The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Washington Watcher II Archive
In UK and US, Cuckservative Parties Pander to Diversity, Rebuff White Base
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

Above, the London Times saysLiz Truss, if confirmed as prime minister, is expected to appoint Kwasi Kwarteng, James Cleverly and Suella Braverman to the top jobs.”

Earlier: UK Tory Leadership: White Males Need Not Apply. Will It Work?

A new Conservative cabinet is in charge of the United Kingdom—but it’s missing something. None of the top ministers are white men. This is an odd omission considering white men built Great Britain and its once-mighty empire, and whites still make up the majority of the population. Yet, they’re not represented in the governing cabinet of the party that’s supposed to advocate for their interests. Rather than see this as a problem, Conservatives are celebrating their lack of white men as proof they love diversity more than the Labour Party. The same disturbing trend appears in our own Republican Party, which spends more time fawning over their token minorities than fighting for the people who actually vote for them. This Cuckservative diversity pandering only reflects acceptance of dispossession, and it will fail as a political strategy.

Britain’s new prime minister, Liz Truss, is white. But not one of her three top ministers are. The foreign minister, James Cleverly, and finance minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, are black. Suella Braverman, the new home secretary, is Indian.

This diversity push is not new. Boris Johnson, the departing Prime Minister, boasted the most “diverse” cabinet in British history; all three of his finance ministers were non-white. The campaign to replace Johnson as party leader was similarly diverse. Six of the ten candidates were non-white, and only two were white men. Truss’s final competitor was Rishi Sunak, an Indian [Liz Truss’ Cabinet is Britain’s first without a white man in one of the top jobs, Reuters, September 7, 2022].

You would think the Tories’ base is filled primarily with minorities. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Only 24 percent of U.K minorities vote Conservative; 62 percent vote Labour. The Conservative party is still overwhelmingly white—and 94 percent of its Members of Parliament are white. Yet, most of them are apparently excluded from leadership on the basis of their race. The lucky six percent who aren’t white can expect a better chance at leadership roles than their white counterparts. This is by design. For years, the Conservatives have pushed for non-white candidates to represent their constituencies and elevated them to prominent roles. The party is even more aggressive about elevating minority candidates than its Leftist rivals, leaving some journalists to dub the Conservatives the “party of diversity” [Why the Tories Are Britain’s Party of Diversity, by Adrian Wooldridge, Bloomberg, July 12, 2022].

England is still nearly 85 percent white, and 78 white English. You would never know this from the makeup of its political elite. Whites apparently don’t matter, not even to the party they primarily vote for.

A similar situation is found in the U.S. The Republican Party is the white party, much to the dismay of the Republican Party. The majority of whites vote GOP and getting enough of the white vote is key to GOP victories. Indeed, the Sailer Strategy to get that vote is what won the White House for Donald Trump in 2016; he appealed directly to the interests of white voters. But the GOP doesn’t want to acknowledge this. Instead, the party spends countless dollars to present itself as “diverse.” The most it can show for it is slightly higher Hispanic support—and that support is due primarily to Trump, the man who rebuked GOP minority outreach ideas with his 2016 platform. Yet, Republicans persist in their idiotic schemes.

When Republicans did better than expected in 2020 congressional races, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy attributed the victories to the diversity of GOP candidates. “Every Democrat incumbent who lost either lost to a woman, a minority or a veteran Republican. Meanwhile, Democrats are set to have the slimmest Democrat majority since World War Two,” he enthused at the time [House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy hails GOP wins, by Justin Stabley, PBS, November 12, 2020]. “The Republican coalition is bigger, more diverse, and more energetic than ever before—thanks to President @realDonaldTrump,” he tweeted. “His efforts to reach every demographic has positively expanded the future of the GOP.”

Republicans apparently believe this is the winning formula and have recruited dozens of non-whites to run for office. For the midterms, Republicans are running more than 60 non-white candidates. GOP leaders say they’ve been finding these diverse recruits from local chambers of commerce [House GOP’s diversity bet, by Sophia Cai, Axios, September 8, 2022]. The party also emphasizes that its diversity push is part of a desire to “reflect” what the country looks like.

“We made a significant effort to not just say we would do recruitment differently but to actually get stronger recruits, and forcefully engaging on behalf of stronger recruits, more diverse recruits, recruits that reflect their electorates and the country,” said Dan Conston, the president of the Congressional Leadership Fund, House Republicans’ super PAC.

[Republicans Elevate Diverse Recruits in Bid to Win House Majority, by Catie Edmonson, The New York Times, June 4, 2022]

That’s not very America First. And neither is spending millions of dollars on minority outreach centers that have been placed in black, Hispanic, and Asian communities. The centers’ activities include helping immigrants naturalize so they can vote in elections. Republican Georgia insurance commissioner John King says the centers are extremely important to future GOP success. “We’re having a permanent presence and having a permanent conversation in Spanish, in English, about the values that the Republican Party brings, which are very much in line to the values that generally you hear from Hispanics,” he says. RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel claims that the centers are a sign that the GOP wants “to learn how we can better represent your community” [Republicans have invested millions in nonwhite voter outreach ahead of the midterms, by Stephen Fowler, NPR, August 31, 2022].

So now the GOP is courting non-whites through immigration naturalization and promises to advance their ethnic interests. That’s what Democrats do! What happened to putting Americans first?

Problems with this strategy abound.

  • First, it betrays the Republican base. The party is having trouble motivating rural whites—its core supporters—to turn out for recent elections. The millions spent on minority outreach and convincing blacks that Republicans “care about them” does not solve that problem. This is a case of misplaced priorities. The GOP should be doing more to turn out their own voters rather than trying to naturalize future Democrats.
  • Second, the white vote still matters more than the non-white vote. Granted, again, the polls show Republicans doing better among Hispanics than among college-educated whites. Problem is, college-educated white voters outnumber Hispanic voters 2-1. While Glenn Youngkin’s surprise victory in Virginia’s gubernatorial race was attributed to increased minority support, it was actually due to winning a greater share of the white vote—the Sailer Strategy. Gaining a few more Hispanic votes will not offset losing the college-educated white vote by a decisive margin. More effort is required to win over college-educated whites and let them know the GOP represents them.
    As well, focusing on minority outreach will confound the attack the party should make on Affirmative Action, which would win back or attract new college-educated voters, a significant portion of Affirmative Action victims, to the GOP. With Blake Masters making a full-throated attack on Affirmative Action, and Noticing black crime, focusing on “minority outreach” sends a conflicting message.
  • Third, many of the non-white candidates will be sellouts. Take Tim Scott and the much-celebrated Mexico-born Mayra Flores. Scott advocates a variety of terrible ideas, such as criminal justice reform and celebrating race libels. He opposed Trump judicial nominees who questioned multiculturalism, declaring that those views were unacceptable. Flores received lots of admiration from conservatives after she won a Hispanic majority congressional district earlier this year. But while she’s conservative on many issues, she’s not solid on immigration. She immediately began championing Amnesty when she got to Congress [GOP Rep. Mayra Flores Defends Visa Giveaway Vote as ‘Not Amnesty’, by Neil Munro, Breitbart, July 19, 2022].
  • Fourth, minority outreach might push the GOP to abandon solid policies. The most famous example is Amnesty, which the pre-Trump GOP said the party needed to embrace to win over Hispanics. Fortunately, this idea is no longer as popular, but a few Republicans like Flores cling to it. Another example: criminal justice reform, which the party embraced allegedly to win over black voters. Trump’s horrible Platinum Plan—which called for Juneteenth to be made a holiday and other concessions to blacks—was similarly championed to woo blacks. But only 12 percent of blacks voted for Trump in 2020.

The Tories and Republicans represent white majorities. They’re supposed to be the parties arresting dispossession and replacement, not acclimating whites to them, or worse, pushing them along.

If neither party wants to stand up for whites, then what good are they?

Washington Watcher II [Email him] is an anonymous DC insider.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 185 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. None of the top ministers are white men. This is an odd omission considering white men built Great Britain and its once-mighty empire, and whites still make up the majority of the population.

    Of course Liz Truss is cynical — that’s essentially given for a major politician. But there’s a method to her madness: all of the PoC deputies help to immunize her against MSM attacks.

    Just as in the USA, the interests of her actual constituents matter not a whit. The owners of the MSM are the ones whose bread needs buttering.

    Now, does this mean she won’t be attacked? Of course not. She’s still a Tory, of sorts. But she can pawn off certain policy initiatives on lieutenants who are effectively untouchable. Almost.

  2. neutral says:

    Many joke about the Peoples Republic of Korea, but in all seriousness that label is more accurate than anything that the “Conservative” party of the UK does. Besides the whole anti white ideology driving this party, this party introduced gay marriage, pushes for ever increasing censorship of anything that is not hard left, supports open borders, etc.

  3. Richard B says:
    @HammerJack

    Now, does this mean she won’t be attacked? Of course not. She’s still a Tory, of sorts. But she can pawn off certain policy initiatives on lieutenants who are effectively untouchable.

    One unspoken, but obvious, consequence of The Untouchables and what makes them untouchable – Identity Politics – is Cultural Impoverishment.

    By culture I don’t mean being able to quote Shakespeare at cocktail parties. And I don’t mean simply belief-systems and patterns of behavior, though that’s what a culture is.

    No, I mean culture as a set of directions to carry out behavioral performances.

    And the area of performance is not society, a vague abstraction (in a way that culture as defined above is not), but rather, our social institutions, ie; our teaching-learning institutions, value institutions (not limited to religion), our economic institutions, governing institutions and our idea institutions (the Arts & Sciences, research institutes, etc. anything that operates outside of our teaching-learning institutions).

    Culture is directions for performance and Social Institutions are performance in response to directions. Let’s call this, The Direction-Performance Complex. When TDPC is so incompetent and confused on the one hand, and so shallow and narrow on the other, the result is a devastating cultural incoherence. When enough people to form a critical mass see this a culture crisis inevitably breaks out.

    And that’s the position we’re in today.

    When the hostile elite’s reaction to this is to apply even more force the result is Cultural Impoverishment and Societal Collapse. People, not without some reason, are so impressed with the destructive power of the elite that they fail to see that what they’re really witnessing is their Pyrrhic Victory.

    The only sensible thing to do at this point is to stay out of their way as much as one can and operate as well as you can in the periphery. Because if there’s one thing Western history proves it’s that it’s exactly the preriphery that is able to come in and make a new start when what the elite is protecting has collapsed on itself. This is one reason, among many, for why they want to rewrite history. “The readiness is all.”

    • Agree: inspector general, Franz
    • Thanks: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @HbutnotG
  4. Emma S. says:

    Will the vast majority of Whites ever wake up?

  5. Josh Acid says:

    The strategy actually makes sense, but they place too much emphasis on diversity. The only platform of the Democrat Party in the USA is to call the other party racist. If the Republican Party is ethnically mixed, then there goes the only selling point of Democrats.

    It doesn’t matter because both parties are intent on crushing the country anyway.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @AndrewR
  6. Is there not a correlation between the decline of Britain and British people being ashamed to be British?

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/13/union-jack-jacket-pub-landlord-barnsley_n_9224996.html

    https://sg.news.yahoo.com/patriotic-gulf-war-veteran-ordered-to-take-down-union-flag-in-his-back-garden-141951005.html

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10577575/Anger-Bank-England-ditches-St-Georges-Cross-logo-woke-rebrand.html

    The corollary applied to USA shows liberal American cities in decline because overeducated whites in the Northeast, West Coast, and Upper Midwest became ashamed to be white.

    Expect continued decline in both places until civilization has been severely compromised.

  7. n UK and US, Cuckservative Parties Pander to Diversity, Rebuff White Base

    They pander to Jews who push Diversity on whites.

    If whites in US and UK truly pandered to diversity, they would be fair and ‘inclusive’ of Palestinian voices. But BDS is effectively suppressed in the US, and politicians grovel and apologize for criticizing Israel in the UK. Even Jeremy Corbyn finally caved and betrayed people in his party who’d called out on Zionist ‘genocide’ of Palestinians.

    But I see Vdare is too chicken to name the Jewish Power(though it has done so in the past, even printing the writings of Kevin MacDonald).

    In truth, ‘diversity’, ‘equity’, and ‘inclusion’ are not abstract principles in the US and UK. Terms of both are dictated by Jews. So, ‘equity’ means whites apologizing to blacks and groveling to kiss black feet. It doesn’t mean whites treating Jews and Palestinians equally. ‘Inclusion’ means allowing in more blacks who are allied with Jews against whites. It doesn’t mean calling on NYT and WAPO to include a Palestinian-American columnist. ‘Diversity’ means more homo propaganda and blacks-blacks-blacks. It has no concern for non-white victims of black thuggery.

    The West no longer has an ideology. It runs on idolatry of Jews allied mainly with homos and blacks. It’s about the Tri-idolatry or Tridolatry of Jews, blacks, and homos.

    Yet, Vdare still pretends as if US and UK are misguided by abstract principles.
    Those ‘abstract principles’ are guided by the concrete tribalism of Jewish Supremacism.

    Truss’s anti-white policies are to win approval from Jews. Some people have been saying Jews in UK and Canada are more ‘conservative’, but all they did on the conservative side of the aisle is turn conservatism into white cuckery. Even if Jews in UK and Canada may be upset with some signs of ‘antisemitism’ among immigrant elements, they hate white identity and unity even more. So, even as they use white conservatives to denounce immigrant ‘antisemitism’, they are totally for White Nakba that will reduce white majority power and pride.

    Btw, with conservatism like that, who needs suicidism?

  8. Jacobite2 says:
    @Priss Factor

    Nothing new here. We can look back to the WW I period, when newly-arrived Jews from Eastern Europe created the ACLU (anti-Christian), NAACP (anti-white), and CPUSA (anti-American). The ACLU and NAACP are still in there attacking America 24/7, while the Jews did trade the CPUSA for control of the national Democratic Party in 1933.
    I’ve long wondered if the total beat-down of Charles Lindbergh (“the Most Admired Man in America” and “the Lone Eagle’) didn’t permanently put the ‘fear of Yahweh’ in the minds of every public figure in the US. Few Americans alive today can appreciate just how ‘big’ Lindbergh was, and the fact that the owners of Hollywood, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the WaPo could make him a virtual pariah within one week proved that nobody was safe.
    The other side of the coin is the transformation of a slimy, corrupt, Jewish oligarch into the Ukrainian version of Winston Churchill, completely justifying risking nuclear war to defend.

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
    • Replies: @nsa
    , @Observator
  9. anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    My first thought was “WASHINGTON WATCHER II” should not call others cuckservatives if he is not willing to call out Jewish power. It’s Jewish power that is directing the action. To not call them out for their abuse of power out of fear for personal reputation shows a lack of willingness to fight for real.

  10. WHITE GENOCIDE IS REAL!!!!

    Liz Truss

    Bill Clinton’s puss

    The ADL

    LEO FRANK

    Donald Trump

    Niki Haley’s puss…lot’s of it….

    • Replies: @Kal-Zakath
  11. Maybe it’s time for the “white base” to “rebuff” the RINOs and the rest of the criminal psycho elites that only use “diversity” and “equity” for their own selves… Stop relying on government! And stop misinterpreting “turn the other cheek” and grow up and stand up for the Bill of Rights, God, family, and country. Let the woke bury the woke!

  12. @Emma S.

    To answer your question: they’ll wake up when blacks attack them etc. (which was when I woke up back in the late 70s, and the attack wasn’t like the attacks today)…or else. Actually, I’d say more whites are waking up every day and will continue to..except the affluenza white libtard wokesters, of course…then again they are nearly all vaxxed so, as I always say, let the woke BURY the woke!

    • Agree: theMann
  13. @War for Blair Mountain

    Give my regards to the Dodo white man.

  14. Ghali says:

    All those countries and individuals who claim to promote “Diversity” and “tolerance” are the most bigoted racists on Planet Earth. From Australia to NZ and From Britain to Canada, I spent extended times there. These countries and their regimes are the most racist countries you can think about. They are ruled by Jews who promote diversity to serve their own interests. Jews and Indians are the two faces of one dirty racist coin.

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
    • Replies: @Brian Damage
  15. Franz says:
    @Emma S.

    Will the vast majority of Whites ever wake up?

    Would we have any way of knowing if they did?

    The people who own all the media, schools and agencies ALSO shut down any discussion on social media they believe is “hateful” AKA “truthful”.

    Along with a lot of other people I think most of our people were wide awake two years ago, minimum. But awareness needs nurturing and empowerment. During these same two years, this is precisely what’s been taken away from us.

    Your question is prescient. The vast majority’s beliefs cannot be honestly measured under current conditions.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  16. nsa says:
    @Jacobite2

    “…….the total beatdown of Charles Lindbergh”
    The yids stomping peacenik icon Charlie Lindbergh 6″ below the dirt line for the sin of trying to prevent WWII was preceded by an even greater takedown of icon industrialist peacenik Henry Ford for the sin of trying to prevent WWI. Henry even commissioned The Peace Ship in 1915 for a failed peace cruise to europe. Later, an embittered Ford could not get a hearing in the papers of his time, so he bought The Dearborn Independent to have a forum for his counterattack on his tribal enemies. A compendium of his articles was published under the title “The International Jew – The World’s Foremost Problem”…..subtle, huh? When the yids were done with him, ole Henry was a pariah left with few friends except a few fellow jew haters like Tommy Edison. Even after Ford’s business was effectively taken from him, right to the end he refused to apologize for anything. However, his son Edsel bent over and apologized profusely in order to gather in those juicy government contracts and favorable press. Another cultural icon who attracted much hostility from the tribe was the German simp and peacenik newspaper editor, Henry Mencken, whose newspaper column was banned for the duration of WWI and WWII. If the yids can easily take out magnificent icons like Lindbergh, Ford, and Mencken…is it any wonder no public figure today wants to take them on?

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
  17. zard says:

    You have two main parties in the USA: the Zionist (Republican) & the Communist (Democrat)–both owned/managed by Jewish billionaires. They both conspire together to transform the nation into a nonwhite/antiwhite dystopia.

    This Semitic system can be basically extrapolated to all ‘western democracies’. For example, in the UK you have the Zionist (Conservative) Party & the Communist (Labour) Party–both colluding to import millions of apes/wogs & turn England into a subhuman society of scum…but hey, you didn’t want to support Mosley or Jordan so this is what happens…

  18. Dumbo says:

    If neither party wants to stand up for whites, then what good are they?

    It’s not about the voters. The funny thing about “Democracy” is that, in the end, the voter is the last one to count, if counting at all. First comes the bankers, then the media, then whoever is paying the politicians to do what they do, then the politician’s own ego, then the politician’s lovers, etc. The voter’s opinion just doesn’t matter, except at election time, and they can be pacified with false promises. Or, if the voters insist in voting the wrong way, the politicians and their handlers can force the laws they want through the courts, or they can simply replace the electorate with non-natives who are more docile and vote the way they’re told.

    Perhaps it’s time do ditch democracy, it doesn’t work.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Anon
  19. Parties Pander to Diversity, Rebuff White Base

    Charlie don’t surf and the Base don’t pay.

    The oligarchs pay, and prostitucians sing to their tune.

  20. anonymous[423] • Disclaimer says:

    New UK Liz Truss government has top figures who are much Jewish or Jewish-related, rather like the USA … even its minorities turn out to sometimes have Jewish links in their ancestral homelands

    Jewish Attorney General Michael Ellis
    Jewish Lord Chancellor Brandon Lewis
    Jewish Transport Secretary Miryam Trevelyan
    Jewish Minister Without Portfolio Jacob Berry

    Part-Jewish ancestry (India Bene Israel father) Home Secretary Suella Braverman
    Part-Jewish ancestry Defence Secretary Ben Wallace
    Part-Jewish ancestry (Warren family) Business-Energy Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg
    Part-Jewish ancestry Levelling Up Secretary Simon Clark
    Part-Jewish ancestry (India Cochin Jewish) Environment Secretary Ranil Jayawardena

    Married Jewish Education Secretary Kit Malthouse
    Married Jewish Int’l Trade Secretary Olukemi Badenoch
    Married Jewish Lords Leader Nicholas True
    Dating Jewish Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan

    • Replies: @Z-man
  21. Truss, giving her importance? Agency? That accounts for delibility, cowardice. Why do the thinking Native Britains not set up an Elected Shadow Cabinet as a real measure of grasping countenance.

    A commenter here at unz.com called RoatanBill is working on a software solution (it will need a hardware component, a network component, some finance additionally) to do the voting. The idea goes as far back as Ross Perot. It can be as simple as the internet is simple for Google and Facebook. In Finance Capitalism there can be but one dominant cycle, centrally steered. One needs to create a parallel reality and yes, as soon as the submissive attitudes to pestering turn up inefficient, new alternatives must grow. Coming up with a parallel voting cycle added to the alternative media cycle in existence is the next logical step. Agency: decide on the time and interaction of “your democracy”. If democracy is not yours, it is not democracy.

    These methods are requisite to refocus and stun the middle class whores at media, politics, military, justice, corporatocracy. Creating a parallel reality and blur the on scene actors (Truss et al.) and the invisible control behind the scenes of the Actors Guild becomes impotent.

  22. Truss, giving her importance? Agency? That accounts for delibility, cowardice. Why do the thinking Native Britains not set up an Elected Shadow Cabinet as a real measure of grasping countenance.

    A commenter here at unz.com called RoatanBill is working on a software solution (it will need a hardware component, a network component, some finance additionally) to do the voting. The idea goes as far back as Ross Perot. It can be as simple as the internet is simple for Google and Facebook. In Finance Capitalism there can be but one dominant cycle, centrally steered. One needs to create a parallel reality and yes, as soon as the submissive attitudes to pestering turn up inefficient, new alternatives must grow. Coming up with a parallel voting cycle added to the alternative media cycle in existence is the next logical step. Agency: decide on the time and interaction of “your democracy”. If democracy is not yours, it is not democracy.

    These methods are requisite to refocus and stun the middle class whores at media, politics, military, justice, corporatocracy. Creating a parallel reality and blur the on scene actors (Truss et al.) and the invisible control behind the scenes of the Actors Guild becomes impotent.

    Mining votes, Bietcoin is another model of the principle, an experiment not to be ignored! While our elites are at improvising a reset, let’s give them a push as to what the reset could be!

  23. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes the Sailer Strategy won the election for Trump.
    But that is WHY MAGA Republicans are getting increased support from blacks and Hispanics, especially men.
    They don’t like to vote for cucks.
    Trump stole the white working class “industrial” bloc from the D’s and now he is stealing the blacks and Hispanics who think like actual men (and the women who like them).
    If the Democrats cannot rely on 90% of the black vote they are DONE.

    Anyone who thinks that black Americans are the “real enemy” is an ABSOLUTE MORON.

    • LOL: Thim
  24. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Actually, you are full of shit when it comes to your second point (regarding Youngkin’s victory).
    Steve Sailer identified a very particular group of white voters who had been abandoned by the Democrats (working class whites in the Midwest).
    The Trump campaign fought for and won their votes.
    Youngkin’s increased support from white voters in Virginia is utterly different (although downstream from the prior).
    These votes came from highly educated but not “insane” suburbanites shocked by the gender and racial policies of the Democratic party (and also by the COVID tyranny).
    Rejection of these policies has very little to do with race, and there are many peoplle of different racial backgrounds actively opposing them.

