly think that two people who talk for so long, about so many things, can be considered strangers. I will still consider you a friend, but the resolution of this problem (as you see it) is entirely up to you. You say that you don’t care what I think, but the fact that we exchanged what must have been nearly 40 emails, and your saying that you enjoyed our email exchange at the beginning of No Country For White Children, would indicate that this isn’t true. I therefore suspect that your “I don’t care what you think” comment comes from a place of anger. Perhaps it is the case that these exchanges have meant much more to me than they have to you, even though I think you had more to learn about anti-natalism than I did about white nationalism, since that was already very familiar to me, whereas you didn’t know about Benatar. I understand that someone with four children would struggle not to view anti-natalism as an insult and a threat. I suspect you felt an overwhelming hostility to Benatar from the very beginning, but you kept it hidden. How you feel about Benatar is much the same as how liberals feel about the Dissident Right.

    Because I consider myself the liaison between these two worldviews, it is a priority for me that Benatar’s philosophy not be misrepresented. By mentioning his name in proximity with particularly invidious Jews, it was almost a certainty that Benatar would become associated with anti-whiteness in the minds of readers at The Occidental Observer. I don’t want that to happen, and I assume you don’t either, since you conceded that you couldn’t find any evidence that Benatar is a liberal progressive, that he harbours anti-white sentiments, or that he has a strong Jewish identity. It was disappointing to me that your essay did not focus on our discussion of Benatar’s philosophy, but merely opened with a mention of it. I liked the first few paragraphs, but unfortunately they gave me a false impression as to what the essay would be about. I was hopeful that it would be the first step in beginning a more widely visible dialogue between the two spheres of thought. I felt it was a missed opportunity.

    I understand that facing up to anti-natalism is very difficult for those on the Dissident Right, because they are so used to engaging with their primary enemies, the woke liberals. Anti-natalism has no specific focus on race or culture, so the Dissident Right is out of its element in the domain of bioethics. It struggles for a foothold. I imagine you view anti-natalists as evolutionary losers who seek to drag the whole world into oblivion out of sheer petulance. “If we can’t have the lives we want, then no one can.” On the contrary, for those who do enjoy their lives, we do not seek to rob them. To think otherwise is to fail, yet again, to understand the distinction between lives worth starting, worth continuing, and worth ending. I will reiterate, though, that in my personal opinion, one does need to be inclined to perfectionism to accept anti-natalism. This segues into my thoughts about God, divinity, paradise, and the fundamental impermissibility of evil, which I had hoped would be the focus of our renewed discussion. As mortals we are routinely forced to make allowances for evil, out of necessity, but this is not true of a supreme being, for whom the existence of evil could never be necessitated.

    The reassurance that evil will be defeated in the fullness of time implies that evil’s existence was permissible on the condition that it would ultimately be destroyed. But because evil leaves a permanent stain on everything it touches, and because the mere knowledge of its existence is itself a harm to us, the fact that evil ever existed at all (even if only for a finite amount of time) is what is objectionable. As such, the only way to make amends would be the complete and total reversal of all evil, but this simply isn’t possible. It remains true, though, as I have repeatedly said, that a problem having never existed at all is preferable to a problem solved, since a solved problem leaves a trail of damage, pain and frustration in its wake. Cesar Tort wants to eradicate all non-whites, which would seem like a solution to the problem. I think, at this point, you already know what I would say. They never should have existed in the first place. Nothing less than perfection should exist.

    I have come to accept that the distasteful aspects of life reflect the fundamental essence of existence. Pleasure and reason exist in spite of the will of the universe, not in accordance with it. As the law of entropy teaches us, chaos is the natural state of things, and the universe will inevitably sabotage any effort to establish order. Goodness is innocent and fragile. Evil is cunning and strong. It seeks to contaminate what we cherish, to defile beauty and corrupt the virtuous. This is why things that bring us joy can also make us sad. We instinctively sense that they will be taken from us, and they will. Pessimism is therefore synonymous with realism, honesty, and truth. The world is an overwhelmingly negative place, and those in the habit of distracting themselves from this will attack those who have the temerity to notice. White Nationalists become very uncomfortable when I confront them with the evils that life visits upon our people. They struggle to resist the urge to say “I don’t care” for as long as they can, but eventually they can restrain themselves no longer and their contempt comes out. For natalists, that life is fundamentally good and sacred is axiomatic. Their reverence for life is unconditional, irrespective of its quality. Those lives that turn out very badly are an inconvenience to be kept out of sight and out of mind. The whites who suffer and die are acknowledged only when they can be used to advance the cause in some way.

