The idea is that cultural marxism rigidly divides the world into oppressed (women, poc) and oppressors (men, whites), who are assumed to all share the same interests and actions, in a similar way that marxism does with the working class and the bourgeoise/aristocrats. Then in the same way that traditional marxism posits that social ideologies (e.g. nationalism, religion) are really just ways for economically dominant classes to keep control, cultural marxism posits that ‘ideologies’ like inherent gender differences, and liberalism (free speech) are just ways for oppressors to keep control. Finally, like traditional marxism looked forward to a future where the oppressor classes no longer exist, cultural marxism looks forward to a future where what it conceives as ‘oppressive classes’ (‘whiteness’, ‘masculinity’) no longer exist.

Is the implication then that the religious social structure was more important in maintaining societal continuity than whichever Nordic Germanic people happened to be ruling? Seems plausible to me, seeing as the church would have been responsible for things like education (such as it was), literary production, and taxation in part.

Yes but most Jews aren’t neocons

OT, but an interesting article perhaps for Steve to look at. From Vox, called ‘White Riot’:

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit

Ends with the VERY telling line: “The future shouldn’t belong to the Front National and its ilk. It should belong to the people they’re afraid of.”

I.e.: the future should belong to Muslims and other unassimilable immigrants, NOT to the traditional working class of Western countries. Pretty sickening really.

Ha, Lennonism – great term

Sailer espouses nordic supremacy? I don’t remember reading anything of his that does. What are you thinking of?

What are you basing your periodisation on? (Apart from Hobsbawm). Seems to me you could say 2016 could signify an end to the period from 1945, or 1989, of liberal globalisation, but can’t see how you could fit in the national and imperial conflicts of 1915 – 1945 into the period.

Can’t remember specific article names, but these are the themes you’ve written about that I’ve found most enlightening:

– Sailer strategy
– Marriage gap
– The ethnic biases that are held by many non whites and Jews, and how our current ideas that only whiteness has such negative agency allows them to obscure these biases, even from themselves
– The left forgetting how long they’ve been in charge of things and always seeing ‘the man’ elsewhere
– ‘The ideal world of many female political activists is one in which they themselves will be seen as more attractive’
– Obama’s racial obsessions as seen in his autobiography
– The flight from white
– The megaphone
– The alteration of American identity to the ‘nation of immigrants’ conception from the ‘settlers’ conception in the last century, and how it’s pretended its always been like this (eg your ‘posterity’ example, emma lazarus)
– War on noticing

I guess I’d say the general theme of the above is peering through our current conceits about liberal egalitarian individualism to uncover the ways the world really works.

In addition to my above comment, I would say one of your greatest strengths is coining phrases that capture contemporary realities (I listed a few above that I remember), that didn’t have a name for them before. So I’d recommend using these phrases either for section titles, if there’s multiple articles, or as essay titles. Especially in our memeified times they’re very effective.

Where has Sailer noted this about UVA? I’ve also noticed a tendency for interesting left-narrative puncturing stuff to come out of there too (eg Haidt)

Has been great to read your stuff here

As someone who’s lived in London for a decade, I find it pretty irritating when people say things like “In London, you see that many [niqabs] practically whenever you walk out the door.” I understand you’re exaggerating to make a point, as I’m sure it’s true you are much more likely to see women in niqabs in London than in other western cities – and I personally fucking hate the things.

However lets be realistic, there’s really only two areas where you’re likely to see it. One is around the edgeware road, and these ones are wealthy gulf arabs who have their own little ‘summer colony’ there. The other is around whitechapel (and possibly further east, where I haven’t spent much time), where a small proportion of the Bengalis who live there have gone Islamo-crazy and niqabed up.

> You generally do not see English people on the street unless it is a special occasion. Mostly they commute to work and back again very discreetly.

Why are you saying things that you know (assuming you’ve actually been to London) are patently false? Yes there has been massive ethnic change over the last few decades such that the white British are now a minority, no one on this website is unaware of or unconcerned with this fact. But why say things that are so ridiculous (speaking as a white english 10 year london resident who is SHOCK frequently on the streets with other white english people)