    Pre-Trump, Republican “outreach” to “minority voters” was often cringeworthy.
    Post-Trump, everything is different and if you are ignoring that then you are dishonest or a moron.
    For sure, individuals of any race can be fallible.

  25. AndrewR says:
    @Josh Acid

    The Dems have been talking about “internalized white supremacy” and “multiracial white supremacy” for years. So recruiting more blacks and whatever won’t actually prevent the Dems from committing racial arson.

  26. I’m afraid I’m enough of an IQ ist to think that the objection the author seemed to be implying when he noted that Kwasi Karteng, the new Chanceor of the Exchequer is black is ridiculous. It is quite possible that no British MP has ever had a superior academic record. It is not really surprising that the drive to get there is found in the son of immigrants. If you are white and already enjoying an upper or upper muddle class life that could take the edge off ambition.

    What might surprise those who infer crude views of West African inherited cognitive ability from the limited IQ studies available, and the performance of African-Americans, is that there is obviously a lot more to be learned about the genomes of African groups which apparently include caste systems and may well include genetic intrusions from returned members of the great African diaspora.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Lurker
  27. @Jacobite2

    September 11, 2001 was the 60th anniversary of Charles Lindberg’s powerful Des Moines speech in which he denounced “the Jewish element” as one of the main special interest lobbies maneuvering the United States into war with Germany. That would be quite a propitious day (for those who dwell on revenge) to begin a campaign to draw the United States into another conflict with the enemies of Jewry.

    FDR had also ordered the IRS to audit Lindberg, for daring to oppose his relentless campaign to draw the US into another European war. After the bitter disillusionment of the Great War, in poll after poll a huge majority of the American people was opposed to repeating the folly of taking sides in Europe’s endless petty power struggles. JFK courageously invited Lindy to a White House dinner decades later in 1962. The President, along with his younger brother Joe Jr., Gerald Ford, and many others, had been an active member of the America First Committee of 1940, which is now denounced in some circles as racist, pro-Nazi, etc.

  28. “If neither party wants to stand up for whites, then what good are they?”

    It wouldn’t be so bad if it ended there, but one party won’t let Whites stand up for themselves. The right to self defense is fundamental, cardinal to the Rights of Man. A government that does not honor it as such has no claim to legitimacy.

    By definition, a government must in some measure concern itself with the positive welfare of the governed. N’est-ce pas?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  29. Fred777 says:
    @Emma S.

    Not as long as they can watch football on Sunday.

    • Agree: Realist
  30. Keep voting folks. It’s your duty as a citizen. It is because of you, the voters, that the system known as gov’t is able to continuously disappoint the public year after year. Gov’t has an agenda all of its own and is usually counter to the interests of the morons that vote to keep it in power.

    Vote harder. Get out the vote. It’s your civic duty to enshrine the human trash that win every election. Exhibit A above.

    • Agree: Realist
  31. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:

    Jews have decided the white men have been working too hard to help build Jewish fortunes and therefore, they’ve earned permanent retirement from positions of power.

    • Agree: Z-man
  32. America was a nice try. It’s over. It’s a diverse evil empire under the rainbow curtain.

  33. Here’s a another note: by the what a conservatives means in the US, The Tory’s stopped being conservative some time ago.

    And if history is any telling white leadership is no guarantee of effective leadership. I am nota fan of diversity in the name of rainbowism or even merely to correct some wrongs for which the remedy doesn’t address.

    One could effectively argue that voting in the first nonwhite executive in the US only highlighted how demonstrably the issues about color are And that executive abandoned his agenda to fulfill an agenda that far more establishment, — almost exclusively establishment.

    Great Britain has had more than 1000 years of exclusively white leadership. It is not the blacks that has brought them to where they are. The leadership before operated in the best interests of white men and women. Odd that the author hasn’t managed to mention the tragedies and disasters of the same. As for female leadership, hardly an unknown in British history.

  34. Realist says:

    This Cuckservative diversity pandering only reflects acceptance of dispossession, and it will fail as a political strategy.

    If neither party wants to stand up for whites, then what good are they?

    Anything to do with the electoral process will fail. The Deep State has other ideas.

    Stupid White people have only themselves to blame…they allow this to continue.

    There is only one party in this country. The Deep State.

  35. Realist says:
    @Emma S.

    Will the vast majority of Whites ever wake up?

    It doesn’t appear that way.

  36. Trinity says:

    Special guests for Tucker Carlson show requirements

    Must be cuckservative
    Must bring up the holocaust periodically
    Must hate David Duke and identity Hitler as Satan
    Must think Rush Limbaugh and Ronnie Reagan are gawds
    Must have a Herschel Walker jersey

    Must not be a normal, working class White who does not want to vote for a gay Jew, an incompetent negro ex Jock, or a Hawaiian or East Indian chick.

  37. Z-man says:
    @anonymous

    Part-Jewish ancestry Defense Secretary Ben Wallace

    When I saw the picture of this guy he reminded me of Frank Rich, the old NY Times theater critic. LOL!

    The ‘Torries’ are as owned by Big Jew as the Republi’tard party in the good Ol ‘USA. There aren’t as many Jews in total numbers and in high profile positions as opposed to the Bolshevik Demok’rat party, but they ARE there.
    They’ve hijacked all good movements in the conservative realm.
    The Tea Party-it started off as a noble effort to cut taxes for the masses and then became a scam to cut taxes for the 2%. Of course, they had to keep our tax dollars to Izrael off limits.
    Cutting foreign aid…same as above.
    Cut immigration, border security etc. etc.
    And sadly, America First which Trump turned into Izrael First.
    This sh*t has got to stop. If it takes a revolution to do so, so be it.

  38. Despite controlling vast areas of the globe along with their attendant resources, the Anglosphere is a failed civilization. Not coincidentally, no group of Whites has been more in bad with Jews, literally and figuratively, than Anglos. If the current British cabinet is filled with muds, in the 19th century it was headed by Benjamin Disraeli, and Granny Victoria adored her goat-faced Christ killer. Anglos are the frog to the Jewish scorpion, and non-Whites are the river that will end up drowning both.

  39. Anon[318] • Disclaimer says:

    Liz Truss is another stream of giggles waiting to be a river of tears. Everyone knows that putting East Indians and Blacks to run anything is recipe for disaster. Isn’t she a protege of Boris, the guy with the Preppy hairstyle ?

    The Diverse Crowd tend to be incompetent and they hire their own. So when Kwasi hires Mongulu he will ensure his protege is not as intelligent as he is. What happens is that there is an inverse IQ from the top Gorilla to the tiniest Marmoset Clerk. Same for East Indians and every colour between Brown and Jet Black.

    Kwasi, Mdongo, Ngululu at the Treasury ! Suella Braverman the half breed Yarmulke Towel Head at Home Affairs with her crew of Singh, Gopaul, Ramnaraine, Silverman, Goldman etc ! We can expect Finances to be fucked up and hordes of new Immigrants (that is undocumented visitors LOL) washing ashore.

    The UK is already a basket case but with these Multicultural Geniuses in control along with others sticking their Noses into the brew, we can expect the bottom of the basket to give way at any moment.

    Its no wonder the Queen gave up the ghost when she heard the plan for the salvation of the UK.

    In Liz we Truss ! Goodbye UK Goodbye !

  40. Still about 50% of Liz Truss’s cabinet are White men. 25% White Women and 25% non-Whites.

    Then again, like Biden, Liz Truss is using token non-Whites as fodders for the upcoming economic collapse and aggressive push for hostilities against Russia and China. Good optics for the Global South.

  41. Anon[318] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I’m afraid I’m enough of an IQ ist to think that the objection the author seemed to be implying when he noted that Kwasi Karteng, the new Chanceor of the Exchequer is black is ridiculous.

    I am afraid I AM enough of an IQis to agree with the author.

    Wizard of Oz, Oh Wise One, name one Black Finance Minister in any country who is not a complete fuckup !

    Never mind the education. Africa has many Ministers/ Presidents educated at some of the best schools in the UK, graduating with so many Phd;s their cards need to be 5 x 8’s. They shop at Harrods, have their suits custom made and rock the Rolls Royces. Many attend finishing schools where they learn to eat with a knife and fork, how to finish a bowl of soup, wipe their mouths with clean white napkins, how not to slurp, barf, pick their teeth or fart at the table. They then fly back to their countries in private jets ready to turn their miserable African states into financial power houses. NOT !!

    They all share one thing in common. They are all idiots. Dont accept MY word. Just look at the state of Africa, that continent of financial success. Rather, spare yourself the trouble and look at black and indian run cities in the west.

    You cannot take a Zebra from the Savannah and train it to be a Kentucky Derby winner. Sad to say, you are no wizard and you are no Oz. You are a strange turkey with some rather strange gobbles !

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  42. anon[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @HammerJack

    There is a video out there where an american strategist lays out the strategic military order of US in context of effectively heading a collective Western+Allies empire, aka “the international community”.

    The general idea is having a hard “core” force and a much larger and far far softer administrative arm. The core are ‘born to k ill’ type of military and their job is deliver irresistible force that remove other power players. The other arm’s job is to win hearts and minds. The famous sissy/cuck army that useful idiots keep focusing on — because of Russian psyops and agitprop — is that arm. It is supposed to be as inclusive as possible! That is is job: to present a soft friendly facade.

    Your national governments work the same way. Rest assured Whitey, the “core” of OWNERS of this planetwide plantation are WHITE. These inclusive national governments are the cuck brigade but they don’t decide anything, zip. Their job is to keep non-WHITEs from attacking the WHITE CORE.

    You need to get this in your dumb heads: The “White” civilizations was NOT built by white trash. White trash was rolling around in mud, puss, and its own refuse. ONLY when White Masters (“Lord”,”Guvner”,…) decided you lot needed a bit of education to work in factories and go die in their armies did you lot take on a semblance of civilization.

    So, that’s the sad reality of the matter. Now you may of course go tilting after windmills, per directives of Kremlin.

  43. @Ghali

    All those countries and individuals who claim to promote “Diversity” and “tolerance” are the most bigoted racists on Planet Earth. From Australia to NZ and From Britain to Canada, I spent extended times there. These countries and their regimes are the most racist countries you can think about.

    I will ignore the Jewish part of your post. Using the “Jewish excuse” is like sweeping all the sh&t you did for the past two centuries under the rug and hoping it will go away.

    Then again I agree that individuals in the Anglosphere who like to promote diversity and tolerance are usually the most racist. Everytime I see a “virtue signaller”, to me, it signals a shifty racist.

    Those so called “rednecks”, “deplorables” are mostly realists and usually just frustrated folks reacting to things that are negatively affecting them. The many I met, not many are racist. They just speak the way it is without all those BS “woke filters”.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Megoy
    , @John Johnson
  44. @HammerJack

    Instead of focusing on Truss’ non-white appointments, the primary focus should be on her insane statement that Britain could (or should) nuke the Russians, and that she wouldn’t hesitate to give the order. If she tried it, her beloved Britain would be instantly turned into an ashtray. In my mind, that’s yet another reason to keep women out of politics. Our founding fathers, who didn’t give women the vote, were much more intelligent than white men today.

    • Replies: @Realist
  45. Realist says:
    @Dumbo

    Perhaps it’s time do ditch democracy, it doesn’t work.

    Ya think.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  46. Megoy says:

    Surprise goyim! Dan CONston is a JEW: https://americanactionnetwork.org/people/dan-conston/

    McCarthy, Rubio, Graham etc. – all suck the Jew dick as always.

    If you think you can trust third world trash to be LOYAL and not look out for THEMSELVES FIRST, you are a brainwashed white goyim that knows nothing.

    Intentionally creating policies to make whites a minority in their own countries is GENOCIDE according to the international definition.

    • Replies: @HbutnotG
  47. IronForge says:

    USA Whites are due to become Minorities.

    It’s a matter of Time.

    Hispanic Births and (Legal+Illegal) Migrations outnumber and outpace White Births and (Legal+Illegal) Migrations.

    These will occur in Red States FL, TX, AZ. AK may be spared; but my point is that Murican may need to address this and consider a mutual relocation project

    White+Asian Non-Masonics/Non-Zionists/Non-Catholics have a chance in avoiding being outnumbered by Seceding from WashingtonDC or Emigrating Elsewhere.

    I was born, raised, and served a Navy Sea Tour in the Far East. I lived in ‘Murica long enough and to see where they may be headed – to leave Murica for good.

    The Reasons are many.

    As one of my final Acts as a Citizen-Soldier, the Last Naval Veteran and only Naval Officer of my Murican Family – I suggest calling for a Constitutional Convention to discuss and negotiate splitting the Republic.

  48. @Emma S.

    Well, with Trump’s Florida home attacked by Garland’s Injustice Dept., and with the FBI as its enforcers, as well as the recent revelation that 40 Trump supporters, some of whom weren’t near the Capitol on 1/6, had their phones illegally seized, put in handcuffs and perp walked, you’d think that, in addition to Biden’s war on MAGA, it would be enough to cause a very strong reaction from Republicans. But its disgusting leadership, under McCarthy and McConnell, is go along to get along. With no one in power speaking for us, and no cure from the ballot box, what chance do we white second-class citizens have outside of secession?

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Corvinus
  49. The thing is that until very recently, everyone in Western governments had to be white and was said to be democratic and if you didn’t agree you were a dead man. So ?

  50. Jimmy1969 says:

    I did not even read the article; the headline is wrong. The Conservatives do not rebuff their base, they take them for granted. It is the same with pro sports where 95% of the paying fans and 99.9% of the expensive box holders and owners are white….they get taken for granted because the game is to sell junk products to minorities who sit home and watch commercials and some women who buy sports trinkets. In reality there are almost no real conservatives left…they have all gone to the left. The only real conservatives remaining now are the minor fringe element who in my day were called Fascists….like me. No real conservative can win an election at the City minority controlled level, and none at the Governor level….or the Presidency. Maybe you might get one Congressman or Senator whose area/state are so enraged at the woke incumbent that they would flip to the opposite for a once off term, but that too is highly unlikely. America is toast…fixed on a drug of woke spending…a day of reckoning is coming.

    • Agree: Realist
  51. Blacks brutalize whites, but whites, mentally colonized by Jews, act as if blacks need protection from whites.

    BAMMAMA is reality.

    • Thanks: TKK
  52. Realist says:
    @follyofwar

    Our founding fathers, who didn’t give women the vote, were much more intelligent than white men today.

    That is for sure…but it is faint praise…since they supported slavery. And that is why blacks are here in the first place.

    • Agree: follyofwar
  53. Realist says:
    @follyofwar

    With no one in power speaking for us, and no cure from the ballot box, what chance do we white second-class citizens have outside of secession?

    Guerilla revolution.

  54. GMC says:

    Matthew Ehret’s article – Can the Brits break free from feudalism or will King Charlie ……. I didn’t know the Monarchy had over 6 billion acres around the world. You have to read his article !

  55. Finally some water of color.

  56. Anonymous[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @HammerJack

    The colloquialism is, “to palm off”, not “pawn off.”

    • Thanks: HammerJack
  57. Let’s see if the cowardly US conservatives have the guts to talk about the latest Veritas video:

    Con Inc completely ignored the Veritas CNN video. Too offensive to the establishment I guess. That Veritas guy has more balls than all the US conservatives combined.

    I hate conservatives. It isn’t hard to get them to admit that they have to lie about race. In my history feed I have Con Inc defenders admitting that the truth of race can’t be told. We have to lie because the other side would call us racist if we told the truth. That is the mentality. Total capitulation and cowardice in the face of an unrelenting enemy. Telling your own lies about race allows the establishment to maintain theirs.

    I used to hang out with a conservative activist and he would fully admit that they lied about race. He would complain about the MSM lying but that’s different you see. When we lie about race it is OK because we have to. Well conservative brain trust that is exactly how liberals justify their actions. Can’t tell the truth about race so let’s just lie and blame White men for everything.

    What is the point of lying about race if you are losing? At least go down telling the truth.

    US conservatives have been lying about race since the 1950s and Blacks still vote Democrat 90% of the time. Our doofus conservatives seem unable to consider the possibility of a losing strategy.

    THEM NEGROS JUST NEED MORE SPEECHES ABOUT FREE MARKETS. YEP A FEW MORE SHOULD DO IT. MAYBE A RAP VIDEO ABOUT RAND THAT SPEAKS THEIR LANGUAGE?

    • Agree: Thim
  58. “England is still 85% white”.

    It was virtually 100% white within living memory. Allowing nonwhites into Britain was the greatest mistake the British rulers ever made, perhaps even greater then the pledge to Poland in 1939. Enoch Powell warned them.

  59. @Emma S.

    Look who controls the media.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  60. Goddard says:

    A white nationalist General American Party would do better among minorities than the GOP.

    Many minorities would respond positively to a self-confident white American core. They know, without necessarily being able to enunciate it, that white Americans are normative Americans and that a healthy, confident white America leads to a stronger America.

    Trump’s performance in the Mexican border counties in 2020 bears out what I’m saying.

  61. @Brian Damage

    I will ignore the Jewish part of your post. Using the “Jewish excuse” is like sweeping all the sh&t you did for the past two centuries under the rug and hoping it will go away.

    They really want to believe that establishment serving intellectuals have no idea as to what they are doing.

    The Jew blamers here haven’t been around actual conservatives or liberals. I assume most are posting from the burbs and have never lived in a multi-racial area.

    It isn’t hard to get liberal or conservative activists to admit that they lie about race.

    I caught a liberal professor lying about race and she laughed about it. Well duh was the response. The Jew Blamers here would actually let her off the hook. She was paid 120k a year and is probably still lying to White students as we speak but they will still blame the Jews cause Marx and so and so are Jews. Yep. I guess that means she is completely innocent.

    Establishment intellectuals know what they are doing. But the Unz Jew blamers want to believe that our White intellectuals are all doe eyed idealists. Helps them sleep at night I guess. I have pointed out that most left-wing journalists are now White women but that doesn’t matter. They must still be getting orders from Jews or something. It can’t be that those White women prefer lying about reality rather than risk conflict. No, that couldn’t be it.

    Anyone that has been around Blacks is fully aware of race. That includes everyone in DC. You can’t live in a Black area and believe magic rainbow unicorn theories where race is just skin color. It doesn’t work that way. It only takes 2 weeks tops if you are in a publicly facing position. The difference is so glaring that it usually depresses White people for a period until they get used to it.

    The establishment has decided that race must not exist. Disproportionate Jewish involvement in left-wing circles does not change the fact that both conservative and liberal intellectuals have embraced race denial. They don’t think the White proles should know the truth and will allow the country to turn into some third world cesspool even if it means keeping that awful secret suppressed. I have even had liberals admit that they want to turn the US into Brazil to keep Whites from potentially learning the truth and acting collectively.

    • Agree: Brian Damage
    • Thanks: HbutnotG
    • Replies: @Pablo
  62. @Realist

    It is not good to tell a god that they failed.

    • Replies: @Realist
  63. Pablo says:

    HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!! Since WHEN does the Political Class give a rat’s tail about the ‘proles’? Like never maybe?? What has been going on in White Western Countries the past 4 decades is a Class War and a Race War. The Deep State, along with a tiny group of Billionaires have been taking charge of the Government. This leaves the Average American in the dust. The Republican push for “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism” is a very cynical move by the GOP. The Republican Party has a deep, bitter HATRED for anyone–including White people–who is not at least a millionaire. At the Bottom Line allof this posturing by the Political Wh#re Class is a big freakin’ Dog and Pony Show.

    • Agree: HbutnotG
  64. @anonymouseperson

    Look who controls the media.

    Jeff Bezos, a non-Jew owns Wapo and employs a Scotch-Irish White woman from rural America as the lead editor.

    So should be a bias free media source then, right?

    Funny I checked their home page the other day and the story about the Arkansas kidnapping was completely absent. They did however have a couple White guilt stories as usual.

    Care to explain?

  65. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Honest question, why are people so obsessed with Jews here? What do they have to do with it? And don’t give me some BS conspiracy theory about Jews controlling everything. While they are in charge of a lot of things, this is due more to their cultural ethics of hard work than anything. I just don’t get why their religion is considered “evil” by many people on the “right” and it doesn’t help against arguments on the left that “right-wing” people are Nazis (even if the left are more fascist). And why are you sure they hate whites?

    If you replaced it with “Muslim” at least it would be somewhat understandable, though I still think religion should have nothing to do with it.

    • Troll: Pop Warner
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  66. HbutnotG says:
    @Richard B

    Yes it is, in many facets, a cultural thing. And when you think about it, that is a big deal.

    Culture doesn’t operate on written rules. It operates on social “rules.”

    It’s like you wearing bell bottom jeans in a day when ballerina tight fit jeans are the style. Or hair ratted up to the sky, shaped like a giant bowl, with a little black velvet bow attached in front over the forehead, when all the other gals have a White Owl Cigar lady close crop haircut.

    Colleges are now full out Jr High Schools, and are nowadays “compulsory” education just like Jr High aged kids (12 – 14) were, in even semi-developed countries, within that compulsory school attendance age group – only now it’s compulsory to be in school til age 22. (clearly for indoctrination purposes).

    So, no written rules – a sneer or verbal stab (i.e., a low social credit score) is the means of keeping control. Censorship has replaced things like locked mental hospitals (now “outlawed”) and robbers glomming less than \$1000 don’t need no stinking gun; and party stuff (drugs) are, in \$’s, the biggest economy in the West. [ever notice that Venezuela with its petroleum has faded in importance – Columbia is the new Venezuela in case you haven’t been informed; it’s a new day, babe]

    If it all sounds a bit “womanish” …it is! All this was initiated by some moustachioed dudes raised in the Victorian era who readily and willingly allowed the dames to be let out of the house – just so hopefully, they might catch a glimpse of (stockinged) ankle. In the “roaring twenties” those guys must’ve had that pre-marital juice running down their legs just from walking down the street. Only, today, colostrum exudes when a brown person on TV is spotted living in the glamour of a half mil home with Crate & Barrel furnishings.

  67. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @zard

    I always love reading this stupid trash, these kinds of comments are good entertainment that adds to the informative articles.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @Megoy
  68. Pablo says:
    @John Johnson

    You make a very legitimate point; it isn’t only the Jews. That said, you are downplaying their influence. Note how many Jewish folks are ALWAYS in a President’s Cabinet and other areas of a Presidential Administration. Jewish influence in US Politics is massive. That is undeniable. The Neo Cons are heavily represented by Jewish people. The NY Times has just appointed a Jewish Editor. Their 6th Jewish person appointed Editor in the last 50+ years. That all said, it is also true there are many non-Jews who hold Power in the US Government. Some call it The Deep State. It’s all about Class War–and Race War. Yes, there is more than one player in the Deep State. Very important distinction to note. In simplest terms, it is all about ripping off the US Taxpayer–and destroying the White Race. The Jewish Lobby and the Deep State are intwined; they are like Organized crime Families. Sometimes they mind their own business, sometimes they clash.