    Much as the biological truths accepted by the Dissident Right are poison to the Left, for whom the egalitarian illusion is axiomatic and must be maintained at all costs, Benatar’s truth is poison to the Dissident Right, who have a pretty illusion of their own to maintain. It’s the same illusion shared by the overwhelming majority of humanity, albeit with a racialist slant. “Life is good. Life must go on. Make babies.” Regrettably the “I’ve got mine” mentality is as pervasive among White Nationalists as it is everywhere else, and it invariably takes a visit from tragedy to your own door before you can appreciate that any one of us could become one of the “unlucky few” at any time. Due to the asymmetries discussed, the lives that turn out badly are the measure of all things.

    Tangentially, you might think it strange that I recognise the compassion of Christian ethics as being our downfall while simultaneously embracing ethical anti-natalism, which is also motivated by compassion. The distinction, though, is that Christian ethics encourages compassion towards our enemies. I have none for them. Cesar Tort can proceed with his global exterminationist campaign against the non-white hordes without any opposition from me. Our own people, though, and particularly our unborn (who must be presumed innocent by default, since they have been given no opportunity to prove otherwise), are an entirely different matter. Showing compassion for our enemies is treachery, but showing compassion for our own people is the height of decency. I was one of those unborn babies too. No one spoke in my defence. Now that I’m here, I will not be relegated to “acceptable losses.” I will not be deemed expendable.

    What I adore about Benatar is that he is an unabashed realist, much like myself. He doesn’t concede any ground to the infuriating relativism of our time, nor does he entertain unfalsifiable mysticism like reincarnation or eternal recurrence, concepts which seem more fitting for an episode of Star Trek than any serious discussion of procreative ethics. It must have been an interesting experience for you to discover that you were not as pessimistic as you had always thought. Possibly my favourite insight of Benatar’s is his astute observation regarding the callousness of the optimist. He says,

    “The optimist’s impatience with and condemnation of pessimism invariably has a smug macho tone to it, although this is certainly not a response exclusive to males. There is an instantaneous contempt for the perceived weakness of the pessimist, a contempt that increases in intensity the longer the optimist is exposed to a discussion of unpalatable realities. This grin-and-bear-it view is defective for the same reason that macho views about other kinds of suffering are defective. It is an indifference to or inappropriate denial of suffering, whether one’s own or that of others. The injunction to look on the bright side should be greeted with a large dose of both scepticism and cynicism. To insist that the bright side is always the right side is to put ideology before evidence. While every cloud may have a silver lining, it may very well be the cloud rather than the lining on which one should focus, if one is to avoid being drenched by self-deception. Cheery optimists have a much less realistic view of themselves and the world than those who are depressed.”

    In my more naïve days, I harboured some amount of faith that things could be changed, but no longer. I still consider myself a part of the biological realist (redpill) community, but I have come to accept the inevitability of evil’s victory. Humans are an exceptionally hopeless case. It is bad enough that they make mistakes, but they cannot even learn from them. Often they are too proud to even admit their flaws. There is an incorrigible masochism at the heart of man, a defiant pride in his imperfections, which no amount of reason can ever erase. Humanity has always contained within it the seeds of its own demise.

    I do hope that you choose to continue our discussion into the new year. If you do not, I must urge you to keep those three PDFs I gave you, as they are indispensable resources for fully traversing the psychological Rubicon. It is not a coincidence that Science™ teaches the same monogenesis (the brotherhood of man, the idea that humanity was born from the same ancestral family) that is integral to New Testament Christianity. Contrast this with the pagan beliefs of the ancient world, where polygenesis (the inequality of men, the belief that the human races evolved from distinct ancestral types) prevailed. Throughout our talks, I never once got the impression that you were a petty man, but if you do delete them, you will be doing yourself and your movement a massive disservice.”

    I sent that email on January 8th and still haven’t heard back. In asking so little of people, it seems I ask so much of them. It’s a real shame, but the fault here certainly isn’t mine.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  125. @Autisticus Spasticus

    But because evil leaves a permanent stain on everything it touches, and because the mere knowledge of its existence is itself a harm to us, the fact that evil ever existed at all (even if only for a finite amount of time) is what is objectionable.

    Maybe I understand your point? “Behold I make all things new” (Revelation 21:5)

    There are Old Kingdom texts from Ancient Egypt alluding to the same and Middle Kingdom texts which relate to forgetting and remembering in the next life which I take to be knocking at the same door; but I think the NT would be by far the easiest route to a modern searcher with libraries of books on related themes albeit I am no philosopher and in view of your comments maybe a Christian forum would be a better place to pose questions.

    The way I have looked at it is maybe child like but if I was born into a perfect garden of bliss with free will then maybe there would always be the inclination to wonder if the grass is greener on the outside and this world is an answer to that.

  126. @Priss Factor

    Why not post this to you Jung-Freud blog, instead of leaving it languishing here, where maybe 10 people will ever see it? Sheesh.

  127. @Priss Factor

    You do have a web site or something like that? This is an exceptional response to a particularly weak Andrew Joyce essay. I have actually read Bruce R. Meyer’s The Cleanest Race and found Meyer’s argument that ethnonationalist plays a big role in the continued existence of the DPRK to be rather compelling. Whatever role the legacy of communism plays in the DPRK today no serious North Korea observers simply considers this country to be “the last bastion of Stalinism”. Besides as you almost point out there are very important rightist aspects to Stalinism. If you want to know more about that you should get a copy of New Zealand fascist Kerry Bolton’s:

    Stalin the Enduring Legacy.

    And your use of the term “national-familist” as away of characterizing important themes of domestic North Korean political discourse is most accurate. As to why Andrew Joyce condemns members of the dissident right for admiring that about “Best Korea” … well l don’t care to speculate

  128. @Sepp

    Hmm.

    In the post I was responding to, you yourself said:

    But we have recognize that even Ron Unz, who recognizes that the holofraud narrative cannot hold water, is not really ready to “die on that hill” the way Ernst Zundel, the Schaeffers, or even Carolyn Yeager is. In fact, Ron Unz still hasn’t figured out how preposterous the “moon landings” were

    In other words, even though Unz is rightly skeptical about standard holocaust accounts, the damn fool still believes in the moon landings.

    Whether you’re deliberately attempting to muddy the waters or not, talking about moon landings hoaxes in the same breath as holocaust rev muddies the waters by default.

    (I’m not Jewish, btw.)

  129. @geokat62

    Breaking radio-silence to explain the “Agree.”

    I AGREE that it is SAD that Rick Wiles & TruNews are pulling their punches.

    I recognize that the Wiles et al are likely being threatened by certain parties.
    I recognize the possibility that Wiles has made the calculation that it is better to “appease” those certain parties rather than lose his platform and be silenced altogether.

    I would probably make the same calculation; in reality, I have: as Taubman frequently kvetches, most of us express ourselves only pseudonymously. That is true. It is true because ADL and the 6 gazillion Jewish organizations & 501s throw non-Jews into jail, or use our own legal system against us, while non-Jews have no such organizations to protect them, to ensure publication of their extensive works, etc.

    Ron Unz has tried and tried to arouse those 6 gazillion to come after him, but it has not happened.

    Perhaps ADL & associated criminal cabal think that would draw too much attention to Unz forum which, as Unz has explained, as written media has less impact and reach than media such as Wiles’s TruNews.

    As well, the TruNews audience has been one of zionism’s and the ADL & associated criminal cabal’s most reliable constituencies — evangelical Christians.

    But here’s the thing: Wiles opens his daily “Godcast” with the declaration that TruNews speaks “The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.”

    He also makes at least 5 mentions of “Needle Nazis” or other “evils” of the Nazis in each Godcast.
    Godcast Live includes a COMMENT stream that is quite lively, though carefully moderated. Many Commenters push back against TruNews’s “misinformation” about Hitler, Germany in WWII and the like, but no changes are made from day to day: the Needle Nazi meme continues.