  69. As it appears the writer doesn’t know the British society very well. The highly qualified Jews of Britain, Blacks and Asians are British in language and behaviour. That is why it doesn’t even make sense to talk about their origins.

    The higher education system in Britain produces highly intelligent people who sound and behave the same to such an extent “race”,ethnicity and social background ( working class ) lose their meaning.

    • Disagree: anonymouseperson
    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  70. Anon[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dumbo

    I don’t think democracy works as well on a large scale but it definitely doesn’t work for long under big govt, if it ever does.

    • Replies: @Brian Damage
  71. @Pablo

    You make a very legitimate point; it isn’t only the Jews. That said, you are downplaying their influence.

    I’m not downplaying their influence.

    Pointing out how Jews are overrepresented in politics doesn’t change the fact that our political class is lying through their teeth about race.

    The NY Times has just appointed a Jewish Editor.

    So what is your point? If not for their Jewish editor we would expect the Times to be centrist or moderate?

    I just pointed out how Wapo has a non-Jewish owner and lead editor. They didn’t cover the Arkansas kidnapping but they currently have a homepage story about how a Black lesbian couple in Texas had to leave because of nasty deplorables. Seriously go look.

    Wapo buried the Black parade mass murderer along with the rest of the MSM. Remember that? In fact Wapo referred to it as an SUV Attack and then it was pulled after a few days.

    Wapo roasted after referring to mass murder of children as SUV attack
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/wapo-roasted-after-tweeting-waukesha-tragedy-caused-by-an-suv

    Jewish influence in politics is not some guarded secret that only Unz posters have discovered. Everyone in DC is aware of the Jews just as they are aware of race.

    Rush Limbaugh FOR YEARS told millions of Whites that “the unions” ruined Detroit. Do you think he would take a caller asking about why “the unions” didn’t somehow ruin cities in White areas? Do you really think Rush was that dumb????

    The guy had millions of dollars along with his own show and could have talked about race. He chose to do “NFL Sundays” as if this country needs more sports talk. Con Inc hucksters know the truth and the Jews aren’t forcing them to lie. That red state loser even stated a few years ago that that talking about race “isn’t nice” even if it is true. Well what in the fudge is the plan guys? Lie and “be nice” so liberals can keep winning? What do conservatives even conserve? 10 years at the most?

    You need to do the math on what it means for Con Inc to admit that race exists. Suddenly we can’t fix Africa with “muh free market” solutions. Well that also means that perhaps “da unions” aren’t so bad either, right? It all starts falling apart. That is why they maintain the race lie. If race exists then their other narratives collapse like a house of cards.

  72. @Anon

    Honest question. What’s the starting wages for Hasbara?

    • Replies: @Anon
  73. HbutnotG says:
    @Pablo

    Right you are!

    My devout, rosary-dangling, very conservative Catholic friends forced their boy to marry a Jewess and they named their grandkid Zoey – instead of Mary (yikes! I thought to myself). The boy works on a tributary of Wall St, just like Dad. Their dot Indian neighbors’ kids, too. No more orthopedic surgeons or aeronautical engineers coming out of those households anymore. Across the street are two surgeons who hung up their gloves 35 yrs ago and promptly got MBA’s, and, now are hospital administrators – never have to gaze at someone’s asshole anymore. (Both Catholic and Dago, there).

    It isn’t just juice anymore. (money is money, dammit). You gifted 30 yr olds, play the game or STFU.

  74. anonymous[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Tridolatry of Jews, blacks, and homos.

    The western evilisation has long experience in this so-called Tridolatry. It is more widely known as the Trinity.

    The mangods, father&son and some ghost… thing.

    Pagans and their batshit spiritual deceit. Then, what else to expect… child predating morally bankrupt spiritual gatekeepers whose job is to peddle that deceit. Smh!!

  75. @Charles Martel France

    The higher education system in Britain produces highly intelligent people who sound and behave the same to such an extent “race”,ethnicity and social background ( working class ) lose their meaning.

    How quaint.

    And when the subject of India discussed I’m sure they will unanimously blame the British.

    A polite, intelligent social class that will happily band together and support leftist narratives of British Whites being the problem.

    We also have that in the US. Urban Whites with advanced degrees that will happily band together and string together massive works of horse manure in an effort to deny race and biology while promoting their own economic positions. All the while suppressing any dissenters as “lacking science” since the establishment position must remain supreme.

    If the US and British eventually collapse under the weight of race denial our educated classes can tour the ruins and compare notes. Maybe the British needed a few more knife control laws?

  76. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    You tell me. You could be a false flag operative for (((them))) for all I know.

  77. Tim Scott – a grinning insurance salesman. Count on him to shield the Rich from paying their fair share of taxes and NOTHING else. A Republican.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  78. DIVERSITY MEANS LESS WHITE PEOPLE

    WHITE ELIMINATION IS THE AIM OF DIVERSITY

    When a politician uses the word “diversity” and they imply that “diversity” is a good thing, it is important to remove that politician from power.

    The schools are “diverse.”

    Really? Where did all the White students go?

    Someplace less “diverse.”

    Hillary Clinton and the Democrats says they love “diversity,” but a whole lot of wealthy Democrats choose to live in White towns and White areas within cities.

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
  79. Jimmy1969 says:

    i made a comment earlier and you can find it. In the real politic it is better to be a live chicken than a dead duck…and thus Conservatives make compromises to get elected and go with the times…I once knew a completely frigid non Lesbian girl who I picked up in a bar and she honestly told me up front…I feel nothing but when I asked her if she was on the pill she said yes…and then I asked her why and she said because boys will not go out with me.

    • Replies: @Anon
  80. “Helps them sleep at night I guess. I have pointed out that most left-wing journalists are now White women but that doesn’t matter. They must still be getting orders from Jews or something. It can’t be that those White women prefer lying about reality rather than risk conflict. ”

    It all depends on what you mean by lying. It could just as well be and most likely is that white women have a lot top gain on the discriminations issues of blacks and see no reason to rock the boat.

    I think 87 percent of the publishing world is women and 90% of them are white

    • Agree: HbutnotG
    • Replies: @HbutnotG
    , @John Johnson
  81. So-Called “Diversity” Is Just Another Name For WHITE GENOCIDE

    Baby Boomer globalizer Bill Clinton said in 1998 at a commencement speech in Oregon that mass immigration will cause Whites to be made into just another minority. Baby Boomer Bill Clinton was honest about his evil plot to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

    Bill Clinton was working with evil GOP Baby Boomers such as Newt Gingrich(1943 is close enough for me) and the evil GOP ruling class to use mass immigration as a demographic weapon to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. John McCain was helping Clinton and Gingrich in their attacks on the historic American nation.

    Bill Clinton’s anti-White 1998 Oregon Speech, portions:

    The driving force behind our increasing diversity is a new, large wave of immigration. It is changing the face of America. And while most of the changes are good, they do present challenges which demand more, both from new immigrants and from our citizens. Citizens share a responsibility to welcome new immigrants, to ensure that they strengthen our Nation, to give them their chance at the brass ring. In turn, new immigrants have a responsibility to learn, to work, to contribute to America. If both citizens and immigrants do their part, we will grow ever stronger in the new global information economy.

    But now we are being tested again by a new wave of immigration larger than any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in 10 people in America was born in another country; one in 5 schoolchildren are from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within 5 years, there will be no majority race in our largest State, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.

    https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/html/19980615-12352.html

    EVIL is the word for Baby Boomer scum such as Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    EVIL is the word for Baby Boomers who push nation-wrecking mass immigration, multiculturalism, financialization, transnationalism and globalization.

    EVIL Baby Boomers must be removed from power.

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
    • Replies: @Getaclue
  82. @Reverend Goody

    Tim Scott – a grinning insurance salesman. Count on him to shield the Rich from paying their fair share of taxes and NOTHING else. A Republican.

    I say:

    Black Token Boob Timmy Lantern Holder Scott is a rancid Republican Party politician whore for the treasonous, money-grubbing CHEAP LABOR FACTION of the unpatriotic Republican Party.

    Timmy Scott pushes mass legal immigration and Timmy Scott supports the illegal alien invader invasion of the USA.

    Mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration increases traffic congestion, spreads urban and suburban sprawl, increases housing costs, lowers wages, swamps schools, overwhelms hospitals, harms the environment and destroys cultural cohesion.

    Black Boob Republican Party Politician Whore Tim Scott Grabs Loot From Larry Ellison

  83. And if Rishi Three Passports had won the election it would be a White-free (in reality English-free) leadership of the country.

  84. @HammerJack

    “Just as in the USA, the interests of her actual constituents matter not a whit.”

    And that’s because they know that Whites will still blindly vote for them. The only thing to bring Tory/Republican leadership to its senses is for White voters to boycott elections where the candidate is a minority.

  85. Lurker says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It is quite possible that no British MP has ever had a superior academic record

    I’ll see your Kwasi Kwarteng and raise you an Enoch Powell.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  86. Lurker says:
    @Anon

    (((Troll))) detected.

    • Replies: @Anon
  87. HbutnotG says:
    @Megoy

    Right you are!

    My devout, rosary-dangling, very conservative Catholic friends forced their boy to marry a Jewess and they named their grandkid Zoey – instead of Mary (yikes! I thought to myself). The boy works on a tributary of Wall St, just like Dad. Their dot Indian neighbors’ kids, too. No more orthopedic surgeons or aeronautical engineers coming out of those households anymore. Across the street are two surgeons who hung up their gloves 35 yrs ago and promptly got MBA’s, and, now are hospital administrators. (Both Catholic and Dago, there).

    It isn’t just juice anymore. (money is money, dammit). Play the game or STFU.

    • Replies: @Megoy
  88. HbutnotG says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Women are the new nyggers on the block. You don’t have to marry one to find out, either.

    See my other post to learn the evolution of that.

    You can call them Jersey Whites if you’re into slicing and dicing – but, remember, JW’s are almost as anti-white male as Cinnamons.

  89. anon[386] • Disclaimer says:

    Good that her finance minister is black since we all know how good blacks are at managing money and budgeting!

    • Replies: @JR Foley
  90. @Franz

    Media are a mafia, or Mefia.

    • Agree: Franz
  91. Liz Truss is using so-called “diversity” as a demographic weapon to attack and destroy the True Core English Nation.

    Liz Truss is a three dollar whore for the JEW/ENGLISH Ruling Class of England.

    Liz Truss pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

    Liz Truss is a poodle gal puppet whore for the plutocrats and globalizers in the JEW/ENGLISH Ruling Class of England.

    Liz Truss is an evil and immoral globalizer who is dedicated to using WHITE GENOCIDE immigration policies to completely and totally destroy the True Core English people.

    England Is Under Attack From A Ruling Class-Sponsored Mass Immigration Invasion

    Liz Truss and the nasty scum in the treasonous Tory Party are colluding with all elements of the English Ruling Class to flood out the historic English nation with mass illegal immigration and mass legal immigration.

    The English Ruling Class must be politically decapitated and removed from power.

    ENGLAND FOR THE ENGLISH!

    • Agree: anonymouseperson
  92. Z-man says:

    Instead of saying ‘God Save The King’ someone should yell out ‘Jesus Save The King From The Moneylenders’.

  93. The Republican Party could do rather well in 2022 because of redistricting and because of the political and cultural overreach of Globalizer Geezer Boy Biden and the White Upper Middle Class Snot Brats and the non-White and non-Christian nutcakes running amok in the Democrat Party.

    Tens of millions of Whites will vote for the GOP with no great enthusiasm for the GOP ruling class and I get the sense that evil treasonous Republican Party scumbags like Mitch McConnell and Rick Scott and Kevin McCarthy and Tom Emmer are betting that they can push the same old GOP crud and still get the White voters to go for it.

    Tom Emmer and Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell and Rick Scott are evil and demonic politician whores who push mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders and they will do everything in their power to hinder and crush AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for White Core Americans.

    We are now in an extended period of omni-directional beligerence whereby insurgent political parties and factions will hammer the crud out of the ruling class of both parties while pushing new agendas and story lines. The evil Republican Party donor-controlled human filth such as McConnell and Scott and McCarthy and Emmer must be rhetorically attacked when they push for policies injurious to the interests of Whites as Whites and once again IMMIGRATION is the GUT issue that brings home the bacon by activating the FIGHT response in the brains of the beautiful and sweet and patriotic GOP voters.

    White Core America loves most of the regular GOP voters — the ones that are lovable, anyways — but the evil Republican Party scum like Tom Emmer and Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell and Rick Scott are filthy treasonous politician whores of the worst sort.

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW

    DESTROY THE EVIL, DONOR-CONTROLLED GOP RULING CLASS NOW!

  94. @zard

    You have two main parties in the USA: the Zionist (Republican) & the Communist (Democrat)–both owned/managed by Jewish billionaires.

    Both the Republicans and Democrats are Capitalists.

    ..in the UK you have the Zionist (Conservative) Party & the Communist (Labour) Party …..

    Zionism is part of the Conservative heritage but not all of it. The Labour Party since the days of Tony Blair has not even been Socialist let alone Communist .

    I recommend that you do some reading to improve your way of thinking.

  95. @Anon

    Your comment contains the ingredients of its refutation. In the case if KK he is nothin like the Africans you describe. Getting a PhD from a low ranked university is nothing like winning scholarships to Eton, winning the Newsastle Prize there and, with a scholarship to Cambridge getting First Class Homours in History and Classics rfore going to Harvard etc

    • Replies: @Anon
  96. @Lurker

    A fair bet. I’ll see you though. Thanks for pointing to a proper comparison. Of course it is easy to miss little facts which can shock like my discovering that a young relation who got a First at Cambridge recently did what I’ve 30% of current graduates achieved. In my university days it was under 10 per cent I’m sure!

  97. The anti-White treasonites in the rancid Republican Party are EVIL and IMMORAL.

    The Republican Party pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    The Republican Party pushes amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

    The new political party called White Core America will replace the evil and immoral Republican Party.

    White Core America Immigration Pledge:

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!

    Tweet from 2019:

  98. @EliteCommInc.

    It all depends on what you mean by lying. It could just as well be and most likely is that white women have a lot top gain on the discriminations issues of blacks and see no reason to rock the boat.

    What do I mean by lying?

    Writing stories about how racial inequality is caused by White racism and citing dishonest studies from Academia that are mostly created by dishonest White liberal women.

    It’s an unspoken alliance of liberal and egalitarian liars.

    White women create fake studies and White women in the media report them as if they are seriously scrutinized.

    This happens on a daily basis.

    It could just as well be and most likely is that white women have a lot top gain on the discriminations issues of blacks and see no reason to rock the boat.

    Conservative White men in DC feel the same way. They don’t want to rock the boat and make a career of lying for the establishment. Con Inc is an association of liars.

    Everyone in DC lies about race in part out of self-interest. Doesn’t make it right.

    The key difference is that liberals at least have a valid strategy. Lie about race, blame Whites, get votes, bring in immigrants, get votes from them, repeat.

    Conservative strategy: Mumble and bumble with half-assed race-denial based explanations like how Detroit was caused by auto unions and then lose whatever they stood for 10 years ago. They don’t call out liberal lies about race which only affirms liberalism. They need to switch to populism and focus on the middle class. That is a viable path forward but they can’t do it. They are too subservient to the wealthy and don’t want to give up their BS system of beliefs related to capitalism.

    But I don’t expect conservatives to change. They would rather the ship burn down than admit that free market capitalism might have problems and their Leave it to Bantu fantasy might not be possible.

  99. Getaclue says:
    @HammerJack

    She’s WEF. Works for Klaus and the Billionaire Oligarchs same as nearly all of them. She’s a joke.

  100. Getaclue says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Zachary King, a former High Wizard in Satanism, told a lecture audience his knowledge that Hillary Clinton is a member of a California Coven named The Cult-she’s literally a Witch. Explains much….

  101. Anon[318] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Your comment contains the ingredients of its refutation. In the case if KK he is nothin like the Africans you describe. Getting a PhD from a low ranked university is nothing like winning scholarships to Eton, winning the Newsastle Prize there and, with a scholarship to Cambridge getting First Class Homours in History and Classics rfore going to Harvard etc

    No ! You see, this is where you do not know what you are talking about. First of all I attended an elite public school in the UK graduating in 1970. I wont name it because of what I have to say next. To meet some of the graduates now is to bring one’s blood to boiling point.Never has so much been spent by so few to produce so little, brains that is ! England must now have the most educated dunderheads in Europe.

    I also want to point out that I lived in Africa and I can assure you the black elite there do not send their “up and coming” to low/ middle ranked institutions. They go to the best, which is happy to accept them provided they pay the fees. The schools care not one whit about the entrance qualifications nor the performance of the pupil. Do you really believe, an elite private school is going to reject/ suspend the nephew of a black African dictator or Elite because the kid is a complete idiot ?

    Getting a PhD from a low ranked university is nothing like winning scholarships to Eton, winning the Newsastle Prize there and, with a scholarship to Cambridge getting First Class Homours in History and Classics before going to Harvard etc

    You must be joking. Assuming Eton and Cambridge are even what they used to be, an Honours Degree in History and the Classics does not prepare you or qualify you for a high end job in Finance or Law. Boris Johnson allegedly could debate in Latin (but debate who ? himself ?), attended Balliol and Eton and yet was a complete disaster. As well I do not know of any self respecting Englishman who is a graduate of Oxford and Cambridge or any high or low end English school who would deign attend Harvard, Yale etc.

    As for the US Ivy League graduates, well we can see the lot of them in action in the USA. Talk to today’s student at any English or US University, high end or low end, and you will be astonished at the rubbish that comes out of their mouth.

    What you assert is all piffle and tripe. I ask you again to name one African country, one West Indian Country or one black run City or State run by successfully by the Black man. You can put a Chimp into a rocket and send him into space but that will not make him an astronaut ! For example, I believe the existing Finance Minister in Zimbabwe is a Cambridge boy.

    The UK, already in a complete mess will now be financially managed by a Black dunce in Finance, Home Affairs by a turban/ small hat and Health by an obese overweight cigar smoker ! If that is your definition of job fit and potential for a turn around and success you must be completely mad !

    I do not believe you think through your comments and the ones on this article are no exception ! You are not too bright !

    NB::: Mthuli Ncube (born 30 November 1964),[1] is the Finance Minister in the Zimbabwe cabinet appointed by president Emmerson Mnangagwa[2] and past chief economist and Vice President of the African Development Bank.[3][4] He holds a PhD in Mathematical Finance from Cambridge University. On 7 September 2018, President Emmerson Mnangagwa announced Zimbabwe’s new cabinet where he named Professor Mthuli Ncube as the Finance Minister.[5]

    FYI. under the Financial Genius of Mthuli, Zimbabwe inflation is as follows:
    2019…255%>>>>>>>>an increase of 244% from 2018 when our Financial Genius was appoined
    2020..557%
    2021 and 2022.. 98% and 87%

    For 2021 and 2022, we need to apply a healthy dose of cynicism. In unflattering terms we can call these rates massaged bullshit.

    So there you have one one of your outstanding black turnaround specialists and one who graduated in Mathematical Finance. Thank God he did not graduate with an Honours in English Literature !

  102. I’m not British and that is a hallelujah right up front. I am grateful however to see Boris Johnson “The Passionate Zionist Slob) get thrown to the street. Truly an answer to prayer. So I will continue in my prayer that this Truss crowd like the Republicans and Democrats will simply kill themselves.

  103. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Must ALL whites stand up for what you believe in, lest they be canned a race traitor?

    OR, are whites able to decide for themselves what is best for their posterity?

    You seem to support the idea of a government demands unyielding white racial fealty. Well, that type of government that does not honor individual decisions as such has no claim to legitimacy.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  104. JR Foley says:
    @HammerJack

    Queen Elizabeth II expired only after 48 hours of meeting with Liz Truss. This is the end. Period. The Empire is ready to implode—stagflation/ refugees/DEBT and a clueless leadership.

  105. JR Foley says:
    @anon

    A black –with an odd name-I honestly thought from his name he was Japanese—then looked him up and NO–he is a black from Ghana —Great. It is NOT going to be Ghana but GONNA —-the Empire is going to CROAK.

  106. Corvinus says:
    @follyofwar

    “what chance do we white second-class citizens have outside of secession?”

    You don’t have a chance. Normal white people aren’t interested. So unless you’re willing to do something of substance about the situation, you’re just blowing hot air.

  107. ROTFL. “Thanks, Jews” jumps the shark.

  108. I’ll wager 5,000 Quatloos that they never heard of Ann Coulter in the U.K.

  109. Karl1906 says:

    These “modern & diverse” governments are composed of minorities and women because they don’t represent ANY majority of the population. And any sort of “merit” is only relevant to the feudal establishment who selected these politicians for office. The rest of the population are “off limits” from this club and considered expendable. OPENLY.

    And these sock puppets will act accordingly against ALL people and the WHOLE nation without any hindrance. Gleefully and with the maximum amount of violence.

    That’s why the Greens in Germany for example are allowed to put the most evil race baiters against white people into office – and admit freely that they hate the country, culture AND its people on public television. They know they will get away with this because their American overlords do it the very same way “at home”.

  110. @Corvinus

    “You seem to support the idea of a government demands unyielding white racial fealty.”

    I did? Where’d I say that?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  111. Anon[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lurker

    Damn, my cunning plan is no match for you.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  112. Anon[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jimmy1969

    Unless that pill is an antidepressant, her statement makes no sense.

  113. Lurker says:
    @Anon

    Most of you people are quite hopeless.

    I wonder why we’re always hearing about high verbal IQ?

  114. @Anon

    I don’t think democracy works as well on a large scale but it definitely doesn’t work for long under big govt, if it ever does.

    Democracy only works when the country is affluent and powerful. US democracy is deteriorating just as it is declining in power and economy.

    The only way a poor country can climb out of poverty is benevolent autocracy. That and banning Anglosphere NGOs from causing chaos, civil wars and color revolutions. Stay low profile until it is military able to defend itself from American “freedom” bombings.

    • Replies: @Anon
  115. Problem with this unifying white race theory. European whites up until very recently bitterly hated each other and fought wars over the course of hundreds of years. The English and French fought a war that went on literally for several generations. And the Germans well look at how they treated Slavic Poles and Russians in the 2nd World War. It’s a synthetic white word that synthetically unites all white European ethnic groups that historically hated each other. Just as an example Chinese, Japanese and Koreans all look roughly the same in appearance but they all hate each other with a passion for historically understandable reasons. Sub-Saharan African peoples look the same but they don’t particularly like each other that much. Cubans can’t stand Mexicans and Mexicans can’t stand Guatemalans. Turning back to Europe particularly Britain Catholic Irish living in Northern Ireland were in de facto segregation due to their religion. History is messy.

  116. John Johnson: “[Conservatives] don’t call out liberal lies about race which only affirms liberalism.”

    Not only don’t they call them out, they endorse them, repeat them, swear by them. MLK is a saint for conservatives as well as liberals.

    “[Conservatives] are too subservient to the wealthy and don’t want to give up their BS system of beliefs related to capitalism. ”

    You misspelled Christianity.

    I like your indictment of both liberals and conservatives as liars, and I can’t really criticize you for it because I’ve said as much myself. But this kind of culture is exactly what we should expect of a culture shaped by the Christian religion, which is itself based on one great, howling lie: the lie that there is a God watching over the world, and that a Jewish zombie, who is revered as the personification of this God, loves “all mankind” equally, and insists that white people follow his example.

    What you’re overlooking is that these people are liars not just because they think it’s to their political or financial advantage, or out of spite. They’re liars because the people they’re talking to insist on it! If you were so foolish as to try to tell the public the truth about race, they’d immediately stop listening to you and turn to someone else who’ll tell them the same old lies they’re accustomed to hear. It’s in this way that Christianity has created a culture of lies, run by liars according to its most fundamental principles. Your answer that liberalism is worse than Christianity ignores that both liberalism and conservatism are its offspring.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @John Johnson
  117. Megoy says:
    @Anon

    Another kike who cannot provide any information to refute the post he attacks. The goyim know.

    • Replies: @Anon
  118. Megoy says:
    @HbutnotG

    Yes MORON after a century of “diversity is our strength” brainwashing by JEWS the “good goyim” sheeple will BELIEVE the intentioally subversive Jew bullshit. Exploiting social climbing goyim is clearly detailed in the “Protocols of Zion” which can be factually PROVEN.

  119. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Megoy

    No, I’m simply laughing. I have no intention of refuting anything, I have better things to do with my time. Have a good day, goyim.

  120. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @Brian Damage

    I don’t think it’s got anything to do with being “powerful”, unless you mean economically. It’s certainly got nothing do with being militarily powerful, unless it’s purely for defense. The US did not get powerful by having a bloated, useless bureaucracy and military, but by becoming wealthy through free markets. And get out with that “benevolent autocracy” bullshit. There’s no such thing and you know it. You seem to think govt should be powerful but I’ve got some news for you, buddy. That’s exactly what subverts free-market capitalism and twists it to the “elites” own ends, as has happened in the US over the last 50 years and many other counties. This is so obvious I shouldn’t even need to point this out.

    And “democracy” is not deteriorating, it’s already deteriorated, thanks to the aforementioned powerful big govt. So my point still stands.

  121. Anon[215] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Christianity may be based on stupid lies but they’re “noble lies” that I’d argue have been a net positive for the world despite all the wars, murders, etc, which aren’t very Christian anyway. Jesus had some great lessons for us which we can apply in our lives and the world is better for it. I’m not religious but I also don’t like religion-bashing. Never mind the fact that it makes one sound like a leftist, modern capitalism (at least the actual free-market kind) probably wouldn’t even exist without it. Assuming you’re in the US, that means it wouldn’t have become as wealthy and you probably wouldn’t even exist. Not bad for a “culture of lies”, huh?

    I just don’t understand the hate for it. At least if it was modern Islam it would be understandable. I was already surprised when some idiots here criticized capitalism, but Christianity too? Damn, that’s some nihilism.

  122. Equality was his new religion,

    And its priests never ceased to bludgeon

    All things naturally excellent and true

    To make their melting pot’s insipid stew.

    When his politicians unhinged the gates

    Of white America by their statutes,

    The deluge from the lesser world began,

    Each squatting alien equal to a man

    Whose father’s father’s father signed with blood

    The plan for his descendants’ nationhood.

  123. Anon[215]: “Christianity may be based on stupid lies but they’re “noble lies” that I’d argue have been a net positive for the world despite all the wars, murders, etc, which aren’t very Christian anyway.”

    What’s a net positive is a matter of opinion, and wars, murders, etc., are quintessentially Christian. That’s why the history of Christianity is full of such things. Of course Christians, being liars steeped in the culture of lies their religion has created, would deny all this. Not to do so would be un-Christian!

    Anon[215]: “I just don’t understand the hate for it. ”

    Anyone dedicated to truth hates lies, even “noble” ones, assuming there is any such thing. But quite aside from that, there’s the question of causality. I think it’s important to understand that Christianity plays a key role in causing liberalism and is in many ways its fons et origo. It’s only after that realization sinks in that solutions to the problems presented by such a worldview can be crafted.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Anon
  124. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    You certainly haven’t denied it.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  125. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I like your indictment of both liberals and conservatives as liars, and I can’t really criticize you for it because I’ve said as much myself. But this kind of culture is exactly what we should expect of a culture shaped by the Christian religion

    Well the antebellum South was far more Christian than modern America so it seems that Christianity isn’t a definitive force of egalitarian morality.

    Christianity bashing doesn’t make sense from a strategic point of view. When Whites leave Christianity they don’t become Unz posters. They switch to liberalism and become dog moms or video game experts. Low birth rates have been associated with secular Whites since the 1930s. Most Whites have a very hard time without Christianity and switch to liberalism. It is fantasy to think they will switch to some Germanic or pagan creed where fertility is valued. It doesn’t work that way. Feel free to try and create an alternative but I don’t think there is time. Liberalism with be defeated with an alliance that includes Christians or it will win.

    If you were so foolish as to try to tell the public the truth about race, they’d immediately stop listening to you and turn to someone else who’ll tell them the same old lies they’re accustomed to hear.

    I don’t believe that. I think there is a large contingent of Whites that are sick and tired of the media not being honest about Black crime. There is also a huge contingent that is sick of being blamed for problems in Black areas. I used to hang around liberals in college and most of the men privately thought that White shaming was mostly bullshit. They were just throwing in with liberalism out of self-interest. The women fully bought into it unfortunately.

    When Yahoo allowed open comments it was unreal as to how many Whites were definitely not buying MSM narratives on race and that includes Fox.

    Rush Limbaugh was probably the peak of conservative White race denial. There are a lot more Whites that listen to the sermons but are quietly skeptical and even tired of the BS. I sense a crack in the dam. This Con Inc BS isn’t going to last. It’s too weak in the face of liberalism or even its own arguments.

  126. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I think it’s important to understand that Christianity plays a key role in causing liberalism and is in many ways its fons et origo.

    If Christianity causes liberalism then what is the solution? Removing Christianity? That only leads to more liberalism.

    There is no secular belief system in Western society.

    We have Christianity and we have liberalism. Both are religions.

    If you want to try and create a third way then have at it.

    As it stands undermining Christinaity only favors liberalism. The data is very consistent in this regard.

    It isn’t “by chance” that liberals attack Christianity but give Islam and Judaism a pass. Christianity is viewed as the White religion and removing Christianity encourages liberalism.

    Anyone who has been around secular Whites doesn’t find this at all to be surprising. Most Whites seem to desire a belief system and if you take away Christianity they switch to the religious belief that Wakanda would exist if not for evil White Men. They really do believe this and build their egos around it (I will do my part to save the Bantu from the Evil White men!! I’m not like those backwards religious rural Whites!! I am highly educated and The Science knows we are all equal.)

    Atheists are heavily political and donate as much to candidates as Jews:
    https://religioninpublic.blog/2020/04/13/atheists-are-the-most-politically-active-group-in-the-united-states/

    You can guess which direction those donations go.

  127. John Johnson: “Well the antebellum South was far more Christian than modern America so it seems that Christianity isn’t a definitive force of egalitarian morality.”

    That wasn’t what the Yankee Christians thought. They thought the South wasn’t nearly Christian enough, so they fought a war against them, which is more properly viewed as a religious war between two Christian factions. This may be news to you, but the Yankees won.

    It’s also a strange point for someone like you to try to make, since you claim to be concerned with the survival of the white race. Those fine Southern Christian gentlemen of the South did a lot of race mixing with their slaves. Modern genetic scholarship tells us that the average North American negro is about 20% white, and most of that is an inheritance from slave times. Christianity was obviously no barrier to race mixing at all.

    John Johnson: “Most Whites have a very hard time without Christianity and switch to liberalism.”

    You still don’t get it. They’re not switching to anything. Liberalism is just Christian ethics without the superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I think it’s an abuse of language to call it a religion, since if something without supernatural content can be called a religion, then anything can be a religion. If liberalism is a religion, why not conservatism? Why not Rotarians, Kiwanas, or the Elks club? However, if you insist on calling it a religion, then you should at least acknowledge its spiritual roots are in Christianity. The man widely acknowledged as its founder, John Locke, was a Christian theologian. Seen as a religion, it’s just another Christian heresy. There have been many of these through the centuries, a cause of fratricidal war and all kinds of bloody disputes between white people.

    John Johnson: “I think there is a large contingent of Whites that are sick and tired of the media not being honest about Black crime. I sense a crack in the dam.”

    LOL! It would be better if we had more to go on than just your hunch.

    John Johnson: “If Christianity causes liberalism then what is the solution?”

    We could also say that liberalism is a symptom of Christianity, just like a tumor is a symptom of cancer. How do you get rid of cancer? You cut it out. And what do you replace it with? Nothing. You just give it time and let healthy tissue grow back.

    John Johnson: “There is no secular belief system in Western society.”

    Surely you exaggerate. How about atheism? Oh wait, for you, atheism is probably a religion too …

    John Johnson: “We have Christianity and we have liberalism. Both are religions.”

    As old Ronnie Raygun said, “There you go again!” You’re a million laughs, Johnson.

    John Johnson: “Most Whites seem to desire a belief system and if you take away Christianity they switch to the religious belief that Wakanda would exist if not for evil White Men. They really do believe this and build their egos around it.”

    In that case, you haven’t really taken away their Christianity. And anyway, you’re contradicting yourself. If you think “most whites” will just switch to liberalism, where does your optimism come from? Are you implying you think there’s going to be some kind of mass revival of old-time Christianity, and that’s what’s going to save the white race? Hilarious!

    John Johnson: “Atheists are heavily political and donate as much to candidates as Jews”

    Self-identified non-Jewish atheists are a tiny sliver of the American population, and if I recall correctly, Jews contribute the majority of money to both Democrat and Republican parties. Of course, these two categories aren’t mutually exclusive, so that may explain your poll results. Many racial Jews are also atheists.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  128. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    John Johnson: “Well the antebellum South was far more Christian than modern America so it seems that Christianity isn’t a definitive force of egalitarian morality.”

    That wasn’t what the Yankee Christians thought. They thought the South wasn’t nearly Christian enough

    All of America was Christian at the time. That’s a historical fact and not open to speculation.

    Abolitionists were Christian. Slave owners were Christian. Slaves were Christian.

    Slave owners in fact used Bible versus as justification for slavery:
    https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/the-curse-of-ham-and-biblical-justifications-for-slavery

    The theory that races are different because of evolution didn’t exist yet. Origin of Species wasn’t published until 1859.

    Obviously there is more to this than Christianity, especially given that Christianity has declined in the West while race denial has gained popularity.

    It’s also a strange point for someone like you to try to make, since you claim to be concerned with the survival of the white race. Those fine Southern Christian gentlemen of the South did a lot of race mixing with their slaves

    I am White and would describe myself as an honest broker. I am open to egalitarian theories but current ones are dishonest and blame my racial group for the world’s problems and more importantly without allowing debate. I take the position that slavery was wrong and that would include procreating with slaves to make more of them.

    You still don’t get it. They’re not switching to anything. Liberalism is just Christian ethics without the superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

    Not switching to anything? Data shows that the political beliefs of liberals and Christians are nearly opposite. You are in denial of the data.

    Liberalism has its own superstitions. Just bring up race and evolution around those “science is cool” liberals.

    If liberalism is a religion, why not conservatism? Why not Rotarians, Kiwanas, or the Elks club?

    Liberals believe in egalitarian racial evolution and Wakandism. Specifically that evolution created man but race is only skin deep and Whites ruined the world and prevented Blacks from achieving Wakanda. The social/civil groups you cited have very clear platforms that they will happily discuss and aren’t related to politics or human creation. The Elks will not try to hunt you down for asking how liberal evolutionary beliefs make any sense. I actually had secular Anthro grad students come after me on a personal level for asking questions about race. Yes simply asking questions about “the science” they were certain of. They even went after people I knew.

    John Johnson: “There is no secular belief system in Western society.”

    Surely you exaggerate. How about atheism? Oh wait, for you, atheism is probably a religion too …

    In the West there is no separation of atheism and liberalism. The two have melded together over the years by the will of secular liberals. Secular humanist groups have platforms that are explicitly liberal. Leading atheists normally ban the discussion of race on their websites. Polls show that they consistently support liberal beliefs and liberalism is not secular.

    .Self-identified non-Jewish atheists are a tiny sliver of the American population, and if I recall correctly, Jews contribute the majority of money to both Democrat and Republican parties.

    You have it partially correct.

    Jews contribute half the contributions to Democrats but not Republicans.
    https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/us-jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-democratic-party-468774

    The Republicans had one very wealthy Jewish donor for a period but he is now dead (Sheldon Adelson). It doesn’t change the fact that atheists are heavily leftist and make as many donations as Jews.

    You don’t seem to deny that:
    1. Secular Whites are far more likely to be liberal and have fewer children than Christian Whites
    2. Decline of Christianity has led to a rise in liberalism
    3. Liberalism on the whole is anti-White
    4. Atheists are heavy funders of left-wing organizations

    So do tell exactly how undermining Christianity benefits Whites when the data shows that secularism promotes liberalism which is anti-White in origin and leads to low birth rates in Whites.

    If your response is along the lines of “liberalism is just the new Christianity” then why would we favor a low-birth version that turns Whites leftist?

  129. @Corvinus

    Well, there you go then. If I haven’t denied it I must be GUILTY. As our Glorious Leader just decreed, “Silence is violence”. Please don’ beat me Massa!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  130. John Johnson: “Abolitionists were Christian. Slave owners were Christian. Slaves were Christian. Slave owners in fact used Bible versus as justification for slavery:”

    Slave owners and abolitionists were members of two different factions of the same religion. The effort to Christianize slaves was used to justify slavery, and was also endorsed by abolitionists such as Henry Beecher Stowe. Indeed, spreading Christianity to the indigenes was used to justify the colonization of the entire New World. This sentiment was encapsulated by Kipling in his poem “The White Man’s Burden”. Naturally, a lot of race mixing was a consequence of whites making non-whites into their “brothers in Christ”. In this way Christianity has been a powerful force for white racial destruction. If and when the genocide of the white race is complete, Christianity will have finally achieved its goal. Having served its purpose and outlived its usefulness, we can anticipate that it will then dissipate like a fart in the breeze.

    John Johnson: “Not switching to anything? Data shows that the political beliefs of liberals and Christians are nearly opposite. You are in denial of the data.”

    We are talking about race. What exactly is the difference between the modern Christian view of race and the liberal view of race? There is none.

    John Johnson: “The social/civil groups you cited have very clear platforms that they will happily discuss and aren’t related to politics or human creation. The Elks will not try to hunt you down for asking how liberal evolutionary beliefs make any sense.”

    Conservatives are certainly capable of homicidal fanaticism. E.g., “Hang Mike Pence!” So I guess in your view that makes the MAGAtards a religion. Absurd.

    John Johnson: “In the West there is no separation of atheism and liberalism.”

    That’s just crazy. I’m an atheist, and I’m no liberal. How about Hitler? Many call him an atheist, and he was certainly no liberal. In his Table Talk he also says

    I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.

    Were these SS men liberals? I guess they must have been, according to you.

    John Johnson: “It doesn’t change the fact that atheists are heavily leftist and make as many donations as Jews. ”

    As I said, I think your poll is conflating atheists and Jews. The idea that non-Jewish atheists give as much money to politicians as Jews is just ridiculous. There aren’t that many of us.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  131. John Johnson: “Liberals believe in egalitarian racial evolution and Wakandism. Specifically that evolution created man but race is only skin deep and Whites ruined the world and prevented Blacks from achieving Wakanda. ”

    I should have addressed this too. I don’t know about the Wakanda part, but men such as Lewontin, Diamond, Gould, etc. are anti-racist scholars who can hardly be described as faith-based. It is possible still to make a scientific argument against significant racial differences. You and I may think that’s a foolish position, but science is about debate and different points of view. It’s just dumb to characterize leftist scholars as priests of a religion.

    Also, erratum above. I should have said Henry Ward Beecher, of course, not Henry Beecher Stowe. Damn my proof reading! LOL.

    Speaking of Henry’s, you and your quixotic quest against liberalism remind me of Henry David Thoreau’s famous remark that there are a thousand men hacking at the branches of evil for every one hacking at the root. Liberalism is a branch of the Christian tree. The root is Christianity itself. Not only are you not hacking at the root, you’re watering it, nourishing it. That is truly bizarre, self-destructive behavior.

  132. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    So why do you support the idea of a government demanding unyielding white racial fealty?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  133. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    (I’m the same guy as Anon 215)

    “What’s a net positive is a matter of opinion”

    I think most people would agree more scientific and technological progress, and more material prosperity, is a net positive. Christianity gets a lot of shit cause it used to be a lot more restrictive and may have held back progress for a while, but I eventually came to the conclusion that the world would probably have been worse off without it.

    “and wars, murders, etc., are quintessentially Christian. That’s why the history of Christianity is full of such things. Of course Christians, being liars steeped in the culture of lies their religion has created, would deny all this. Not to do so would be un-Christian!”

    Anyone who thinks wars and murders are good are simply not good Christians, if we go by its original teachings. Any real Christian would be against all that. And anyone who supports it don’t really understand Christianity. Even if the majority of all so-called “Christians” historically supported it (which is debatable) they still aren’t good Christians and shouldn’t consider themselves as such. Jesus would be horrified at all the shit done in his name and would probably agree with me. So no, just cause there are lots of bad apples, doesn’t mean the whole thing sucks.

    “Anyone dedicated to truth hates lies, even “noble” ones, assuming there is any such thing.”

    I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a 100% honest person and even some people dedicated to truth may agree certain lies may be needed in certain circumstances. I don’t think it applies to politics though, lies there are always negative.

    “But quite aside from that, there’s the question of causality. I think it’s important to understand that Christianity plays a key role in causing liberalism and is in many ways its fons et origo.”

    Obviously, but first we need to separate classical liberalism from modern “liberalism” (from now on known as ML). I don’t think any classical liberal originally intended for their liberalism to become this unholy mess, and ML is to the original definition of the word what feminism is to real equality, i.e its complete and total opposite. ML is when it started going off the rails, especially the last few decades. And as you say below (or above) “Liberalism is just Christian ethics without the superstitious mumbo-jumbo.” Agreed, and ML is the opposite of both. I think John below may mean ML and that’s why I think there might be some confusion going on between you two.

    “It’s only after that realization sinks in that solutions to the problems presented by such a worldview can be crafted.”

    Well let’s look at your “solutions” below in your reply to John: “How do you get rid of cancer? You cut it out. And what do you replace it with? Nothing. You just give it time and let healthy tissue grow back.“ That’s quite vague isn’t it? Your solution is to simply get rid of Christianity and hope that nothing (like a certain religion in the middle-east) replaces it. That’s not a very good strategy. So I don’t believe any there are any real solutions to the alleged “problem” of Christianity. To use your analogy, Christianity and classical liberalism is the healthy tissue and ML is the real cancer.

    So that sums up my thought on the matter.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  134. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Slave owners and abolitionists were members of two different factions of the same religion.

    Yet you seem to believe that Christianity is responsible for all things egalitarian. That doesn’t make any sense.

    What is more inegalitarian than owning slaves?

    This sentiment was encapsulated by Kipling in his poem “The White Man’s Burden”.

    That poem is parody and is mistaken as serious by both left and right. Look at this verse:

    Take up the White Man’s burden—
    No tawdry rule of kings,
    But toil of serf and sweeper—
    The tale of common things.
    The ports ye shall not enter,
    The roads ye shall not tread,
    Go make them with your living,
    And mark them with your dead!

    He is saying the whole idea of trying to civilize every primitive area is stupid and will just get your countrymen killed. He was right.

    We are talking about race. What exactly is the difference between the modern Christian view of race and the liberal view of race? There is none.

    Liberals believe that race is an artificial product of evolution and White men are to blame for racial inequality. This belief is not allowed to be discussed and in fact any public career can be ruined by merely questioning it. It is a massive taboo to even *hint* that it might be flawed.

    Modern Christians believe that all people are created by God and not a single racial group is the blame of the world’s sins. I have issues with Christianity but they have a massively different take on race which is that White men are not the great antagonist of the world that holds everyone down. Morality is viewed as individual and part of a greater struggle. White men can exist as moral beings with families while in the scope of liberalism White men are expected to submit and degrade themselves. The public egalitarian beliefs of liberals are merely a facade for a deep hatred of White men. I have had liberals here and in private tell me the following:

    1. Everyone at Unz should be put on trains and shipped to camps for the sake of equality (two libs in my history said this)
    2. The internet should be controlled by the gov so Whites can’t tell the truth about race
    3. White people should be eliminated even if it means Asians will dominate
    4. White people that know the truth about race are dangerous and the lie must be protected by any cost
    5. Academia and the media have to lie about race or else Whites will realize the truth
    6. Whiles shouldn’t be allowed to exist and genetic engineering will solve that problem

    I used to hang around college educated liberals and it doesn’t take much to get them to admit that Whites and especially White men are the enemy.

    Liberalism is a war against Whites.

    John Johnson: “In the West there is no separation of atheism and liberalism.”

    That’s just crazy. I’m an atheist, and I’m no liberal. How about Hitler? Many call him an atheist, and he was certainly no liberal. In his Table Talk he also says

    You’re not the norm and neither was Hitler. It was Hitler that wanted to cut the Old Testament out of the Bible and make Jesus an Aryan. Not defending Hitler but he at least had political acumen when it came to religion. He knew that promoting secularism favored the left.

    Atheism feeds liberalism. I can provide plenty of data to support that assertion.

    As I said, I think your poll is conflating atheists and Jews. The idea that non-Jewish atheists give as much money to politicians as Jews is just ridiculous. There aren’t that many of us.

    They give as many individual donations and secular Whites (atheists, agnostics, etc) are a larger left-wing voting bloc.

    Simple question since you criticize the Jews: Would the Jews prefer it if Whites were Catholic or secular?

  135. @Anon

    Well let’s look at your “solutions” below in your reply to John: “How do you get rid of cancer? You cut it out. And what do you replace it with? Nothing. You just give it time and let healthy tissue grow back.“ That’s quite vague isn’t it? Your solution is to simply get rid of Christianity and hope that nothing (like a certain religion in the middle-east) replaces it. That’s not a very good strategy

    Indeed it is not a good strategy as they don’t even have an alternative model. No plan whatsoever. Just bash Christianity and shrug as more Whites leave Christianity for liberalism.

    Promoting secularism promotes liberalism and low birth rates in Whites. That is the reality.

    Bang your head on the wall all you want but the equation is clear and hasn’t changed since the 1920s. Socialism has long found favor with secular Whites. The non-Jewish Bolsheviks were uniformly atheist.

    The secular right mocks Christianity for faith-based beliefs and yet it is easy to prove without faith that secularism absolutely leads to liberalism. There are mounds of data going back decades that show a consistent pattern whereby Whites flock to liberalism as a replacement religion.