    Why should an anonymity like me attack the good work Wiles is doing?
    This is insider-baseball, and we need to touch several bases:

    Some here may know that TruNews produced an extraordinary documentary on Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, Sacrificing Liberty. Ron Unz mentioned it HERE: Remembering the Liberty, by Ron Unz.

    As Unz’s mention noted, talented filmmaker Matt Skow produced the four-part documentary.
    Skow is working on another major documentary for TruNews.

    Skow and another (now-former) TruNews employee, Edward Szall, were present, with their cameras, at the Jan. 6 insurrection. So was Lauren Witzke, who had a brief stint on the Godcast team.

    Skow and Szall talked about their experiences on Jan 6 and showed several video clips and interviews they’d taken. They mentioned that Skow (iirc) had been caught up in the maelstrom and ended up inside the Capitol building on Jan. 6.

    This morning Ron Unz posted a <a href = "https://www.unz.com/news/"Newslink&quot; to a lengthy article on Gateway Pundit, Capitol Offense – The Ugly Truth Behind The Five Deaths From January 6th and 7th. Author Jim Hoft details how protesters lost their lives as a result of bad acts on the part of Capitol police.

    (Former) TruNews presenter Lauren Witzke was on the scene and witnessed one of those events:

    Some are becoming aware that anybody who was near the site of the insurrection, especially any who entered the Capitol building, have been subject to interrogation by FBI or worse. Matt Skow may well have been on that list.

    Was Wiles persuaded to dismiss Szall and Witzke, and to remain silent about what former TruNews employees witnessed and filmed, at the cost of retaining the skills and talent of Matt Skow?

    __

    Why is this important?

    Some of us spend way too much time as very amateur historians researching What Really Happened in the world wars (and 9/11) — events that made such a difference in the way USA has developed. Only 80 years after-the-fact, some harsh and damning truths are becoming known. Many people’s lives have been lost, destroyed, upended as an outcome of not only those wars but also of the pervasive lies in which those events have been shrouded.

    This time, there is the possibility to present solid evidence to support a strong counter-narrative, in real time, before people’s lives are irreparably damaged.

    A few days ago Jamie Raskin once again was given a television-platform to promulgate his basket of lies about the events of Jan. 6.
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?517473-5/washington-journal-representative-jamie-raskin-discusses-january-6th-book-unthinkable

    I don’t think Raskin, and the rest of the congressional cabal that is gunning for anyone who disagrees with the “leftist,” zionist, Anglo-zionist cabal agenda, should be allowed to get away with their lies yet another time.

    Never Again.

    “Let peace begin with me.”
    What am I willing to do, besides making Jesusian demands on Rick Wiles coupled with very minimal support for TruNews, to expose the lies of Raskin, Pelosi and others who are sucked into their vortex?

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  130. @Mefobills

    Debt instruments grow exponentially

    Debt instruments are pieces of paper, you are missing about 90% of the equation. I can grant you ALL of some priority, and it still just means “this” limited by “that”. It sounds like you think the calculation itself made a difference, but all property rights are based on claims and exemptions.

    A lien on property is a static condition, only equity or administration can actually make a decision about what happens in the relationship. Mortgages are just stock paper in real estate, the “action” comes from pleading a claim and demand.

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

    is completely normal. At some point in any society, somebody has to make a decision. That’s why personal exemptions and basic guarantees are so important, to protect everyone in their own space.

  131. @Mefobills

    I explained the role of the Sheriff to you already

    You are no one to “explain” anything. Do you think we all just woke up 4000 years later and missed everything but you knew more?? Every government has “sheriffs” i.e. marshals or constables that enforce judicial decisions.

    Sheriffs came about precisely because of Jewish creditor insistence on putting “land next to land”

    Completely wrong:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/sheriff

    In England the office of sheriff existed before the Norman Conquest (1066). The separation of the ecclesiastical from the secular courts under William I the Conqueror left the sheriff supreme in the county and as president of its court.

    He convened and led military forces of the shire, executed all writs, and, for the first century after the Conquest, judged both criminal and civil cases.