    Some theoretical non-Christian/non-liberal belief system is only a fantasy in their minds and there isn’t enough time to even develop a model. If liberals get their supermajority that will be it. They will open the floodgates to African immigration under the guise of climate catastrophe. That is what will happen. Africa will have some famine and they will bring in millions of new voters under a liberal supermajority if something doesn’t change. That change is only possible if all anti-liberals work together and that HAS to include Christians.

    • Replies: @Anon
  136. Anon[332]: “I think most people would agree more scientific and technological progress, and more material prosperity, is a net positive.”

    Sure. And they will keep on agreeing it’s good even as “Progress” and its unintended consequences make the white race extinct. “Progress” has brought some things regarded as good, but also much that is regarded as evil. For example, in these recent threads I discussed how it probably brought the world Covid-19 and 18 million dead:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/prof-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-covid-origins-cover-up/#comment-5519148

    https://www.unz.com/runz/covid-and-the-political-bankruptcy-of-the-alternative-media/#comment-5548149

    “Progress” has also brought the world atomic weapons, which could well end civilization, and perhaps all life on earth. Quite a few commenters and columnists here at Unz agree that the ongoing crisis in Ukraine has brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

    It is also becoming extremely clear that the culmination of all of man’s “Progress”, even if he manages somehow to avoid exterminating himself with nuclear or biological weapons, will only be his voluntary extinction in a trans-human future. As “Progress” continues and winds to its inevitable conclusion, the white race as we know it today will become obsolete, and replace itself with machines. Thus, given continued “Progress”, even in the best case scenario the white race goes extinct.

    Anon[332]: “That’s quite vague isn’t it? Your solution is to simply get rid of Christianity and hope that nothing (like a certain religion in the middle-east) replaces it. That’s not a very good strategy. So I don’t believe any there are any real solutions to the alleged “problem” of Christianity. To use your analogy, Christianity and classical liberalism is the healthy tissue and ML is the real cancer.”

    From the standpoint of white racial survival, Islam is probably much better than Christianity, though of course it, too, is only a pack of lies. Hitler saw it as better, and as Speer and other sources report, he lamented that it was a pity that Germany’s religion wasn’t Islam rather than Christianity. Too bad Martel won at Tours, in his opinion. Also: I think we should consider the possibility that in doing what seems insane, i.e., voluntarily permitting their countries to be overrun by invaders hostile to their religion and the liberal values it has spawned, the group mind of the West is making a last ditch effort to purge itself of the Christian infection.

    But I don’t advocate Islam. What I say is that the permanent destruction of the technological system is the only way to save the white race. Politics has clearly failed, and all indications are it will continue to fail. Anyone who is serious about saving the white race must try a different approach.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/alex-jones-cass-sunstein-and-cognitive-infiltration/?showcomments#comment-5514862

    • Replies: @Anon
  137. @Corvinus

    Could you rephrase your question. It literally makes no sense. Drop fealty, I don’t think you understand the word. Do you mean white fealty to government? or government fealty to whites?

    But it’s not relevant. I said neither. What I said was that government cannot deny any individual (or race) the right to self defense. Focus on “the right to self defense”. It’s one of the so-called Rights of Man.

    All humans have the right to defend themselves. Lately, in America, the federal government has denied white people the right to defend themselves against all manner of aggressive attacks. A government that denies people the right to defend themselves is not a legitimate government.

    “demanding unyielding white racial fealty”? what the Hell does that mean???

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  138. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson

    “Promoting secularism promotes liberalism and low birth rates in Whites. That is the reality.

    Bang your head on the wall all you want but the equation is clear and hasn’t changed since the 1920s. Socialism has long found favor with secular Whites. The non-Jewish Bolsheviks were uniformly atheist”

    True, unfortunately. But I don’t think it’s inevitable. They just think “liberalism” (assuming by “liberalism” you mean the cancerous modern kind) is great cause they can’t even imagine any good alternative worldview exists and think all “right-wing” people are evil racists. I think they could be more educated about classical liberal (CL) ideas, without “the superstitious mumbo-jumbo”. You’d be surprised at how many whites (at least the ones who haven’t been entirely brainwashed yet) would choose CL over ML. I’m not saying everyone would see the light but it’s worth a try. Including Jesus’ teachings would be preferable but not essential, take it or leave it.

    “Some theoretical non-Christian/non-liberal belief system is only a fantasy in their minds and there isn’t enough time to even develop a model”

    It’s not entirely non-Christian but CL is a good secular philosophy that already exists that doesn’t necessarily have to be Christian. There’s also the related Deism which is a good example of a religion that doesn’t believe Jesus was in any way divine. Most of the Founders were Deists.

    “They will open the floodgates to African immigration under the guise of climate catastrophe. That is what will happen. Africa will have some famine and they will bring in millions of new voters under a liberal supermajority if something doesn’t change.”

    Probably but again, it’s not inevitable. There’s always the unlikely but possible scenario that “liberals” get their majority but anti-immigration sentiment grows anyway due to a global economic collapse, as now seems likely. This is more or less what happened under FDR.

    “That change is only possible if all anti-liberals work together and that HAS to include Christians.”

    True but only cause Christians make up the majority of non-liberals.

  139. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Sure. And they will keep on agreeing it’s good even as “Progress” and its unintended consequences make the white race extinct. “Progress” has brought some things regarded as good, but also much that is regarded as evil.”

    Ok, so now “progress” is your convenient scapegoat for anti-white sentiment, just as both left and right have their own convenient scapegoats. Great. Also, I think you’re confusing progress with politics, something you keep doing in the rest of your comment. Politics seems to be anti-progress.

    “For example, in these recent threads I discussed how it probably brought the world Covid-19 and 18 million dead:”

    Assuming the lab leak theory is true, that has nothing to do with “progress” and everything to do with incompetent morons who didn’t take proper precautions. As for your 18 million figure, let’s not even open that can of worms. So many people have said that the amount of deaths have been highly exaggerated, you have no doubt already heard the good arguments for it. And why wouldn’t it be, with such a politicized topic that’s such a good means of control? Different countries measure it in different ways and can’t even agree on an approximate number, why would you be more accurate? In any case, the number of deaths it directly led to (and not just a contributing factor) is likely far below 18 million. You’re basically saying that it killed almost as many people as the Spanish Flu. Just absurd. Why not go all the way and just compare it to the Black Death instead? This is more or less how the world reacted to it.

    “Progress” has also brought the world atomic weapons, which could well end civilization, and perhaps all life on earth. Quite a few commenters and columnists here at Unz agree that the ongoing crisis in Ukraine has brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.”

    Those atomic weapons also brought us nuclear power too, which is undeniably a good thing. The highly unlikely possibility of nuclear war is a small price to pay for that. I’m much more worried about China. The CCP are some true loonies. But no future is inevitable. And again, these situations are all politics, which I’ve noted is intrinsically anti-progress.

    “It is also becoming extremely clear that the culmination of all of man’s “Progress”, even if he manages somehow to avoid exterminating himself with nuclear or biological weapons, will only be his voluntary extinction in a trans-human future. As “Progress” continues and winds to its inevitable conclusion, the white race as we know it today will become obsolete, and replace itself with machines. Thus, given continued “Progress”, even in the best case scenario the white race goes extinct.”

    Again, no future is inevitable and that’s not what “transhumanism” is. It doesn’t mean replacing us all with machines or throwing away your humanity but “enhancing” it with things like gene editing (which will no doubt also be abused) and AI (same). It’s not necessarily great but not the dystopia you present it as. And there will probably be many who oppose it and refuse to follow along. There’s probably gonna be some segregation as I doubt the “enhanced” and “unenhanced” would wanna live side-by-side. And I think it’s funny you’re more concerned with the survival of whites than humanity in general. Maybe you need to sort out your priorities. In any case, I don’t think there’s anything to worry about unless some genocidal and/or racist AI decides to wipe us all out.

    “From the standpoint of white racial survival, Islam is probably much better than Christianity”

    Well you heard it here first folks. The only way this makes any sense is if most muslims are white, which of course they’re not.

    “Hitler saw it as better, and as Speer and other sources report, he lamented that it was a pity that Germany’s religion wasn’t Islam rather than Christianity”

    Oh that’s a great argument to make. “Hitler thought it was better so it has to be!” Let’s see how many people you convince with that. And Hitler doesn’t seem to have made much sense either.

    “Also: I think we should consider the possibility that in doing what seems insane, i.e., voluntarily permitting their countries to be overrun by invaders hostile to their religion and the liberal values it has spawned, the group mind of the West is making a last ditch effort to purge itself of the Christian infection.”

    No doubt that’s what they’re doing, but more importantly, white people are also guaranteeing their own destruction. Is that a good trade-off for you to get rid of Christianity or do you think maybe Christianity is better for whites after all?

    “What I say is that the permanent destruction of the technological system is the only way to save the white race.”

    Well the truth finally comes out. Look, if you wanna go backwards and live in a pre-industrial society where you live like medieval peasants, go ahead. There are many who would gladly join you. That certainly seems to be what leftists want since Co2 has become one of their boogeymen, and politicians are now pandering to them by willingly destroying our energy systems and sending us back with their “green” obsession. Maybe you deserve each other. As for the rest of the civilized world, we will continue to invent and innovate and generally improve our living standards, even as politicians and “elites” try their hardest to do the opposite.

    “Politics has clearly failed, and all indications are it will continue to fail.”

    Yes… I’m glad we can agree on something.

    “https://www.unz.com/runz/alex-jones-cass-sunstein-and-cognitive-infiltration/?”showcomments#comment-5514862”

    Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today. Truly crazy stuff.

  140. Anon[332]: “Ok, so now “progress” is your convenient scapegoat for anti-white sentiment, just as both left and right have their own convenient scapegoats.”

    No, not just now. I’ve been talking about it all along. Evidently you just noticed.

    Anon[332]: “Again, no future is inevitable …”

    That you think it isn’t — presumably because you delude yourself by believing that “free will” exists — is just more evidence of how deeply the Christian worldview has contaminated the culture.

    Anon[332]: “… and that’s not what “transhumanism” is. It doesn’t mean replacing us all with machines or throwing away your humanity but “enhancing” it with things like gene editing (which will no doubt also be abused) and AI (same).”

    Gene manipulations have no logical stopping point and are another way the white race could end. The race mixing typical of modern society, another outcome of “Progress” and so encouraged and cultivated by your Christian pals, can also be seen as a primitive way of accomplishing this.

    More to the point, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when you say that’s not what transhumanism is. Most transhumanists I’m familiar with dream of a future where they’ve uploaded their consciousness into an android body, or something like that. If that’s the future, then the white race will no longer be a part of it. It will be extinct. You might think that would alarm white people, and especially “white nationalists”, who claim to be particularly concerned about their race, but it doesn’t. They look forward to it! LOL. Just like you, they’re big fans of “Progress”. Just like you, they’re more loyal to “Progress” than they are to their own blood.

    I think it much more likely though that there will be a collapse long before then, and that it will occur by accident rather than design. Whether it will happen before or after the white race goes extinct is what remains to be seen.

    Anon[332]: “Let’s see how many people you convince with that.”

    I don’t care about convincing anybody. I’m not trying to build a political movement, remember?

    • Replies: @Anon
  141. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    It’s really simple. Must all whites people agree to form a government in which white interests are above all other interests? Why? In this case, a white person is a vassal to the lord of white influence. Is that ultimately a goal worth pursuing? Why? What should happen if white people disagree with creating this new government? Please elaborate.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  142. John Johnson: “The secular right mocks Christianity for faith-based beliefs and yet it is easy to prove without faith that secularism absolutely leads to liberalism. ”

    No wonder secular Nazi Germany was so liberal! Another mystery solved by JJ, the world’s greatest expert on everything.

  143. John Johnson: “What is more inegalitarian than owning slaves?”

    And what is more egalitarian than making such slaves into your “brothers in Christ”? What you’re neglecting is the congenital hypocrisy of Christians. It’s a religion based on lies and consequently virtually everything Christians do or say is a lie. They took slaves, but with an eye to making them their equals. And all the while, breeding with them.

    John Johnson: “Liberals believe that race is an artificial product of evolution and White men are to blame for racial inequality. … Modern Christians believe that all people are created by God and not a single racial group is the blame of the world’s sins.”

    Then what does the Christian liberal believe? LOL. Your classification scheme has a big hole in it.

    John Johnson: “[Atheists] give as many individual donations [as Jews] and secular Whites (atheists, agnostics, etc) are a larger left-wing voting bloc.”

    Again, I see no evidence your poll separates Jews and atheists. It’s a screwy poll, and I doubt very much that there are enough self-identified non-Jewish atheists that give as many individual donations as Jews, or that their aggregate donations are even approximately equal.

    John Johnson: “Simple question since you criticize the Jews: Would the Jews prefer it if Whites were Catholic or secular? ”

    I suppose that would depend on the particulars. If they were all secular whites like me, or nominal Catholics like Hitler, I think the Jews wouldn’t like it very much.

  144. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “No, not just now. I’ve been talking about it all along. Evidently you just noticed.”

    I knew you didn’t like it, but didn’t realize you hated it to such an extent that you blame it for whites going extinct.

    “presumably because you delude yourself by believing that “free will” exists”

    Oh boy, you’re one of those “we’re ruled by instincts and nothing else!” people… Look, I’m aware that instincts control a lot of what we do but instincts do not always override free will, at least when it comes to any situation that lasts longer than a few seconds. If we didn’t have free will, we wouldn’t have critical thinking abilities and we wouldn’t have gotten as far as we have, and we’d still be living like the cavemen you so admire. Hell, just look at leftists and their obsession with every race that isn’t their own. It’s usually the opposite (in-group bias). Isn’t that (negative) proof that instincts can be overridden? I’m sure I could think of some better examples but I don’t have the time.

    “Gene manipulations have no logical stopping point and are another way the white race could end.”

    So basically eugenics. I don’t think most people will go that far…

    “another outcome of “Progress” and so encouraged and cultivated by your Christian pals”

    Encouraged by today’s stupidest “Christians” maybe.

    “Most transhumanists I’m familiar with dream of a future where they’ve uploaded their consciousness into an android body, or something like that.”

    The transhumanists you’re familiar with have a shallow understanding of it then, like many Christians today have a shallow understanding of their religion. Go look up the definition of it. Nowhere does it say “uploading yourself into an android body or something like that” is necessary. Anything that improves or enhances humanity even the slightest is part of the philosophy.

    “Just like you, they’re more loyal to “Progress” than they are to their own blood.“

    Who says I’m not loyal to both?

    “I think it much more likely though that there will be a collapse long before then, and that it will occur by accident rather than design.”

    Definitely an economic collapse, and it will happen soon. Whether it’s by accident or design is anyone’s guess. I think the world will be ok in the long-term though.

    “I don’t care about convincing anybody. I’m not trying to build a political movement, remember?”

    One would think if you really believed in what you were saying, surely you would put up a more convincing argument. If you can’t be bothered to do that, why bother to debate at all?

    Or perhaps this debate is getting a little too long for you. It’s certainly getting long for me.

  145. Anon[332]: “I knew you didn’t like it, but didn’t realize you hated it to such an extent that you blame it for whites going extinct.”

    Hate and blame have nothing to do with it. I’m concerned with causality.

    Anon[332]: “Oh boy, you’re one of those “we’re ruled by instincts and nothing else!” people”

    If science is correct, all human thoughts and actions are explainable in terms of neural activity, which is deterministic. That means there’s no free will, and any impression we may have to the contrary is only an illusion.

    Anon[332]: “So basically eugenics. I don’t think most people will go that far…”

    Why not? There’s no reason to stop modifying human genetics once “Progress” makes it easy. It’s only a question of time until the end result — man as a genetically modified organism — has nothing in common with the starting point. When that happens, the white race as it exists today will be no more. Such future humanoids, if they’re organic at all, will have as little in common with present-day humans as we have with apes, and probably less.

    Anon[332]: “The transhumanists you’re familiar with have a shallow understanding of it then …”

    No, I think transhumanists such as Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku understand transhumanism perfectly well. The prefix “trans” means “beyond”. The transhuman isn’t human, but something beyond human. These guys see the weak points of organic life and hope to replace their human bodies with something “better”.

    “… many Christians today have a shallow understanding of their religion.”

    There’s no such thing as “real Christianity”, nor any “real Christians”. The whole thing is based on lies and fuzzy thinking. Its ambiguity, its very lack of definite form is why Christianity has been so successful, but also why its history is filled with so many wars against heresy. It’s the Swiss Army knife of religions, with a tool for any occasion, a hook for any audience.

    Anon[332]: “Who says I’m not loyal to both?”

    The point is you can’t be. The unintended consequences of “Progress” will inevitably destroy the white race, and possibly the entire planet.

    Anon[332]: “Definitely an economic collapse, and it will happen soon.”

    I think an economic collapse wouldn’t be enough to permanently destroy the technological system, but certainly it would cause a lot of death and associated human misery. If and when it happens, you must celebrate that as another side effect of “Progress”, since without “Progress” there wouldn’t have been anything to collapse! LOL.

    Anon[332]: “… why bother to debate at all?”

    “The greatest consolation in life is to say what one thinks.”
    — Voltaire, 1765

    • Replies: @Anon
  146. Anon[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Hate and blame have nothing to do with it. I’m concerned with causality.”

    It sure sounds like you’re blaming it. And why wouldn’t you be, if you indeed believe it’s the problem?

    “If science is correct, all human thoughts and actions are explainable in terms of neural activity, which is deterministic. That means there’s no free will, and any impression we may have to the contrary is only an illusion.”

    That’s an awfully shallow interpretation. It’s like saying the laws of physics are deterministic so that must mean everything is already pre-programmed and we’re in the Matrix. Without getting too much into it, I think free will is emergent. It emerges out of simple neural patterns and is greater than the sum of its parts. Your deterministic “free will doesn’t exist” argument is a great excuse for criminals and nihilists though. In any case, this is getting off-topic and I don’t feel like arguing on another front so whatever.

    “Such future humanoids, if they’re organic at all, will have as little in common with present-day humans as we have with apes, and probably less.”

    Some of them perhaps. I think it’s important to understand that it’s a spectrum and there will be different levels of enhancement. Some people may choose more, some may choose less.

    “No, I think transhumanists such as Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku understand transhumanism perfectly well. The prefix “trans” means “beyond”. The transhuman isn’t human, but something beyond human”

    I would describe those guys as being the hardcore types. Again, it’s a spectrum and “beyond” may mean beyond a bit or beyond a lot. It’s not a black-and-white thing.

    “There’s no such thing as “real Christianity”, nor any “real Christians”. The whole thing is based on lies and fuzzy thinking. Its ambiguity, its very lack of definite form is why Christianity has been so successful, but also why its history is filled with so many wars against heresy. It’s the Swiss Army knife of religions, with a tool for any occasion, a hook for any audience.”

    I don’t want to quote Wiki, but go there and you will find a good description of Christianity and its teachings. If you want to see the definite form, just go there and you’ll see it without any bias. There are many such sources, albeit somewhat more biased (for or against).

    “The point is you can’t be.”

    Well I am, so there.

    “If and when it happens, you must celebrate that as another side effect of “Progress”, since without “Progress” there wouldn’t have been anything to collapse! LOL.”

    Au contraire, you’re the one who must celebrate it as it would lead to us going backwards for a while, which is exactly what you want.

    “The greatest consolation in life is to say what one thinks.”

    Yeah speaking your mind is great, but when debating you should at least put your argument in a way that doesn’t make it sound stupid. Not that I’m saying that’s what you are.

  147. Anon[382]: “Without getting too much into it, I think free will is emergent. It emerges out of simple neural patterns and is greater than the sum of its parts.”

    That’s just meaningless babble.

    The fact is, there is no way to put “free will” in scientific terms, because if you could explain it that way it would follow physical laws, which would mean it wouldn’t be free. The idea of “free will” is a mystical one, and necessarily so. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s not supposed to.

    Anon[382]: “I think it’s important to understand that it’s a spectrum and there will be different levels of enhancement. Some people may choose more, some may choose less.”

    Such a response indicates you don’t understand the nature of the problem presented by “Progress”. Human “enhancement” by technology is like an arms race. Everyone will be forced to participate simply to keep up, similar to the way pro bodybuilders must all take steroids in order to be competitive. The choice to abstain is simply choosing to fail.

    Anon[382]: “It’s not a black-and-white thing.”

    In the long term, yes it is.

    Anon[382]: “I don’t want to quote Wiki, but go there and you will find a good description of Christianity and its teachings.”

    LOL. So now wiki is the final authority on who is or is not a “real” Christian? Somebody should tell the Pope. Many don’t even consider him a “real” Christian.

    Anon[382]: “Well I am, so there.”

    I don’t deny that you are comfortable with your absurdities.

    Anon[382]: “Au contraire, you’re the one who must celebrate it as it would lead to us going backwards for a while, which is exactly what you want.”

    Not exactly, since it wouldn’t be permanent. But if I’m able, I’ll watch with wry amusement, and a considerable amount of schadenfreude.

    Anon[382]: “… when debating you should at least put your argument in a way that doesn’t make it sound stupid.”

    Ah, if only you took your own advice!

    • Replies: @Anon
  148. @Corvinus

    Oh, I get it. You posit that there are some white people who want to be enslaved, who willingly do not wish to defend themselves from predation.

    Well, to each his own. If they’re that masochistic then I can’t help them. No one’s forcing them to defend themselves and if they’d rather allow other people to harm them then so be it. Christian martyrs exhibited this type of self destructive behavior. We see it today in those who go abroad in search of a cause for which they will sacrifice themselves and in those, here on these shores, who offer up their lives for some (ig)noble cause, person or group of persons.

    If a person wants to voluntarily throw themselves into a volcano or if a white woman wants to marry a black man then that is their concern, not mine. But that is not the issue I raised.

    I pointed out that if a white person defends themselves from black (and Jewish) bad behavior then the Law punishes them and that this runs counter to Natural Law, which allows every individual the right to self defense.

    Try to focus. You lose the thread in that noggin of yours. As every input is dragged through the peculiar millrace of your logic you impose a characteristic distortion upon it. The truth is a sharper sword than your prejudices or the prejudices of those with whom you identify. You will find that the horse to which you are hitching your wagon will fail you in the end. Remember my three Rules,

    (1) Fix your relaxed sight on infinity, a little above the horizon. (yes, I know, a paradox, but one which will be resolved by your body’s wisdom)

    (2) Deal with life immediately. Process things now. Don’t put things off.

    (3) Open your abdomen and breathe without restriction.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  149. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “That’s just meaningless babble.

    The fact is, there is no way to put “free will” in scientific terms, because if you could explain it that way it would follow physical laws, which would mean it wouldn’t be free. The idea of “free will” is a mystical one, and necessarily so. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s not supposed to.“

    Well I didn’t wanna argue about this but here we go. I suppose this is all meaningless babble then:

    https://nautil.us/yes-determinists-there-is-free-will-237396/

    https://philosophynow.org/issues/130/Defending_Free_Will_and_The_Self

    Dennett is a philosopher but also knows a lot about neuroscience. He agrees it emerges out of more basic neural firings, and just like consciousness in general is greater than the sum of its parts, so is free will. And it’s not necessarily incompatible with determinism. Also, I‘d suggest to think properly about what you’re implying. If there’s no free will, we couldn’t choose to override our unconscious impulses. We couldn’t choose anything. I suppose we could call it “mostly-free will” at least.

    “Human “enhancement” by technology is like an arms race. Everyone will be forced to participate simply to keep up, similar to the way pro bodybuilders must all take steroids in order to be competitive.”

    By that logic, there’s no such thing as “regular” bodybuilding contests and everyone who even goes to the gym takes them. Or that there’s no such thing as male and female only contests. As we know, that’s not true. Like I said, there’ll probably be segregation and those who don’t want to go all the way can “compete” on an equal footing with people closer to their own enhancement level.

    “In the long term, yes it is.”

    Maybe hundreds of years form now. But once again, it’s not inevitable. A lot of things could happen. Perhaps some kind of disaster will happen that will permanently destroy “the technological system” and send us back to the Dark Ages, as you desire. The further out you go, the more unexpected things that may happen.

    “LOL. So now wiki is the final authority on who is or is not a “real” Christian?”

    It’s not the “final authority” but you wanted a good definition. There is one.

    “Many don’t even consider him a “real” Christian.”

    He’s a borderline socialist so maybe he’s not.

    “I don’t deny that you are comfortable with your absurdities.”

    If you say so. I think the truly absurd thing is wanting to take us back to less prosperous times just so we can avoid the “side-effects” of progress that you consider negative.

    “Not exactly, since it wouldn’t be permanent. But if I’m able, I’ll watch with wry amusement, and a considerable amount of schadenfreude.”

    It will probably affect you too, so I hope you can laugh at yourself.

    “Ah, if only you took your own advice!”

    Since the best you can come up with is “no you!”, I invite you to tell a non-biased observer to read this whole thing and see what they say.

  150. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    “Oh, I get it. You posit that there are some white people who want to be enslaved, who willingly do not wish to defend themselves from predation.”

    That’s a strawman on your part.

    If white people of their own free will oppose a government that champions only white interests—however that is defined—that is exercising freedom of association.

    “No one’s forcing them to defend themselves and if they’d rather allow other people to harm them then so be it.”

    So how are you protecting your white brethren from the “enemy” that’s overrunning you? Don’t you have a duty to stop them now before it’s too late?

    “Christian martyrs exhibited this type of self destructive behavior. We see it today in those who go abroad in search of a cause for which they will sacrifice themselves and in those, here on these shores, who offer up their lives for some (ig)noble cause, person or group of persons.”

    You mean it has been Christianity and it’s “martyrs” who have built Western Civilization in God’s images. Is He not noble and just?

    “I pointed out that if a white person defends themselves from black (and Jewish) bad behavior then the Law punishes them and that this runs counter to Natural Law, which allows every individual the right to self defense.”

    So do you support that whites must all agree to form a government in which white interests are above all other interests, especially if there is this alleged “bad behavior” being perpetrated against? What happens to those whites who oppose this government? How would you deal with them?

    Try to focus. They are straightforward questions.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  151. Anon[332]: “Dennett is a philosopher [who argues that free will is] not necessarily incompatible with determinism.”

    In the closing pages of his book Elbow Room Dennett admits we are “organic robots”:

    I know that the naturalistic attitude I have espoused, the attitude that encourages us to think of ourselves, imaginatively, as organic robots, as designed portions of the material universe, is odious to many humanists.

    He appears to be arguing for compatibilism — which is, briefly put, the philosophical position that since we make decisions without a gun to our heads, we are free. This is just rhetorical sleight of hand. I don’t believe we can be both causally determined and free. Sorry, that’s just dumb.

    Anon[332]: “If there’s no free will, we couldn’t choose to override our unconscious impulses. We couldn’t choose anything. I suppose we could call it “mostly-free will” at least.”

    I’m not saying that the illusion of free will doesn’t exist. You, as an organic robot, certainly can think you’re free when you seem to yourself to be “overriding” an impulse. But you’re not. Also, explain, if you can, how you reconcile your compatibilist beliefs with evolution. For example, how and when did free will evolve? Do other species have it? Does an ape have it? Do dogs have it? How about planarians? Bacteria? And so on. To see you try to dig yourself out could be very amusing. But of course, you won’t, because you can’t.

    Anon[332]: “By that logic, there’s no such thing as “regular” bodybuilding contests …”

    You’re losing view of the forest for the trees, Anon[332]. What we’re really talking about isn’t a bodybuilding contest, but the contest of life. Suppose there were a drug that would raise your IQ 50 points. You’d literally be a moron if you didn’t take it. And if you didn’t, you’d lose out in the struggle for existence to all those who did. Now extend this same principle to all other significant human “enhancements”, and possibly it will finally dawn on you that I am right and you are wrong.

    This kind of compulsion to participate is actually a characteristic of technological “progress” in general. For example, practically everyone nowadays has a phone. You more or less have to, and can’t abstain. To abstain would just mean accepting losing out in life’s competition; it would be choosing to fail. Another example can be found in the fact that technological civilization makes many people so miserable that they have to take drugs for the psychiatric conditions it engenders: anti-anxiety drugs, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, etc. If you are prone to any of these problems, you are more or less forced to take the drugs simply to function in normal life.

    “Progress” first creates the problem, then offers the solution. These solutions create additional problems. In this way “Progress” eliminates freedom and sucks everyone into its vortex.

    Anon[332]: “But once again, it’s not inevitable.”

    The extinction of the white race is inevitable assuming that the process of technologically “improving” it is allowed to run to completion. As I said, there’s no logical stopping point. It will “improve” itself out of existence.

    Anon[332]: “It’s not the “final authority” but you wanted a good definition [of Christianity]. There is one.”

    Any definition can be disputed. Hence, there’s no such thing as “real” Christianity. When you talk to enough Christians, you eventually discover that “real” Christianity is whatever the person you are talking to thinks it is.

    Anon[332]: “I think the truly absurd thing is wanting to take us back to less prosperous times just so we can avoid the “side-effects” of progress that you consider negative.”

    Not just me, but many other people claim to consider the extinction of the white race to be a negative. The amazing thing is that these same people rush towards it with such enthusiasm.

    • Replies: @Anon
  152. @Corvinus

    They may be questions–of dubious straightforwardness–but they have nothing to do with what I said.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  153. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    It has direct bearing on what you said.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  154. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “I know that the naturalistic attitude I have espoused, the attitude that encourages us to think of ourselves, imaginatively, as organic robots, as designed portions of the material universe, is odious to many humanists.”

    He doesn’t outright say we are organic robots, he says we should think of ourselves as one. And this is one of the few disagreements I have with him. It simply doesn’t make sense we’re robots, instincts clearly don’t control everything we do, and it’s not just an illusion.

    “I don’t believe we can be both causally determined and free.”

    Ok, so what’s the point of “freedom” (actual freedom) then? Isn’t that an illusion too? Should we abandon that concept and if not, why not? Also, it’s possible to argue for both just like it’s possible to say quantum physics is the foundation for, say, a river flowing downstream or an asteroid smashing into a planet, while also saying there are “higher” laws of physics that are responsible for these things that emerges out of quantum physics. Superficially, it seems like a paradox, but isn’t. You’re basically saying that because ultimately consciousness is reducible down to neural firings, that’s all we need to understand it. Talk about losing the forest for the trees. As well as being a superficial explanation, that’s what’s actually dumb.

    This also does a good job of explaining it:

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0510

    So it seems it has elements of determinism and indeterminism. Like the paper says, it’s not a binary choice.

    “Also, explain, if you can, how you reconcile your compatibilist beliefs with evolution. For example, how and when did free will evolve? Do other species have it? Does an ape have it? Do dogs have it? How about planarians? Bacteria? And so on. To see you try to dig yourself out could be very amusing. But of course, you won’t, because you can’t.”

    I’m not a biologist and I don’t have all the answers (unlike you, it seems) so I’m not going to explain how. However, I will say that I think the key lies in the neocortex and since all primates have neocortices, I’d argue they have limited free will and possibly dolphins too. Generally, if they have some degree of self-awareness they may have a limited amount of free will.

    “What we’re really talking about isn’t a bodybuilding contest, but the contest of life. Suppose there were a drug that would raise your IQ 50 points. You’d literally be a moron if you didn’t take it. And if you didn’t, you’d lose out in the struggle for existence to all those who did.

    This kind of compulsion to participate is actually a characteristic of technological “progress” in general. For example, practically everyone nowadays has a phone. You more or less have to, and can’t abstain. To abstain would just mean accepting losing out in life’s competition; it would be choosing to fail.”

    Someone should tell the Amish and all the other similar kinds of communities who prefer a different (some would say “primitive”) way of living. I’d highly suggest you join of one of these groups, you’d probably be happier there. And even in “normal” societies, there are many who choose different ways of doing things (like some older people) and aren’t necessarily financially worse off, or if they are, they don’t mind. Money is not the most important thing in life and not everyone is as ambitious.

    “Now extend this same principle to all other significant human “enhancements”, and possibly it will finally dawn on you that I am right and you are wrong.”

    But hey, with that kind of arrogance, who am I to argue?

    “Another example can be found in the fact that technological civilization makes many people so miserable that they have to take drugs for the psychiatric conditions it engenders: anti-anxiety drugs, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, etc.”

    Again, I think political/economic problems have more to do with it but since tech progress has happened at the same time as these problems have gotten larger (not necessarily related) I don’t think we can blame one or the other entirely and both may be responsible.

    “Progress” first creates the problem, then offers the solution. These solutions create additional problems. In this way “Progress” eliminates freedom and sucks everyone into its vortex.”

    Once again, you are exactly describing politics. And is “freedom” really worth it to you if you live in the Dark Ages? You don’t seem to realize the obvious fact it’s precisely technology that makes many of today’s freedoms possible (global comms, guns, etc).

    “The extinction of the white race is inevitable assuming that the process of technologically “improving” it is allowed to run to completion. As I said, there’s no logical stopping point. It will “improve” itself out of existence.”

    Ok, I’m not going to argue with the psychic here.

    “Any definition can be disputed. Hence, there’s no such thing as “real” Christianity. When you talk to enough Christians, you eventually discover that “real” Christianity is whatever the person you are talking to thinks it is.”

    Two can play this game. There’s no such thing as the “white race” or “freedom” then since these definitions can be disputed! You hear that, fellow Unz posters?

    “Not just me, but many other people claim to consider the extinction of the white race to be a negative. The amazing thing is that these same people rush towards it with such enthusiasm.”

    If you think progress is responsible, then sure. Or maybe those same people know more than you.

  155. Anon[332]: “Ok, so what’s the point of “freedom” (actual freedom) then? Isn’t that an illusion too? Should we abandon that concept and if not, why not?”

    In other comments, I’ve explained that in my view the idea of free will is a false idea, but a necessary one that was has been placed in the very structure of our consciousness by evolution. In other words, we don’t conclude we have “free will” as a result of a chain of reasoning, and only then start believing in it. It’s not an idea we adopt, but rather a frame of mind we are born into. Because of this, we are more or less stuck with it. All that we can do is understand that it is an illusion; that human beings aren’t special creatures endowed with a unique power to invalidate causation. In the final analysis, our behavior results from an interaction of our genetics and our environmental experiences. We are no more free than any other animal.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “actual freedom”, unless you mean something different. Perhaps you mean political freedom. Sure, that exists. Anarchism differs from totalitarianism. So? That has no bearing as far as I can see on what we’ve been talking about. Nothing to do with “free will”.

    Anon[332]: “Generally, if they have some degree of self-awareness they may have a limited amount of free will.”

    Protoplasm is reactive. Every creature that moves is aware of itself. The ant crawling and the fly buzzing are aware of what they’re doing. It’s not clear why you’d like to limit this to creatures with a neo-cortex, except that not to do so would leave you in the ridiculous position of having to contend that all creatures have “free will”, something demonstrably false. You’re just trying to save your vanity.

    Also, your idea that “free will” can be limited is a strange one. Obviously, insofar as it is limited, the will isn’t free. This way of thinking introduces an element of uncertainty about any particular human action as to whether it is freely chosen or not. It also seems to lead inexorably to the conclusion that various people have varying amounts of “free will”. Perhaps negroes have less “free will” than whites? And among whites, perhaps some have less “free will” than others, who are more “evolved”, maybe with a bit more neo-cortex? LOL. Maybe so. Sounds very plausible! It could lead to some practical problems though. That Mexican who just stole a car battery, or that negro who just raped a white girl — was he acting of his own “free will” or not? Guess we’ll have to do an MRI to measure the amount of neo-cortex! If they had no choice, they can’t be held responsible, right? LOL.

    Anon[332]: “Someone should tell the Amish …”

    There are outliers, but the trend is obvious. A technological society requires conformity and control to function, and gradually all outliers are sucked into the vortex of “Progress”. There still may be a few Amish now, but where are the hunter-gatherer tribes of yesteryear? Gone. Extinct. Their very lifestyle has been made impossible by “Progress”.

    Anon[332]: “You don’t seem to realize the obvious fact it’s precisely technology that makes many of today’s freedoms possible (global comms, guns, etc).”

    Everyone sees the so-called benefits of technology, but nobody wants to take responsibility for causing the inevitable bad consequences these entail, some of which may be catastrophic, possibly even world-ending. Rather than look in the mirror for the cause, in true Christian tradition, they hunt for the Devil: globalists, Jews, hostile elites, the deep state, rogue Neo-cons, etc. More fun that way!

    Anon[332]: “Two can play this game. There’s no such thing as the “white race” or “freedom” then since these definitions can be disputed!”

    People can dispute any definition. Many people don’t think there’s such a thing as the white race, and they offer the same reason — lots of ways to define it, often mutually contradictory ways. I think though there’s a big difference between the existence of something real and in the world such as race, and making a value judgement about a set of ideas, which is what is involved in deciding which set is “real” Christianity. Decisions about the former can be justified on the basis of objective criteria (e.g., genetic distance), whereas the latter seems entirely a matter of opinion.

    Anon[332]: “Or maybe those same people know more than you.”

    It seems to me that they’re just afraid of the conclusion and don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions. The point of view on “Progress” I’ve put forward has been put forward by others, notably (in some respects) by Ted Kaczynski, and before him (in other respects) by Jacques Ellul. I don’t know of anyone who ever refuted their arguments. You’ve certainly made no headway.

    • Replies: @Anon
  156. @Corvinus

    “If white people of their own free will oppose a government that champions only white interests—however that is defined—that is exercising freedom of association.”

    I myself “oppose a government that champions only white interests” so I would imagine that I would exercise my freedom to associate with such people, or not, as the case may be.

    “No one’s forcing them to defend themselves and if they’d rather allow other people to harm them then so be it.”

    So how are you protecting your white brethren from the “enemy” that’s overrunning you? Don’t you have a duty to stop them now before it’s too late?

    I have a duty to support a fair government, one which respects the Bill of Rights.

    “Christian martyrs exhibited this type of self destructive behavior. We see it today in those who go abroad in search of a cause for which they will sacrifice themselves and in those, here on these shores, who offer up their lives for some (ig)noble cause, person or group of persons.”

    You mean it has been Christianity and it’s “martyrs” who have built Western Civilization in God’s images. Is He not noble and just?

    No, I don’t mean that about Christianity at all. Evidently, you do since that’s the silly conclusion you jumped to. As for God, he is neither noble nor just. Those are human categories and “God”, as every great theologian has said, is beyond human comprehension. All of our categories are limiting and “God” is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. He doesn’t require our flattery.

    “I pointed out that if a white person defends themselves from black (and Jewish) bad behavior then the Law punishes them and that this runs counter to Natural Law, which allows every individual the right to self defense.”

    So do you support that whites must all agree to form a government in which white interests are above all other interests, especially if there is this alleged “bad behavior” being perpetrated against? What happens to those whites who oppose this government? How would you deal with them?

    No, I don’t agree “that whites must all agree to form a government in which white interests are above all other interests”, see above. I have repeatedly said that whites who wish to throw themselves into a volcano are free to do so, but they are not free to throw me into a volcano or to make me jump with them. “whites who oppose this government” would be dealt with by the government, just as they are in any orderly and just State. Depends what form their opposition takes, of course.

    But you ask,

    “How would you deal with them?”

    As an intelligent man who lives by the light of Reason, I prefer reasoning with people to coercing them. As a talented, independent man, I prefer to build a better world in which I can live. As a strong, physical man, I resist the attempts on the part of others to bully me. So, as you can see, I respond in a sane way to what people present to me.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  157. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    “I myself “oppose a government that champions only white interests“.

    Then we both are anti white outcasts.

    “I have a duty to support a fair government, one which respects the Bill of Rights.“

    We all do.

    “As for God, he is neither noble nor just. Those are human categories and “God”, as every great theologian has said, is beyond human comprehension“

    God is just and noble. It is part of His character, which means He is always just. He cannot be unjust, and He defines and sets the standard for justice. We hear that God is love and God is holy more often than we hear that God is just and noble.

    “I pointed out that if a white person defends themselves from black (and Jewish) bad behavior then the Law punishes them and that this runs counter to Natural Law, which allows every individual the right to self defense.”

    You mean bad behavior from all races and ethnic groups.

  158. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor

    In truth, ‘diversity’, ‘equity’, and ‘inclusion’ are not abstract principles in the US and UK. Terms of both are dictated by Jews.

    Same as “capitalists” and “exploiter classes”, were not abstract principles in Russia 1917. Terms of interpretation were similarly dictated by Bolshevik Jews.

    The principle is the same. They get to define “Enemies of the People” using fake “social justice” criteria. The claimed higher morality doesn’t accept discussion or dissent and cancels all existing legal protections.

    Of course, in 1917, they were the “leading cadre of the proletariat” (while personally living like Russian aristocrats). Now they are the “leading cadre of social justice” while rooting out supposed racists, xenophobes, white supremacists etc. – basically anyone who opposes their dictatorship. Also while themselves having exceptionally rich and privileged elite lifestyles.

  159. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “In other comments, I’ve explained that in my view the idea of free will is a false idea, but a necessary one that was has been placed in the very structure of our consciousness by evolution. In other words, we don’t conclude we have “free will” as a result of a chain of reasoning, and only then start believing in it. It’s not an idea we adopt, but rather a frame of mind we are born into. Because of this, we are more or less stuck with it. All that we can do is understand that it is an illusion; that human beings aren’t special creatures endowed with a unique power to invalidate causation.”

    So you agree that even in the dubious event it doesn’t exist, it’s better to believe it does exist? Even if we understand that technically it doesn’t. What difference does that make then? How does it affect our lives in the slightest? Whether it does or doesn’t exist seems to be more a matter of technical pedantry than any meaningful realization.

    “In the final analysis, our behavior results from an interaction of our genetics and our environmental experiences”

    That statement is not incompatible with free will, and has nothing to do with our discussion. You’re just inserting obvious facts in your argument in an attempt to make it seem more “scientific” which is the same thing as you suspect me of doing.

    “Perhaps you mean political freedom. Sure, that exists. Anarchism differs from totalitarianism. So? That has no bearing as far as I can see on what we’ve been talking about. Nothing to do with “free will”

    If free will is just an illusion, then what’s the point of freedom? Is it just to preserve the illusion? What’s the difference between a tightly controlled society of monkeys and one in which they get to live free in the wild, and the same two scenarios for humans? More people would rightfully be more concerned about the latter but why? By your logic, there’s no ethical difference.

    “Protoplasm is reactive. Every creature that moves is aware of itself. The ant crawling and the fly buzzing are aware of what they’re doing. It’s not clear why you’d like to limit this to creatures with a neo-cortex,”

    I’m not sure when your last cognitive science lesson was, but everything that moves is not self-aware. Talk about ridiculous. You’re confusing simple consciousness with self-awareness, which is simply defined as being aware that you’re aware. Obviously less complex creatures don’t have this ability.

    “You’re just trying to save your vanity.”

    It’s ironic given the subject, but have you looked in the mirror lately?

    “This way of thinking introduces an element of uncertainty about any particular human action as to whether it is freely chosen or not. It also seems to lead inexorably to the conclusion that various people have varying amounts of “free will”.

    Yes, I’m glad you finally realized this obvious implication. People with brain damage or severe mental illnesses clearly have more limited free will than “normal” people. Obviously they should be judged differently. There’s many problems with our “justice” system, but it works well enough in this regard.

    “Perhaps negroes have less “free will” than whites? And among whites, perhaps some have less “free will” than others, who are more “evolved”, maybe with a bit more neo-cortex? LOL. Maybe so. Sounds very plausible! It could lead to some practical problems though. That Mexican who just stole a car battery, or that negro who just raped a white girl — was he acting of his own “free will” or not? Guess we’ll have to do an MRI to measure the amount of neo-cortex! If they had no choice, they can’t be held responsible, right? LOL.”

    You’re not stupid, so I’m not sure why you’re being this dense. It‘s not necessarily “how much” neocortex they have but if it’s functioning normally or not. The only reason I bring it up the topic of the neocortex is because this is where self-awareness is located. Everyone has more or less the same “amount” of it.

    ”There still may be a few Amish now, but where are the hunter-gatherer tribes of yesteryear? Gone. Extinct. Their very lifestyle has been made impossible by “Progress”.

    The estimates vary but there could be as many as several hundred tribes still in existence. So no, not extinct. Also, I suspect many more people will eventually come to the same simple-minded conclusion and blame progress for the world’s problems, hence with transhumanism the outliers may actually grow rather than decline. It’s much less certain that everyone will want to be enhanced to the max as there’s differences between today’s devices and enhancing people. I suspect the vast majority will still have some nominal enhancement though.

    “Everyone sees the so-called benefits of technology, but nobody wants to take responsibility for causing the inevitable bad consequences”

    True, such is human nature.

    “Rather than look in the mirror for the cause, in true Christian tradition, they hunt for the Devil: globalists, Jews, hostile elites, the deep state, rogue Neo-cons, etc. More fun that way!”

    Actually it’s funny because Jesus emphasized personal responsibility so no, hunting for the devil is not “true Christian tradition” though many “Christians” have done this. It’s more a human tradition. Also, many of these groups are indeed part of the problem. Again, more to do with politics and human nature. But to you, “progress” is the devil so I’m not sure why you’re accusing others of blaming other things. Deny it all you want but you’re devil-hunting too. A bit hypocritical, isn’t it?

    “Decisions about the former can be justified on the basis of objective criteria (e.g., genetic distance), whereas the latter seems entirely a matter of opinion.”

    This paper is obviously politically slanted and I don’t agree with the “race is a construct” argument but this is a plausible argument for why race matters less than people think it does.

    https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

    There goes your “genetic distance” argument. The cool thing about the web is you can find lots of sources to define even seemingly objective things differently.

    “…notably (in some respects) by Ted Kaczynski”

    Yeah another great role model. You, like him, seem like a big fan of science but did you know he also didn’t like scientific research (including the tech-oriented kind)? Do you think certain kinds of science are necessary for improving the human condition or do you have cognitive dissonance too?

    “(in other respects) by Jacques Ellul.”