    From the time of Henry II (reigned 1154–89), however, his jurisdiction was severely restricted as a result of the growing jurisdiction of the curia regis (“king’s court”).

    His duty thereafter was to investigate allegations of crime from within his shire, to conduct a preliminary examination of the accused, to try lesser offenses, and to detain those accused of major crimes for the itinerant justices.

    which of course is in rebellion against their own doctrine

    wrong again:

    https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-18.htm

    Judges and Justice

    18 You are to appoint judges and officials for your tribes in every town that the LORD your God is giving you. They are to judge the people with righteous judgment.

    These sort of things cannot be reduced to “you have to fill out the right form” legal nonsense

    It has been reduced that way, and it is your own fault. You never even once heard about it before I brought it up, let’s be honest. Let’s be honest and admit you have no idea what you’re talking about, and never bothered to learn or practice any magic.

    typical of Jewish obfuscation

    It’s typical of lawyers and the bourgeois they represent, who are everywhere.

    Basically your argument boils down to: Its the victim’s fault.

    It’s hardly an “argument”, it’s the most obvious glaring fact. You just want to avoid responsibility and blame a figment of your own imagination, instead of actually doing anything about it. Marching in uniform doesn’t work, in case you missed the lesson.

    The victim is not hard-wired to resist the Parasite

    The “victim” IS the parasite, and it has nothing to do with “trust”. You are refusing to pay attention or learn anything about the world around you, when even the simplest things make grand improvements. If you want to be your own worst enemy, it’s your own fault.

    LET ME BE A PARASITE PLEASE, SO I CAN PASS FALSE NARRATIVE, drain the host of life energy, AND TAKE RENTS AND USURY FOREVER.

    Sounds like every baby boomer white crapitalist in America

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  132. Mefobills says:
    @simple mind

    More obfuscation.

    The role of the Sheriff changed after Magna Carta specifically because of Norman King and Jewish creditor abuse.

    Whenever there is a ruling elite that hates the population then expect bad things to happen.

    With regards to brainwashed boomer tards it is recycled usury dollars through an owned press that programmed them.

    It gets back to you blaming the victim, a very Jewish characteristic.

  133. @FloridaManAtHome

    You own everything to Jesus Christ, mudhut pagan scum.

    Odin and Thor didn’t exist, and if they were, I pity them for having followers like you.

  134. @simple mind

    Note that nowhere in his incoherent screeching and moaning does the simp make even the slightest attempt to refute the self-evident points that I cited — that Trump:

    1. Won by appealing to the collective interests of the White community, and
    2. Governed by pursuing the interests of the semitic supremacist regime in Palestine (and the semitic community in the North American Economic Zone)

    He merely blabbers:

    …there is no such thing as the “White Community”

    Of course, any minimally-informed person will recognize the trope that the simp is spewing here. It’s a long discredited semitic canard that is often phrased as: “The historic American nation doesn’t exist, goy! White people are fake! Totally made up — so how can they have any collective interests? QED.”

    You see it quite often in the sort of confused rants so often spouted by semitic supremacists and other ignorant, hate-filled anti-Whites (like the simp).

    But what many don’t realize is that this long-debunked trope is merely one facet of a more generalized tenet of toxic semitism: the fixed belief that no goy identity is “real” in the same way that semitic supremacist identity is.

    Is this sort of low energy (((deconstruction))) ever aimed at non-White goyim? Sure — “Palestinians are an invented people whose only purpose is to destroy Israel” and ” ‘Whiteness’ is a toxic social construct that is inherently oppressive to all non-Whites” are the same trope; the same basic template — and are promoted by the same people.

    That’s not hyperbole, by the way. The first quote is straight from Trump’s #1 megadonor Sheldon “Nuke Iran” Adelson:

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/adelson-palestinians-are-made-up-nation-1.5326500

    “The purpose of the existence of Palestinians is to destroy Israel,” Adelson said Sunday at the close of the first conference of the Israeli-American Council,

    A milder version of the same trope.

    And the latter:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/202006/what-is-whiteness

    Whiteness is a forced group membership that originated by oppressing people of color

    https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-5

    Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) is a growing field of scholarship whose aim is to reveal the invisible structures that produce and reproduce white supremacy and privilege.

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

    Here’s a slightly more subtle version of this same canard — this time aimed at the autochthonous Japanese goyim rather than the indigenous peoples of Europe or Palestine: Japan “Needs” Foreigner Blood, by (of course) Jake Adelstein, the notorious “jewish narrative promoter who thinks like a ‘Japanese’ gangster.” Japan is “too Japanese,” doncha know. Next up from the Adelstein: “日本人論 is a hate-filled, intrinsically-supremacist ideology! Nippon has always been a so-called ‘country of immigrants’, goy!”

    Incidentally, the “___ is a country of immigrants” trope is a normative statement masquerading as a positive one; an “ought” pretending to be an “is” — and should always be addressed as such.

    Let us all hope that the simp has learned something from my tolerant (yet precise) elucidation of the basic components of his psychopathology; that he will be inspired to educate himself, to learn to control his blind, genocidal rage and his virulent, unreasoning anti-White hatred in order to become at least a slightly more reasonable, understanding person — but on the evidence so far, it seems unlikely.

  135. @SolontoCroesus

    He also makes at least 5 mentions of “Needle ‘Nazis’” or other “evils” of the Nazis in each Godcast.

    Godcast?

    But yeah, that’s an obvious variant of the notorious “DR3” [Dems R da REAL “racists”] rhetorical technique — reinforce the opponents narrative frame, while pretending to “oppose” their particular argument. As long as you’re worshiping the basic tenets of Holocaustianity — semitic Supreme Victimhood and indigenous German (and, by extension, White*) Goy Supreme Villainy, your ostensible “argument” is irrelevant, because the underlying message is always: “We’re even more subservient to semitic supremacism than those other goyim over there!”

    Author Jim Hoft details how protesters lost their lives as a result of bad acts on the part of Capitol police.

    Ashli Babbitt was, of course, murdered in cold blood by a Black Capitol Police officer named Michael Leroy Byrd, who was a known affiliate of the notorious anti-White terrorist group “BLM.”

    But Benjamin Phillips and Kevin Greeson? They both died of “heart attacks” — immediately after they were struck by flash-bangs thrown at random by the Capitol Police and the MPD into the crowd of peaceful protesters. Just a cohencidence, goy.

    And Rosanne Boyland? She “overdosed,” of course. Here’s a video of her down on the ground, unresponsive… while a Black MPD officer named Lila Morris (helmet #5869) is engaged in what the major semitic narrative promotion agencies would describe as “assisting her with her ‘overdose’.”

    Have any questions about the medical examiner’s findings? Sorry, you’ll have to take his word for it — all of the victims of the Jan. 6 anti-White pogrom were cremated. “Thrown into the ovens,” as it’s commonly termed in a more semitic supremacist context.

    *See, for example, the American Jewish Committee’s notorious trope of the so-called “Authoritarian White Goy Personality”, which dates back to the immediate post-WW2 period, when the “Good War” narrative (focused specifically on German goyim as the “bad guys”) was clearly dominant, and Holocaustianity was in its infancy. Yet Adorno and the rest of the structures of systemic tribalism were already focused on extending that demonization to all goyim of indigenous European descent.

    If we look a little more deeply into the issue, this is hardly surprising: the “Authoritarian White Goy Personality” canard has earlier roots, not only in Adorno’s clearly-expressed hatred for the supposedly “fascist” White American goyim back in 1940, but in the ravings of the notorious communist jewish pedophile (and inventor of the Orgasmatron) Wilhelm Reich back in the early 1930s, when he engaged in an organized campaign of epistemic violence directed at the “patriarchal White goy family” and the “authoritarian White goy society.” Reich literally believed that the “failure” to molest children often enough was the root cause of the “Authoritarian White Goy Personality” — and a major factor in the perpetuation of the so-called “Patriarchal White Goy Family.” Seriously — look it up. And that stable, normal White goy families lead inevitably to the so-called “Authoritarian Fascist White Goy Society.” Needless to say, his proposed “solution” to this “problem” was to… destroy normal White goy families. Does this sound at all familiar in the current year? Huh.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?