    Another guy with a contradictory worldview. I’m sure he’s a great author with some valid points though.

    “I don’t know of anyone who ever refuted their arguments. You’ve certainly made no headway.”

    I wasn’t intending to, but I’ve kept pointing out politics is the primary problem and without govt interference in our lives, we would have far fewer problems. Absent that, progress has more pros than cons and leads to more freedom and prosperity. Quite the opposite to what today’s luddites suggest.

    • Replies: @Anon
  160. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Edit: he also didn’t like scientific research (including the non-tech-oriented kind)

  161. Anon[332]: “So you agree that even in the dubious event [“free will”] doesn’t exist, it’s better to believe it does exist? … What difference does that make then? How does it affect our lives in the slightest?”

    Always better to know the truth, in my opinion. Just knowing the truth has consequences. In this case, knowing the truth means you won’t buy into Christian fairy tales about “free will” and their ideas of “sin”, “redemption”, etc.

    Also, even though it would probably be impossible to have a technological society without this idea (at least, a technological society that contained humans), that’s just one more problem with such a society, in my view. It’s hardly surprising then that a society based on lies of this kind — and similar ones, e.g., the alleged existence of a so-called “soul”, and a Santa Claus-like figure who watches over man called “God” — generates lies about virtually everything else. In short, just realizing there’s no “free will” leads to all sorts of consequences. It’s a veritable satori.

    Anon[332]: “That statement is not incompatible with free will, and has nothing to do with our discussion.”

    It’s not incompatible with your compatibilist BS, that’s true. But as far as I’m concerned, we are no more free than any other animal, and that means there’s no “free will”, period. For you however, the mind of man is a black box. The causal chain stops with him, and in some mystical way you haven’t explained and have no hope of EVER explaining, he’s able to do whatever he wills instead of what his genetics and environment would otherwise “force” him to do. NONSENSE.

    Anon[332]: “I’m not sure when your last cognitive science lesson was, but everything that moves is not self-aware.”

    Certainly they are. Any creature must be aware of what it is doing in order to do it at all, and to stop doing it when it wants to do that. These types of awareness may not mimic human consciousness, but they show self-awareness. Again, you are just trying to exclude them to avoid looking ridiculous. Oops, too late! LOL.

    Anon[332]: “It‘s not necessarily “how much” neocortex they have but if it’s functioning normally or not. The only reason I bring it up the topic of the neocortex is because this is where self-awareness is located. Everyone has more or less the same “amount” of it. ”

    No, my ignorant pal, everyone doesn’t have “more or less” the same amount of it. It’s well established that brain size differs by race, and so do such details of anatomy as the number of convolutions and average size of the various parts of it. See Rushton’s book Race, Evolution, and Behavior for cites to the scientific literature. Due to this, some have argued that negroes are higher in criminality because of their smaller brains. According to your logic, they should be punished less, or perhaps not at all.

    But also, I think this isn’t a very good objection for you to make anyway. It won’t save your muddled idea of “free will”, I think. In order to decide whether it’s “functioning normally or not”, you’d first have to explain, and in detail, how this “free will” of yours “normally” works, and you haven’t done so. Further, as I’ve already pointed out a couple of times now, you CAN’T do that. Nobody can, because if “free will” follows cause and effect, and you could explain it, you’d be able to control it, and there’d be no difference between your position and determinism. In place of a clear explanation of how it’s supposed to work, all you’ve got is a lot of hand waving.

    There are other problems too. Either you have “free will” or you don’t. Trying to fine tune your decision on the basis of whether or not the brain is functioning “normally” or not leads to the problematic conclusion that no actions at all can be guaranteed made by “free will”. They’d all be suspect. Was that rape committed by the negro 90% “free will” or only 10%? And how about that stolen car battery? Maybe that Mexican ate too many frijoles and it adversely affected his neocortex that day, so he only had 16% “free will”. Is he then only 16% responsible? LOL.

    Anon[332]: “So no, not extinct.”

    They certainly are extinct anywhere technological civilization exists, which was the point. Yes, deep in the Amazon, or on the Andaman Islands, there still are a few. But that they only exist in such redoubts supports my point, not yours. Moreover, there are no longer any white hunter-gatherer tribes. For whites, it’s a dead lifestyle, one made impossible by “Progress”. I would expect the Amish to follow them into oblivion sooner or later. Probably sooner.

    Anon[332]: “Actually it’s funny because Jesus emphasized personal responsibility …”

    He did?! Then why was it necessary for him to drive out all those demons? Couldn’t those people just exercise their “free will” to shape up and fly right? Your defense of Christianity is rather pathetic. You don’t seem very knowledgeable about the mythical rabbi or the Bible.

    Anon[332]: “There goes your “genetic distance” argument. ”

    That’s just Lewontin’s fallacy, refuted long ago by AWF Edwards.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12879450/

    Anon[332]: “But to you, “progress” is the devil so … you’re devil-hunting too. A bit hypocritical, isn’t it?”

    Not at all. The indictment of “Progress” is just shorthand way of pointing out that people cause themselves problems by their own actions.

    Anon[332]: “… without govt interference in our lives, we would have far fewer problems.”

    For Ellul, as a method of social organization, government itself is a technology. Perhaps we’ll make a Luddite and an anarchist of you yet, Anon[332]! LOL

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Hornet Hole
  162. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Always better to know the truth, in my opinion. Just knowing the truth has consequences. In this case, knowing the truth means you won’t buy into Christian fairy tales about “free will” and their ideas of “sin”, “redemption”, etc.“

    Ah, so now there’s no such thing as redemption? You should tell all those reformed criminals and similar people who Christianity has helped. But hey, one of its beliefs is a magic man in the sky so screw the whole thing, right?

    “Also, even though it would probably be impossible to have a technological society without this idea (at least, a technological society that contained humans), that’s just one more problem with such a society,”

    So any other kind of society would not have the “illusion” or idea of free will? You seem to be contradicting yourself again. Perhaps you’re not as bright as you think after all, “doctor”.

    “The causal chain stops with him, and in some mystical way you haven’t explained and have no hope of EVER explaining, he’s able to do whatever he wills instead of what his genetics and environment would otherwise “force” him to do.”

    Instead of me explaining something I’m not an expert in (unlike you, I’m sure), try to explain this:

    “In other comments, I’ve explained that in my view the idea of free will is a false idea, but a necessary one that was has been placed in the very structure of our consciousness by evolution. In other words, we don’t conclude we have “free will” as a result of a chain of reasoning, and only then start believing in it. It’s not an idea we adopt, but rather a frame of mind we are born into.”

    How and why would evolution go to the trouble of doing all this when simply “evolving” free will is much less complex? Explain in great detail please.

    “NONSENSE”

    It’s capitalized so it must be true!

    “Certainly they are. Any creature must be aware of what it is doing in order to do it at all, and to stop doing it when it wants to do that. These types of awareness may not mimic human consciousness, but they show self-awareness“

    Another mind-blowing insight from “Doctor” Morgan! Every creature is self-aware! So if you were to put a mirror in front of a bug (or you) they would have the same reaction as a monkey or dolphin? You’re confusing sentience with self-awareness. All creatures have some kind of sentience but only “higher” animals have self-awareness. Epic fail.

    “Again, you are just trying to exclude them to avoid looking ridiculous. Oops, too late! LOL”

    I’ve lost count of the number of instances of irony in our discussion. LOL.

    “It’s well established that brain size differs by race”

    Ah, the ol’ simplistic brain size argument. This oughta be fun.

    “See Rushton’s book Race, Evolution, and Behavior for cites to the scientific literature”

    Well I checked some reviews of it. All the “racist” mentions aside, the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that it’s not very scientific at all. I know the consensus is often wrong in science, but they have some good scientific arguments to the contrary. I won’t deny that races may have some psychological differences but intelligence is only loosely correlated to brain size.
    Also, I checked out the guy himself. He doesn’t seem that great. In the future, I’d recommend to check the background of authors first. You can tell a lot from that whether they’re trying to make an honest argument or just trying to fit “science” into an ideology.

    “According to your logic, they should be punished less, or perhaps not at all.”

    Au contraire, according to your “free will is an illusion” argument, they should be punished less. I said no such thing.

    “In place of a clear explanation of how it’s supposed to work, all you’ve got is a lot of hand waving.”

    At least I haven’t made any factually incorrect statements, though I suspect you’re going to object.

    “There are other problems too. Either you have “free will” or you don’t. Trying to fine tune your decision on the basis of whether or not the brain is functioning “normally” or not leads to the problematic conclusion that no actions at all can be guaranteed made by “free will”. They’d all be suspect.”

    Go tell every judge and lawyer and try to revamp the whole justice system then, since this is exactly what they do for mentally handicapped people. See if they buy your argument. LOL.

    “They certainly are extinct anywhere technological civilization exists, which was the point. Yes, deep in the Amazon, or on the Andaman Islands, there still are a few.“

    Exactly, hence my segregation argument. And like I said, I expect the number of anarcho-primitivist type people to only grow.

    “He did?! Then why was it necessary for him to drive out all those demons? Couldn’t those people just exercise their “free will” to shape up and fly right?”

    If you still think I take everything in the Bible literally, I don’t know what to tell you. As for the few non-exaggerated stories, maybe those people really were helpless. A similar argument can be made for addiction. Free will doesn’t mean a person can do anything just like that. If you think free will is a magic power, this would be you being dense again.

    “Your defense of Christianity is rather pathetic.”

    I think your anti-free will argument is pathetic too, but hey it’s subjective.

    “You don’t seem very knowledgeable about the mythical rabbi”

    He was mythical? Alright then. I could point you to the mountain of evidence supporting his existence but you can do that yourself.

    “Not at all. The indictment of “Progress” is just shorthand way of pointing out that people cause themselves problems by their own actions.”

    Then why specifically blame progress instead of human nature? Progress has nothing to do with it. If your argument is honest, you would just be blaming scientists and similar people who advance progress instead of people in general.

    “For Ellul, as a method of social organization, government itself is a technology. For Ellul, as a method of social organization, government itself is a technology.”

    No, it’s simply a power structure. There’s nothing “technological” about it even using a loose definition.

    “Perhaps we’ll make a Luddite and an anarchist of you yet”

    An anarchist, maybe. A luddite, never!

  163. Anon[332]: “Perhaps you’re not as bright as you think after all, “doctor”.”

    Somebody here isn’t, that’s for sure. But you’re not a bad sort. A bit dim, maybe, but not bad.

    Anon[332]: “How and why would evolution go to the trouble of doing all this when simply “evolving” free will is much less complex? Explain in great detail please.”

    What do you mean by “all this”, and what makes you think it was any trouble?

    Anon[332]: “You’re confusing sentience with self-awareness.”

    No, I’m pointing out you’re just gerrymandering definitions so that you don’t have to attribute “free will” to animals without a cortex.

    Anon[332]: “Well I checked some reviews of it. … Also, I checked out [Rushton] himself.”

    That’s pretty superficial of you, Anon[332]. Why not read the book, or at least, the part on brain size, and decide for yourself? A pdf is easy to find online. Here’s one!

    https://archive.org/download/J.PhilippeRushtonRaceEvolutionAndBehaviobOk.xyz/%5BJ._Philippe_Rushton%5D_Race%2C_Evolution%2C_and_Behavio%28b-ok.xyz%29.pdf

    Anon[332]: “Au contraire, according to your “free will is an illusion” argument, they should be punished less. I said no such thing.”

    “Free will” being an illusion implies nothing about whether someone should be punished or not. You’d need a theory of justice for that, something which you at least imply you’ve got by objecting to my description of “free will” as an illusion. For why object, unless you think that people shouldn’t be punished if there’s no “free will”?

    I, however, have no theory of justice. I see “justice” as just another necessary illusion that we’re encouraged to believe in, probably because it’s indispensable to society; certainly not because I delude myself that such a thing actually exists.

    Anon[332]: “Exactly, hence my segregation argument. And like I said, I expect the number of anarcho-primitivist type people to only grow.”

    Problem is, in its quest for resources, even redoubts like the Amazon rain forest are being destroyed by the technological system and will eventually fall. The N. American plains are a case-in-point. They used to be filled with vast buffalo herds that supported hunter gatherers, but now they are no more, and that lifestyle has been made impossible by “Progress”.

    Anon[332]: “[Jesus] was mythical? … I could point you to the mountain of evidence supporting his existence but you can do that yourself.”

    There’s actually very little evidence, and even what little exists is suspect. Search out some books by Dr. Richard Carrier. If reading is too hard for you, here’s a video to get you started.

    Anon[332]: “If your argument is honest, you would just be blaming scientists and similar people who advance progress instead of people in general.”

    There are two components to “Progress”. Scientists invent, but the people actually using these inventions cause the problem, which they then incorrectly blame on various “Devils”.

    Anon[332]: “No, it’s simply a power structure. There’s nothing “technological” about it even using a loose definition.”

    Ellul defines technology as the ensemble of means whereby man obtains what he wants from the world. This would include forms of social organization, obviously. So, oops, looks like you’re wrong again! LOL

    • Replies: @Anon
  164. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Somebody here isn’t, that’s for sure. But you’re not a bad sort. A bit dim, maybe, but not bad.”

    Whenever the unoriginal “no you!” comeback appears, it’s likely that the person who originally made the insult is correct.

    “What do you mean by “all this”, and what makes you think it was any trouble?”

    Why would we evolve the “illusion” of free will instead of just free will itself? The former sounds like evolution had to jump through a lot of hoops and seems a bit convoluted.

    “No, I’m pointing out you’re just gerrymandering definitions”

    I guess all dictionaries are wrong then.

    “That’s pretty superficial of you, Anon[332]. Why not read the book, or at least, the part on brain size, and decide for yourself? A pdf is easy to find online. Here’s one!”

    Well I reluctantly read the bit on brain size and it does seem plausible, though I’m no expert so I don’t know how correct some of his arguments and “facts” are. I still think he’s overstating the connection between brain size and intelligence, at least within humans.

    “Free will” being an illusion implies nothing about whether someone should be punished or not. You’d need a theory of justice for that, something which you at least imply you’ve got by objecting to my description of “free will” as an illusion. For why object, unless you think that people shouldn’t be punished if there’s no “free will”?“

    Because free will being an “illusion” necessarily leads to the question of whether people should be punished, without attempting to create any theory of justice. People could and would use that argument to say people should be punished less or not at all. It can be twisted in all sorts of ways both obvious and subtle.

    “I, however, have no theory of justice. I see “justice” as just another necessary illusion that we’re encouraged to believe in, probably because it’s indispensable to society; certainly not because I delude myself that such a thing actually exists.“

    I agree it’s a necessary illusion. But our current theories of justice was largely inspired by Christianity so are you gonna blame that for it too?

    “Problem is, in its quest for resources, even redoubts like the Amazon rain forest are being destroyed by the technological system and will eventually fall.”

    For now, maybe. But some kind of global rewilding project may be possible in the future which will surely make the greenies happy. Let’s just hope they don’t destroy our living standards like they’re doing now.

    “There’s actually very little evidence, and even what little exists is suspect. Search out some books by Dr. Richard Carrier. If reading is too hard for you, here’s a video to get you started.“

    Again, you disagree with the vast majority of historical scholars (many atheist ones too). And instead of having to watch an hour-long vid of another smug atheist debunk for the millionth time the Bible’s supernatural claims, just tell me where the Jesus part starts.

    “There are two components to “Progress”. Scientists invent, but the people actually using these inventions cause the problem, which they then incorrectly blame on various “Devils”

    So again, blame human nature instead of progress. Humans will always cause problems with or without technology. I will agree that technology exacerbates it though.

    “Ellul defines technology as the ensemble of means whereby man obtains what he wants from the world.”

    Yes the world, not people. Technically people are part of the world, but unlike materials, they are not resources to be exploited and generally aren’t without govt actions. Though Marxists would disagree. Are you sure you’re not a Marxist, doc? Without your views on race, you could join them.

  165. Anon[332]: “Whenever the unoriginal “no you!” comeback appears, it’s likely that the person who originally made the insult is correct.”

    Oh, you’re a caution Anon[332]. You’ve no end of witty comebacks.

    Anon[332]: “Why would we evolve the “illusion” of free will instead of just free will itself? The former sounds like evolution had to jump through a lot of hoops and seems a bit convoluted.”

    Because reality is deterministic, there is no possibility of any actual “free will” in the sense of overriding causality through an act of will. Of course, that’s what most people mean by “free will”, and what you imply you believe by even asking a question about “free will itself”. If determinism is true, there is no “free will itself”. It seems you keep forgetting you’re a compatibilist. You’re an organic robot, remember? At least, so says your great philosopher Daniel Dennett. But to answer your question, I hypothesize that the illusion of “free will” was an adaptation favored by natural selection; favored in humans in the same way that intelligence or brain size was favored. Certainly, I think you must agree even on your own terms that if evolution is true, the ancestors of man didn’t always have the idea of “free will”. At some point in evolutionary history, that “frame of mind” as I’ve called it, became a universal feature of human self-perception.

    Anon[332]: “I guess all dictionaries are wrong then.”

    I’m just saying that it’s not obvious why recognizing yourself in a mirror should be the final test of self-awareness. Why not tool use, for example? Tools are used by a wide variety of animals. An animal using a tool must in some sense know it’s using a tool, it seems to me. This implies some level of self-awareness.

    Anon[332]: “People could and would use that argument to say people should be punished less or not at all. It can be twisted in all sorts of ways both obvious and subtle.”

    Actually, people could use it to punish them more. Do we punish dangerous animals less because they can’t help it? Do we not kill parasites rather than try to rehabilitate them?

    Anon[332]: “Well I reluctantly read the bit on brain size and it does seem plausible, though I’m no expert so I don’t know how correct some of his arguments and “facts” are. ”

    Unlike you, Rushton IS an expert, and one who published his work in peer-reviewed journals, many of which he cites, while also citing studies done by others that show the same correlation in brain size by race. If you’re too lazy to follow up, that’s too bad and on you. Afaik, no one ever attacked his data, only his politically incorrect conclusions.

    Anon[332]: “… you disagree with the vast majority of historical scholars … And instead of having to watch an hour-long vid of another smug atheist debunk for the millionth time the Bible’s supernatural claims, just tell me where the Jesus part starts.”

    Truth isn’t a matter of majority vote.

    Here’s one specifically on the historicity of Jesus. Let’s hope it won’t overtax your attention span.

    Anon[332]: “So again, blame human nature instead of progress.”

    “Human nature” is a vague phrase susceptible to a variety of interpretations. Some people doubt it exists at all. Further, even if it does exist and were a problem, there would no doubt be proposals to use technology to change it. Thus, it would make little sense to blame human nature. Anyway, how do such things as acid rain, air pollution, vaccine side effects, etc. result from human nature?

    Anon[332]: “Humans will always cause problems with or without technology. I will agree that technology exacerbates it though.”

    My task is done, another Luddite is born! LOL

    Anon[332]: “Technically people are part of the world, but unlike materials, they are not resources to be exploited and generally aren’t without govt actions.”

    I guess you’ve never heard of “human capital”, or worked in a company with a “human resources” department.

    Anon[332]: “Are you sure you’re not a Marxist, doc? ”

    Quite sure. I don’t think money explains everything.

    • Replies: @Anon
  166. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Just knowing the truth has consequences. In this case, knowing the truth means you won’t buy into Christian fairy tales about “free will” and their ideas of “sin”, “redemption”, etc.”

    Since you mentioned him, Ellul seemed to think this realization made one “less determined”, as opposed to “totally determined”. As an allusion to free will as a “well-founded” illusion, that makes sense to me. Humans seem to have more free will than other animals, and some humans seem to have more free will than others. But no matter how much “free will” one may have, in the last analysis there’s no invalidating causality. I can’t refute that. And yet put that way, it doesn’t mean much to me, and I’m tempted to hurl the “technical pedantry” charge at you just as Anon did. Is that my vanity talking? Maybe. But more than that I think it points up the strength of the illusion, and the fact that worldviews tend to be very resistant to change. I’m going to need some time to digest this one. I think it helps though that I want to.

  167. Hornet Hole: “Since you mentioned him, Ellul seemed to think this realization made one “less determined”, as opposed to “totally determined”.”

    Ellul, of course, was a Christian theologian as well as a philosopher of technology. Whether he ever directly addressed such questions as the historicity of Jesus or weighed in on the “free will”/determinism debate, I don’t know. However, his idea that man can voluntarily abandon technology seems to presuppose the belief in “free will” so typical of Christians, and also betrays a failure to integrate his ideas with evolutionary theory.

    Certainly, a debate between him and Richard Carrier would be epic!

    • Replies: @Anon
  168. Oops, I quoted the wrong part of your post. This is the part I was replying to:

    “In short, just realizing there’s no “free will” leads to all sorts of consequences. It’s a veritable satori.”

    “Whether he ever directly … weighed in on the “free will”/determinism debate”

    He seems to do so indirectly in his foreword to the revised American edition of The Technological Society. At least that’s how I read him. And yes, I neglected to mention he was a Christian.

  169. Hornet Hole: “He seems to do so indirectly in his foreword to the revised American edition of The Technological Society.”

    Indeed he does. He says:

    In the modem world, the most dangerous form of determinism is the technological phenomenon. It is not a question of getting rid of it, but, by an act of freedom, of transcending it. How is this to be done? I do not yet know.

    He doesn’t know, I’d argue, because the idea of human freedom in a deterministic world is inherently self-contradictory. It’s a clear impossibility. But it seems so real! LOL

    I should point out again that any arguments I’ve made involving evolution are my own additions to Ellul’s thinking, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that they are at odds with his in some respects.

  170. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Oh, you’re a caution Anon[332]. You’ve no end of witty comebacks.“

    To quote ol’ Ronnie Reagan, “There you go again!”

    “Because reality is deterministic, there is no possibility of any actual “free will” in the sense of overriding causality through an act of will. Of course, that’s what most people mean by “free will”, and what you imply you believe by even asking a question about “free will itself”. If determinism is true, there is no “free will itself”. It seems you keep forgetting you’re a compatibilist.”

    Again, we’re not overriding causality or determinism. It seems like that but there’s no inherent paradox. And I haven’t forgotten I’m a compatibilist.

    “Certainly, I think you must agree even on your own terms that if evolution is true, the ancestors of man didn’t always have the idea of “free will”

    You mean the earliest Homo sapiens or the earlier hominids? The latter probably didn’t have that idea. It’s possible that the earliest Sapiens didn’t have that idea either, as the “cognitive explosion” happened around 50,000 years ago. That might be when the conscious idea of free will started to develop.

    “I’m just saying that it’s not obvious why recognizing yourself in a mirror should be the final test of self-awareness. Why not tool use, for example? Tools are used by a wide variety of animals. An animal using a tool must in some sense know it’s using a tool, it seems to me. This implies some level of self-awareness.”

    Maybe a very limited self-awareness. But like I said, the definition is being aware that you’re aware, not just aware of yourself as a being.

    “Actually, people could use it to punish them more. Do we punish dangerous animals less because they can’t help it? Do we not kill parasites rather than try to rehabilitate them?”

    Oh yeah, I forgot there’s no difference between us and other animals.

    “Unlike you, Rushton IS an expert, and one who published his work in peer-reviewed journals, many of which he cites, while also citing studies done by others that show the same correlation in brain size by race. If you’re too lazy to follow up, that’s too bad and on you. Afaik, no one ever attacked his data, only his politically incorrect conclusions.”

    Maybe there’s some other data to back it up but it’s not conclusive. And like I said, some of his background is a cause for concern.

    “Truth isn’t a matter of majority vote”

    Yes but they have good reasons to believe it.

    “Here’s one specifically on the historicity of Jesus. Let’s hope it won’t overtax your attention span”

    Aww, you’re so condescending it’s kinda cute. Anyway, I went ahead and watched the whole thing. Predictably, most of it was a waste of time. The only plausible argument against his existence came around 25 mins in. The rest attacked the low-hanging fruit of the Gospels such as the fact they’re allegorical and were made up after the fact. However, this doesn’t contradict his existence and in fact, I seem to remember there was a contemporary account of Jesus dating from before the Gospels. Don’t remember what it was though.

    “Human nature” is a vague phrase susceptible to a variety of interpretations. Some people doubt it exists at all.”

    So for example, the “illusion” of free will isn’t part of human nature then? Even by your argument, you’ve got to admit there is such a thing.

    “Further, even if it does exist and were a problem, there would no doubt be proposals to use technology to change it. Thus, it would make little sense to blame human nature.”

    That itself is part of human nature. You don’t seem to get it.

    “Anyway, how do such things as acid rain, air pollution, vaccine side effects, etc. result from human nature?”

    Remember what I just mentioned about technology simply exacerbating it?

    “My task is done, another Luddite is born! LOL”

    Now you’re the one deluding yourself.

    “I guess you’ve never heard of “human capital”, or worked in a company with a “human resources” department”

    That’s a different meaning of resource. Companies and other organizations don’t take whatever they want from people. There’s a pretty clear distinction between people and mere natural resources. Social organization may be a form of technology but govt differs in that it’s a power structure that relies on force and violence. And before you argue that hunting animals is violent, there’s also a distinction between humans and other animals.

    “Quite sure. I don’t think money explains everything.”

    It’s not just about money but you wouldn’t know it from listening to today’s dogma.

    • Replies: @Hornet Hole
  171. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “However, his idea that man can voluntarily abandon technology seems to presuppose the belief in “free will” so typical of Christians”

    Why do you keep thinking this is only a Christian thing?

  172. Anon[332]: “To quote ol’ Ronnie Reagan, “There you go again!””

    Anon[332] is not only witty AF, but a master of originality too, I see.

    Anon[332]: “Again, we’re not overriding causality or determinism. It seems like that but there’s no inherent paradox. And I haven’t forgotten I’m a compatibilist.”

    In that case, there’s absolutely no difference between a hard determinism and your “free will itself”, whatever that’s supposed to be. It’s just terminology; verbal trickery. But if you want to confuse yourself and call your deterministic choices “free will”, nobody can stop you. The whole idea stinks of Christianity though, and it should be very obvious to any unbiased observer why you want to think so.

    An interesting consequence of this kind of mad thinking would seem to be that, according to your logic, an AI with sophisticated programming could have “free will” too. After all, if organic robots can have this mystical ability, why not inorganic ones? Questions to ponder for the future: Who will be the first to write a computer program that shows “free will”? What computer language will he use? COBOL? Hmmm.

    Anon[332]: “You mean the earliest Homo sapiens or the earlier hominids? The latter probably didn’t have that idea. It’s possible that the earliest Sapiens didn’t have that idea either, as the “cognitive explosion” happened around 50,000 years ago. That might be when the conscious idea of free will started to develop.”

    LOL, wait, what happened to the “limited free will” you were saying above in #157 that ALL primates have? You need to get your story straight.

    Anon[332]: “Maybe a very limited self-awareness. But like I said, the definition is being aware that you’re aware, not just aware of yourself as a being.”

    A very carefully tailored definition it is, too. Suspiciously so.

    Anon[332]: “I seem to remember there was a contemporary account of Jesus dating from before the Gospels.”

    Only ONE account? Wait, what happened to your “mountain of evidence” in #165? LOL. Anyway, you might be talking about Josephus, but his wasn’t an eyewitness account. It turns out there aren’t any. Strange, innit? Plenty of eyewitness accounts of other historical figures, but not Jesus.

    Anon[332]: “Remember what I just mentioned about technology simply exacerbating it?”

    Yes, it’s clear people will immediately understand what we mean when we say modern problems aren’t due to technological “progress” at all. That’s crazy. We just tell them that air pollution, acid rain, deforestation, lab escapes turning into pandemics, etc., ad infinitum — it’s all just because of human nature. Blame it on “human nature”, yeah, that’s the ticket! LOL.

    But wait, how come these modern problems are MODERN ones? Why didn’t societies with more primitive technology have them? Did their people lack “human nature”? Apparently so!

    The world had to await the arrival of an intellect of your caliber, Anon[332], to uncover this truth. You should be very proud.

    Anon[332]: “Now you’re the one deluding yourself.”

    LOL, you’re a funny guy.

    Anon[332]: “Why do you keep thinking this is only a Christian thing? ”

    Christians place a special value on “free will”, because according to their mythology (and yours, coincidence?) man is a special creature created by God, and endowed with a “soul” that, in most versions of the religion, has this uniquely human quality. Although the idea of free will preceded Christianity, Christianity has shaped the popular conception of it for the last couple of thousand years. So I’m just giving credit where credit is due.

  173. Anon[247] • Disclaimer says:

    “Anon[332] is not only witty AF, but a master of originality too, I see.”

    Hey I wasn’t even trying, like most of this discussion. I’m too tired for that.

    “In that case, there’s absolutely no difference between a hard determinism and your “free will itself”, whatever that’s supposed to be. It’s just terminology; verbal trickery. But if you want to confuse yourself and call your deterministic choices “free will”, nobody can stop you. “

    Yes there’s still a difference. Compatibilists don’t argue we can override causality. That’s just stupid.
    Think of it like this: if a hand catches a coin before it hits the ground, we’re not defying gravity. It would’ve fallen anyway, the only difference is the hand caught it. In this case free will is the hand.

    “The whole idea stinks of Christianity though, and it should be very obvious to any unbiased observer why you want to think so.”

    No, my belief in free will predates my fondness for Christianity.

    [MORE]

    “An interesting consequence of this kind of mad thinking would seem to be that, according to your logic, an AI with sophisticated programming could have “free will” too.”

    It could indeed. I implied this just a few comments ago if you remember. But I suspect that the first self-aware AIs will have only limited free will and they won’t have it the same level we do, until they inevitably start improving themselves and creating even better AIs.

    “LOL, wait, what happened to the “limited free will” you were saying above in #157 that ALL primates have? You need to get your story straight.”

    You were talking about the idea of it, were you not? And you can only have the concept of free will if you’re fully self-aware i.e aware that you’re aware. Or are you playing the same kind of “verbal trickery” you accuse me of?

    “A very carefully tailored definition it is, too. Suspiciously so.”

    Whatever. Keep disagreeing with definitions.

    “Only ONE account? Wait, what happened to your “mountain of evidence” in #165? LOL.”

    The mountain of evidence I refer to is that even in the Gospels, they depict accurately what someone like Jesus would have experienced and are consistent with later sources. The sources are few, but they all line up with each other.

    “Anyway, you might be talking about Josephus, but his wasn’t an eyewitness account.”

    No, that came later. I specifically remember a contemporary one but can’t find it for some reason. Maybe I’m mistaken. Unlike you, I have the courage to admit I could be wrong.

    “It turns out there aren’t any. Strange, innit? Plenty of eyewitness accounts of other historical figures, but not Jesus.”

    So that by itself disproves his existence? I don’t think so. There could be many reasons why. Earlier accounts could have even destroyed or simply lost to the mists of time. Many similar things have happened throughout history.

    “Yes, it’s clear people will immediately understand what we mean when we say modern problems aren’t due to technological “progress” at all. That’s crazy. We just tell them that air pollution, acid rain, deforestation, lab escapes turning into pandemics, etc., ad infinitum — it’s all just because of human nature. Blame it on “human nature”, yeah, that’s the ticket! LOL.

    But wait, how come these modern problems are MODERN ones? Why didn’t societies with more primitive technology have them? Did their people lack “human nature”? Apparently so!”

    Hold your horses, my silly, annoying friend. I didn’t say technology didn’t create any new problems. I’m saying your progress scapegoat is too superficial. Many of those technological problems are just due to tech combined with incompetence, carelessness, or just plain stupidity. So yes, human nature.
    You might as well blame cavemen for all the (less destructive) problems they caused too? Do you think there was no violence or war back then? Maybe we all lived in peace and harmony before the evil industrialization came along! I guess your view isn’t so different from the Bible, after all.

    But tell me this: even if we could go back to the mythical time of Eden, what would prevent progress from happening again? It might take a long time, but eventually we would be back to the same level of technology we are now. What if some group of civilization-hating folks such as yourself successfully take us back to the Dark Ages, only for all their efforts to eventually be rendered meaningless? The same goes for any natural or artificial apocalypse.

    “The world had to await the arrival of an intellect of your caliber, Anon[332], to uncover this truth. You should be very proud.”

    Studies have shown that in general, the more arrogant someone appears to be, the more wrong they are. So tone it down, it doesn’t help you.

    “LOL, you’re a funny guy.”

    That makes two of us!

    “because according to their mythology (and yours, coincidence?) man is a special creature created by God, and endowed with a “soul” that, in most versions of the religion, has this uniquely human quality”

    If you still think I believe this, you really are stupid, have amnesia, or both.

    “Christianity has shaped the popular conception of it for the last couple of thousand years. So I’m just giving credit where credit is due”

    That’s awfully sweet of you, but other religions and philosophies have said more or less the same thing and have greatly influenced the idea of it too. Though maybe not to the same extent Christianity has in the west.

  174. Anon[247]: “Yes there’s still a difference.”

    In the final analysis, all we have here is a neural chain reaction triggering muscles to do something. In principle, a grasshopper “deciding” to jump is no different than your “deciding” to catch the coin. Your mystical appeals to neocortex don’t save you. No miracle happens there. It’s still just a deterministic series of reactions.

    Anon[247]: “No, my belief in free will predates my fondness for Christianity.”

    Maybe so, but by now it should be obvious to everybody that your deep attachment to Christianity is what motivates your so-called reasoning.

    As for the remainder of your post, I’m unable to read it, since the [MORE] tag requires javascript, and I don’t enable that for security reasons. I’m sure you must have offered a great excuse for why your “mountain of evidence” for the historical existence of the crucified rabbi turned out to be a mote of dust, or even less; and likewise for the rest of your absurdities.

    • Replies: @Anon
  175. Anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “In the final analysis, all we have here is a neural chain reaction triggering muscles to do something. In principle, a grasshopper “deciding” to jump is no different than your “deciding” to catch the coin. Your mystical appeals to neocortex don’t save you. No miracle happens there. It’s still just a deterministic series of reactions.”

    Whatever. Have a nice time thinking we’re all controlled by instincts. Let it be known that the great Doc thinks there’s no difference between our decisions and an insect’s.

    “Maybe so, but by now it should be obvious to everybody that your deep attachment to Christianity is what motivates your so-called reasoning”

    My attachment is not that deep and it is not obvious to “everybody”.

    “As for the remainder of your post, I’m unable to read it, since the [MORE] tag requires javascript, and I don’t enable that for security reasons. “

    I didn’t put any “more” tag in so I’m not sure why it’s there this time, but why can’t you turn on Javascript temporarily? Too much trouble?

    In any case, I’ll copy the rest of my comment and try to post again.

  176. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:

    “An interesting consequence of this kind of mad thinking would seem to be that, according to your logic, an AI with sophisticated programming could have “free will” too.”

    It could indeed. I implied this just a few comments ago if you remember. But I suspect that the first self-aware AIs will have only limited free will (and limited self-awareness) and they won’t have the same level we do, until they inevitably start improving themselves and creating better AIs.

    “LOL, wait, what happened to the “limited free will” you were saying above in #157 that ALL primates have? You need to get your story straight.”

    You were talking about the idea of it, were you not? And you can only have the concept of free will if you’re fully self-aware i.e aware that you’re aware. Or are you playing the same kind of “verbal trickery” you accuse me of?

    “A very carefully tailored definition it is, too. Suspiciously so.”

    Whatever. Keep disagreeing with definitions.

    “Only ONE account? Wait, what happened to your “mountain of evidence” in #165? LOL.”

    The mountain of evidence I refer to is that even in the Gospels, they accurately depict what someone like Jesus would have experienced and are consistent with later sources. The sources are few, but they all line up with each other. There’s also the burial tomb some researchers accessed a few years ago. They have good reasons to believe it’s Jesus’ burial tomb.

    “Anyway, you might be talking about Josephus, but his wasn’t an eyewitness account.”

    No, that came later. I specifically remember a contemporary one but can’t find it for some reason. Maybe I’m mistaken. Unlike you, I have the courage to admit I could be wrong.

    “It turns out there aren’t any. Strange, innit? Plenty of eyewitness accounts of other historical figures, but not Jesus.”

    So that by itself disproves his existence? I don’t think so. There could be many reasons why. Earlier accounts could have even destroyed or simply lost to the mists of time. Many similar things have happened throughout history.

    “Yes, it’s clear people will immediately understand what we mean when we say modern problems aren’t due to technological “progress” at all. That’s crazy. We just tell them that air pollution, acid rain, deforestation, lab escapes turning into pandemics, etc., ad infinitum — it’s all just because of human nature. Blame it on “human nature”, yeah, that’s the ticket! LOL.

    But wait, how come these modern problems are MODERN ones? Why didn’t societies with more primitive technology have them? Did their people lack “human nature”? Apparently so!”

    Hold your horses, my silly, annoying friend. I didn’t say technology didn’t create any new problems. I’m saying your progress scapegoat is too superficial. Many of those technological problems are just due to tech combined with incompetence, carelessness, or just plain stupidity. So yes, human nature.
    You might as well blame cavemen for all the (less destructive) problems they caused too? Do you think there was no violence or war back then? Maybe we all lived in peace and harmony before the evil industrialization came along! I guess your view isn’t so different from the Bible, after all.

    But tell me this: even if we could go back to the mythical time of Eden, what would prevent progress from happening again? It might take a long time, but eventually we would be back to the same level of technology we are now. What if some group of civilization-hating folks such as yourself successfully take us back to the Dark Ages, only for all their efforts to eventually be rendered meaningless? The same goes for any natural or artificial apocalypse.

    “The world had to await the arrival of an intellect of your caliber, Anon[332], to uncover this truth. You should be very proud.”

    Studies have shown that in general, the more arrogant someone appears to be, the more wrong they tend to be. So tone it down, it doesn’t help you.

    “LOL, you’re a funny guy.”

    That makes two of us!

    “because according to their mythology (and yours, coincidence?) man is a special creature created by God, and endowed with a “soul” that, in most versions of the religion, has this uniquely human quality”

    If you still think I believe this, you really are stupid, have amnesia, or both.

    “Christianity has shaped the popular conception of it for the last couple of thousand years. So I’m just giving credit where credit is due”

    That’s awfully sweet of you, but other religions and philosophies have said more or less the same thing and have greatly influenced the idea of it too. Though probably not to the same extent Christianity has in the west.

  177. Anon[202]: “It could indeed. I implied this just a few comments ago if you remember. ”

    No, I don’t remember. Where? In what comment did you “imply” this crazy idea? If so, I ought to have laughed at it earlier.

    Anon[202]: “The mountain of evidence I refer to is that even in the Gospels, they accurately depict what someone like Jesus would have experienced and are consistent with later sources. ”

    That’s not evidence of anything. Somebody could write that stuff today. And if they did, how would it be evidence that the protagonist of their fictional story actually existed 2000 years ago? Only an imbecile would think so.

    What the hell is wrong with you?!

    Anon[202]: “So that by itself disproves his existence? I don’t think so. There could be many reasons why. Earlier accounts could have even destroyed or simply lost to the mists of time. Many similar things have happened throughout history.”

    LOL, your hate-filled Christians destroyed an awful lot of Roman and Greek literature from classical times — scholars say 99% of Roman literature and 90% of Greek — but they’d be very unlikely to destroy or lose an eyewitness account of Jesus. Surely that should be obvious even to you.

    Anon[202]: “So yes, human nature.”

    I’ll leave all the sobbing about human nature to you and your Christian friends. I’m concerned with drawing attention to the host of modern problems created by “Progress”.

    Anon[202]: “But tell me this: even if we could go back to the mythical time of Eden, what would prevent progress from happening again?”

    https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/jared-taylor-on-cnns-the-state-of-hate/?showcomments#comment-3312037

    Anon[202]: “If you still think I believe this, you really are stupid, have amnesia, or both.”

    Or neither.

  178. Anon[341] • Disclaimer says:

    “No, I don’t remember. Where? In what comment did you “imply” this crazy idea? If so, I ought to have laughed at it earlier.”

    When I mentioned the possibility of an AI wiping us all out. Surprised you don’t remember, it’s one more thing for you to point your finger at and whine “See?”

    “That’s not evidence of anything. Somebody could write that stuff today. And if they did, how would it be evidence that the protagonist of their fictional story actually existed 2000 years ago? Only an imbecile would think so.”

    I’m just saying many of the details match, which they probably wouldn’t if they were all made up. And communication was a bit harder 2000 years ago.

    “What the hell is wrong with you?!”

    Oh, how many times have I asked the same question during this discussion…

    “LOL, your hate-filled Christians destroyed an awful lot of Roman and Greek literature from classical times — scholars say 99% of Roman literature and 90% of Greek — but they’d be very unlikely to destroy or lose an eyewitness account of Jesus. Surely that should be obvious even to you.”

    How do you know Christians were the ones who destroyed them, cause scholars said so? What’s that thing you told me again? And even if they did, we have no way of knowing how much.
    Also, why the hell would Christians destroy an eyewitness account and yes, they could easily lose it. It didn’t become that popular until decades after Jesus’ death.

    “I’ll leave all the sobbing about human nature to you and your Christian friends. I’m concerned with drawing attention to the host of modern problems created by “Progress”.”

    I’m just wondering how you say that while also saying:

    “Not at all. The indictment of “Progress” is just shorthand way of pointing out that people cause themselves problems by their own actions.”

    I don’t get the mentality behind saying the former and not drawing the obvious conclusion even you implied? Yep, more and more evidence is piling up that you’re the stupid one here. But by all means, continue pointing the finger at superficial things. Progress, just another devil.

    “https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/jared-taylor-on-cnns-the-state-of-hate/?showcomments#comment-3312037”

    Hmm, that was an interesting little essay. I suppose it all depends on whether the technology itself was destroyed, which seems unlikely in most cases except a nuclear war, in which case humanity itself could be extinct, rendering it moot. If it isn’t all destroyed, and enough tech is left over to extract resources, it could start over. There’s also the fact we have 3D printers and other advanced manufacturing techniques, so if just a few of these things still exist and the knowledge to use them, we could potentially pick up where we left off after some delay.

    But instead of obsessing over some potential apocalypse, why not just go ahead and live a primitive lifestyle now? There’s many ways of doing so. Live in the forest and go hunt and gather. Have fun. But let me guess, you don’t wanna give up the evil modern comforts of progress, huh?

    “Or neither.”

    Nah, pretty sure it’s both.

    On an unrelated note, I’m just curious as to your occupation. Some kind of psychologist? If so, it must be depressing. No wonder you have a nihilistic worldview.

  179. @Anon

    “Again, we’re not overriding causality or determinism. It seems like that but there’s no inherent paradox.”

    Then do you admit free will is an illusion? The only way compatibilism isn’t a paradox is if free will is conceded to be an illusion existing only in the realm of human intentionality, and while seeming very real there, having no place in the scientific picture of the world.

    To have self-awareness is not to have free will per se. Taken literally, “free will” is a misnomer.

    • Replies: @Anon
  180. Anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hornet Hole

    No, I’m not admitting it’s an illusion but I don’t wanna get drawn into another discussion.

  181. Hornet Hole: “The only way compatibilism isn’t a paradox is if free will is conceded to be an illusion existing only in the realm of human intentionality, and while seeming very real there, having no place in the scientific picture of the world.

    To have self-awareness is not to have free will per se. Taken literally, “free will” is a misnomer. ”

    Nicely and succinctly put! But at the risk of over complicating such a pellucid explanation, I’ll add this.

    I think a useful thing to read in order to understand what Anon is trying to say is MacDonald’s 2009 paper on effortful control (“Evolution, Psychology, and a Conflict Theory of Culture”). I suspect Anon is calling the deterministic process of interaction of various brain structures “free will” because it makes him happy, and the alternative makes him sad. Pretty childish, really.

    Let’s take as an example the way that social conditioning can cause the prefrontal cortex to override and suppress the natural racism that studies have shown people are endowed with by evolution, a reaction modulated by subcortical regions such as the amygdala. Anon thinks that the apparent “choice” of an individual to be racist or not thus proves “free will”; or in other words that effortful control can override what he’s been referring to as “instinct”. What he doesn’t realize (or refuses to admit, for fear of losing the argument) is that whether or not this effort is successful, or made at all, is also dependent upon external factors. In other words, what is an apparent “free choice” to be racist or not will depend on such factors as the culture one is born into and the strength of the drive. Both the former (environment) and the latter (genetics) are out of individual control, and taken together completely determine the outcome. Therefore “free will” is clearly an illusion. An SS man confronted with a Jew would have no compunction about shooting him, since his prefrontal cortex, working at the level of ideology, will not only not override his natural racism, but even reinforce it. Otoh, brainwashed lemmings like Anon would exercise their “free will” to obey the dictates of their culture and effectively suppress their racist lower brain activity. In neither case do we see any meaningful form of “free will”.

    But, someone may object, what about creativity? Can’t this individual come up with a creative solution to the conflict? Perhaps so, but creativity is likewise out of the control of the individual, since it is subject to the same environmental/genetic constraints. People who aren’t genetically gifted with creativity will be unable to come up with any such solution, and even people who are so gifted will have no choice but to operate under their environmental limitations. Though superficially it might seem that this might be an escape, it turns out even creativity can’t save “free will”. Anon’s conceptualizing of the ego as an entity choosing between various possibilities is inadequate as a model of “free will” because it doesn’t acknowledge that the ego is itself determined in the range of its choices, and even whether or not it chooses to choose at all.

    That’s why compatibilism is bunk.

    • Replies: @Hornet Hole
  182. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Nicely and succinctly put! But at the risk of over complicating such a pellucid explanation, I’ll add this.”

    Far from overcomplex, I found it to be very elucidative. Thanks!

    “I suspect Anon is calling the deterministic process of interaction of various brain structures “free will” because it makes him happy, and the alternative makes him sad.”

    I don’t see why Anon is apparently that bothered by it, since he’s already said he thinks sufficiently advanced AI could have free will. That’s all but an admission that humans are organic robots and free will is an illusion, isn’t it? Very strange.

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 Washington Watcher II Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV