Kamala Harris will be the Democrat nominee in 2020.

Deus.
Fucking.
Vult.

Sexbots will do their part to save civilization by enabling dread game and by giving the thots something wholesome to aspire to.

"Anything [your sexbot] can do, I can do better!"
"Yeah, but can it cook?"
"Yeah, but can it clean your house?"
"Yeah, but does it come equipped with a baby-maker?"
"Yeah, but can it babysit your kids?"

They are not us.
They never were us.
They never wanted to be us.

They just wanted us to pretend they were us.

216,

We should further end farm subsidies in order to induce production to move to the Third World.

Of course we should end farm subsidies, but we should also ban food imports.
We need to pick our own cotton.

216,

Thanks. I don't really see anything to disagree with. 🙂

216,

Fair enough, but I'm still interested in hearing how you'd like your strategy to unfold, if you don't mind.

I will agree to disagree.

Alleged Rapists and Nazis aren't going to win elections in normieland.

That's the problem right there. When you concede the Enemy's frame, you've already lost.

1. You know perfectly well that Nehlen is not a Nazi.
2. You know perfectly well that Moore is not an alleged rapist.
3. Everyone who is aligned with Trump is an alleged rapist and an alleged Nazi.

Are you sure you're not counter-signaling?

Tens if not hundreds of millions of people think we've got itchy trigger fingers for World War III, it doesn't help when we confirm the stereotype. 

What do you want, 216? What is your strategy? At what point do you confess to the normies that you want to send all the post-1965ers back and make the blacks independent?

Tactical lying is not a very good tactic for the Right. We can't do it.

Your path seems eerily familiar to the self-destructive path the Conservative Party used in South Africa.

There are two major differences. First, Americans are self-reliant. We are accustomed to being the world's superpower. We do not anticipate, want, or need help from foreign governments. Second, we aren't vastly outnumbered, like South African whites always were.

If you're outnumbered and you give up political control, it's over. That's the time to flee the country. We, on the other hand, maintain a large majority—large enough that we are still over a generation away from being outnumbered, and that's assuming the rosiest immigration predictions. We can can afford to give the Democrats control over the government for two election cycles, and let the Fake Americans wreak havoc like they do best, because whites aren't magically going to become outnumbered in that timeframe.

As I've argued in the past, the very act of diversifying America pisses Americans off and makes us more sympathetic to white identity politics.

216,

 Most of the GOP politicians at the end of the day will vote the way they are told. The real focus is the leadership, change them and the rest will follow.

Really? Trump's been telling them how to vote. How has that worked out? They follow a higher leadership than the GOP leadership. They serve the Swamp and the Deep State because they are part of the Swamp and the Deep State. In this context, that's what being an incumbent means.

We win by entryism, not by accelerationism.

Entyism and accelerationism are tactics, not strategy. What is the strategy behind entryism, if not the same failed strategy that got us to where we are now? The system can't be reformed "from within".

Conservatives and classical liberals and the moderates who favor them woke up just enough to roll over in bed, open one eye, and vote for Trump. But they didn't vote for Roy Moore (extremely disappointing) or Paul Nehlen (not surprising given how cucked Wisconsin is), and various others.

The Alt-Right has explained the demographic, racial, and cultural problems to death. We've proven that CivNats aren't willing to do what is necessary to make CivNat work, and we've proven that CivNat is evil anyway. We've proven that their tactics AND their strategy have failed.

The Fake Right (conservatives, libertarians, etc.) have no arguments. They're not serious. They just want to ignore the problem. No arguments will serve to change their minds. Only pain.

Fake America will be delighted to administer that pain, with or without "help".

The faster Majority-Americans experience the sweeping consequences of their laziness, cowardice, and short-sightedness, the faster they'll start listening.

Obviously I'm going to vote for Trump one way or another, but Trump can't do it alone. If the base is going to half-ass this, then Trump will turn out to be nothing more than a proof of concept—which is extremely important—but we don't need a proof of concept for 8 years.

AE writes: The boomercon demographic is inexorably shrinking. There is still a window of time for the Sailer Strategy to work, but the choice needs to be made clear and decisive.

A counter-argument to accelerationism would be that Majority-America's wake-up process is inherently generational. In that case, we want to delay the demographic trends as long as possible (particularly by marginal cuts to immigration) to make the Sailer Strategy window as large as possible. That way, once the Boomers have bounced their last check, there will be fewer Xeno-Americans for Gen-Z to deal with.

But to me that smacks of kicking the can down the road. Conservative Boomers will fight, however grudgingly, if they are forced to.

Purity spiraling did not work in 1990s California, nor in 1980s South Africa.

Hasn't it? To be fair, 216, the visible collapse of failed cities, failed states and failed countries is why we have Trump. Of course it hasn't worked out very well for South Africans or for Californians, but that was never in the cards anyway. There is no political solution—that door closed in '65. That means war. And war means we're not all going to make it out of this in one piece.

Accelerationism just accepts that. It's exactly the same reason we want Xeno-Americans replacing white/Jewish Democrat incumbents. The Democrats are the Alien-American Party. The faster they look like the Alien-American party, the better. Put the inmates in charge of the asylum, and then rile them up.

In the likely event that he loses this fall, the conclusion will be made that Kasich would have been a sure shot to win the seat.

To what end? What's the point of having another Open Borders (R)?

the GOP may not learn the lesson, or they will take the wrong conclusion and go "full cuck".

They will never learn the lesson. The institution cannot change unless you change the people. Just like the Roman church will never be reformed until the laity go Deus Vult on the homopriests.

A couple years ago, I thought there was a chance that Trump could whip the Republicans into line…that taking out a few of them would serve to illuminate the others. I think it's pretty clear I was wrong about that. So we're back to Plan B. Nuke the GOP. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

My suggestion is to calibrate it by the race in question. If it's an open-borders cuck, go the accelerationist route and vote for the abolish ICE Dem, third party, or don't vote. If it's someone like Kobach, DeSantis, or Kemp, crawl over broken glass to vote for them and to get others in your social network to do the same.

10/10

Our immediate goal, as it has has been since Trump's campaign, must be to decimate the traitorous/moderate Republicans.

Every seat they lose is a victory, regardless of whether it goes to one of our guys or to a Democrat.

The time to "tactically" vote for (R)s is over. No tactical gains can possibly overcome the strategic value of decimating the ranks.

"This religious service"

Indeed.

"I wish the Right understood deeply how much they are considered morally illegitimate in some very important quarters. The Right loses because they are a bunch of rubes, suckers, and fools who do not realize their own good will is not returned in kind by the other side."

Indeed. Of course, the Right can play that game, too. In fact, we can play it better than anyone. No mercy for liars, blasphemers, and traitors.

Obviously it will still take a while for attitudes on the Right to flip, but there is no chance in hell that the Enemy won't keep adding fuel to the fire.

Read this thread and cringe.

216, I cringed. Yes, the flag is autism. Doesn't make it wrong.

It's an essentially meaningless gesture, that, absent leadership willing to drastically cut immigration levels BAMN, will be like a fat person going on a "diet" by switching from Big Gulps to two cans of soda a day. You people do realize the staggering amounts of H1-B types and "refugees" who are flown into this country on a daily basis, and often given schooling, room & board etc. at taxpayer expense.

Feryl,

Yes. But most people are idiots. This is about morale. Energize Majority-America, demoralize the Left and Alien-America.

We can't go about solving any of the actual problems until we have shattered the enemy's resolve to resist.

I just watched the Spotlight movie. I was darkly amused to see the writers drop a controlled burn about how this is DEFINITELY NOT a homosexual problem.

Yeah, about that.

My suspicion is that Catholicism as a belief system is really going to go away.

The Roman church survived the Reformation. It also survived the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. It will survive this, although obviously not in its present form. Either the laity will declare a Crusade on the priesthood and the seminaries, or the nations and governments of the host countries will. It will probably vary from country to country. But it's a multi-generational process.

If other Christians begin to see the Roman church in the same light as we see Judaism and Islam (anything is possible given the pre-existing anti-Catholic sentiments of various Protestants), I would not be remotely surprised to see (at least in some regions) the same violent repatriations that are in store for the other Abrahamic 'faiths' put into practice against papists who won't renounce the Vatican institution.

I don't get the autism over the wall.

The wall would have gates that could be thrown open to anyone at any time.

Feryl, that's kind of like saying you don't get the autism over the Stars and Stripes. The wall is a symbol. It's a gigantic, tangible middle finger to the Deep State, the Globalists, to Left, and to the Fake Right. And of course the Alien-Americans.

Excellent post. Unfortunately, both the particular institutional structure and particular doctrines of the Roman church have made them a magnet for enterprising faggots. It is hard to imagine the Roman church escaping this calamity without a major schism.

Anyway, as usual, the "noble" homos fell into the trap of identity politics when they should have been the ones blowing the whistle most loudly. Remind me again why anyone on the Right should give a damn about "homosexual marriage" if the gays aren't going to police their own?

The problem with blacks on immigration (and any issue) is they are not a monolith.

The black members of the political class are 100% sellouts to the Progressive-Left. That is how they got into the political class, by selling out. They will follow the institution off a cliff.

The black upper and middle class are wholly devoted to the Progressive-Left because of affirmative action and disparate impact policies. That is how the vast majority of them (minus the ones who are genuinely talented, of course) got into the upper and middle class in the first place. And even the genuinely talented ones can benefit from affirmative action if they're high on grievance and/or low on morality. They will never rebel any more than white upper/middle class conservatives will attack Social Security, no matter how self-destructive the policies of the Progressive-Left. As pointed out, they are far too deep down the rabbit hole of identity politics.

Ghetto-class blacks get the short end of the stick on everything (especially immigration), but they will follow upper/middle class blacks off a cliff.

I laugh when conservatives babble about how our policies will help blacks. Yes, because the "average" black is pretty close to the level of a ghetto-class black. But blacks are not a monolith. Conservative policies are actively harmful to the black upper/middle class and the black political class. And upper/middle/political class of blacks are the ones with 100% of the power.

The plantation may be owned by white and (((white))) democrats, but the slave-drivers and slave-catchers are other blacks. Reason #13845384 why color-blind conservatism is dead. I would like to hear a white conservative convince an upper/middle class black Democrat that affirmative action needs to be destroyed.

Feryl,

Leaving aside feminazi propaganda, what was the impetus behind all these women going to work?

I don't know. Honestly it doesn't make any sense to me except in light of feminazi propaganda…

216,

The rough narrative of Trumpism is that immigration cuts will increase wages, and decrease competition for scarce public services. In 2010 this was a great message, and the Kochs rightly feared it, successfully co-opting. In the UK public opinion has reversed since Brexit to be among the most Pozzed in Europe. (Rooted in the absence of the refugee flood that hit the continent, UK is not in Schengen).

This narrative doesn't work that well today, the double digit IQ swing voter can more easily understand a doubling of the minimum wage, and sees it as fundamentally unfair to deny access to the "nation of immigrants".

I think a significant majority of white Americans are looking for any kind of excuse to oppose immigration that doesn't make them seem racist.

Anon,

My point was when social tensions reach a breaking point in multinational States, the fractures generally follow very close to the ethnic contours inside the society,not exactly along those contours, but close. 

When people are forced by events to make a choice between various identities, ethnic identities usually triumph for MOST people, not all.

Agreed. Notably, cultural, religious, and political views are not distributed randomly throughout multinational political orders. Even for people who either don't care about race (or claim to not care), they will find the most overlap on the other issues within their own national group.

All of these things reinforce each other.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Corvie,

Show me on the doll where Nate called you a gamma.

The schism I'm talking about was within the Western Church. 

It's honestly not necessary to argue that national tensions ALWAYS cause multinational political orders to break up. It is enough to point that when multinational political orders break up (for whatever reason), they always break up along national lines, regardless of the original source of the tension.

For example, the German Lutherans weren't really fighting for the German people's right to be Lutheran. They were fighting for the right to be Lutheran…and they "just so happened" to all be German. A small but important distinction.

Of course the reason the Reformation was focused in Germany was because Luther was a German and he therefore had a much greater influence on the German nobility and the German people.

Similarly, when the USA breaks up, not everyone who sides with White America will be specifically seeking to to secure the interests of White Americans. But it will work out that way, just like it did in the Holy Roman Empire.

As a form of community, it is more like a religion than a Nation. 
Like a religion it is based on a set of beliefs,not shared ancestry, traditions, history etc. 
You can convert to it or become 
an apostate from it. 

Bingo. Exactly this. And as I have pointed out to other Christians many times, Christianity is a shaky foundation for political unity. Civic nationalism is also a shaky foundation for political unity.

That's because the political unit ordained by God and natural law is the Nation. Now, nations sometimes fracture politically, for whatever reason, just like marriages and families sometimes fracture, for whatever reason. But that doesn't change the fact that any social order not based on marriage and any political order not based on the nation is guaranteed to dissolve, sooner or later.

This is not to say that Christianity and civic patriotism do not improve political unity—of course they do. But they need to be built on the solid foundation of nationalism.

Feryl,

who said that since the early 70's people have simultaneously been working harder yet gaining less. Whereas in the 1940's-1960's, moderate work was heavily rewarded.

Vox Day has pointed out that this transition occurred thanks to the addition of women to the general labor supply. Any major increase in the labor supply pulls the rug out from under employees. Of course there were plenty of other minor factors: Nixon's dollar crash, an ever-expanding government spending burden, ever-increasing public/private debt, and economically-useless growth in the financial sector, healthcare sector, etc… Not to mention outsourcing was beginning to go into effect in the latter quarter of the century.

But here's the paradox: by definition, a certain number of people will never be upper or even middle class. What then do we do about them? Lately, UBI and so forth has been talked about as a way of dealing with these people. At least we recognize that we have a problem, whereas in the 80's-2000's anyone who didn't attain higher status was dismissed as a whiner and sore loser.

Right. I used to be one of those people who dismissed everyone else as a loser. Of course that was way back in the day when I believed that education = intelligence. After all, everyone in my family members was pretty smart—so everyone has got to be smart, right? Not my fault they didn't apply themselves. An understandable delusion when you live in white suburbia.

But here's the thing. Free markets DO actually solve this problem, assuming the following conditions are met:

1) Foreign labor is banned from competing in the domestic labor market, whether through immigration or through imported consumer goods.

And that's it. Hard money is ideal…but not necessary. Low government spending is ideal…but not necessary. (Of course taxes actually have to cover the spending.) And frankly you don't even have to get rid of labor regulations, although that's ideal too.

On the flip side, if you permit foreign labor to compete in your labor market, hard money is irrelevant, low government spending is irrelevant, and a regulation-free economy is irrelevant. Your population will become impoverished regardless. That's how the free markets works.

If we reduce immigration and the pay/benefits of upper management, it shouldn't be that hard for people to find decent work; look at what happened in the 1930's-1960's when immigration was low.

Exactly—and you don't even need to reduce pay for upper management. The market will do that automatically. The extra upper management compensation is literally drawn from payroll cuts. Those cuts are possible because the labor surplus puts downward pressure on wages, meaning employees are being paid less than their marginal productivity. If you get rid of the labor surplus, the market will force wages to rise back up to marginal productivity. Management will have to eat the costs. (Of course, insofar as upper managers are more productive than other employees, they will still be paid more. But the delta will return to levels we saw in the first half of the 20th century.)

So my biggest problem with UBI is that lets business managers off the hook (pay people shit wages and give them shit benefits, and the government is on the hook for a lot of stuff)..

Yes. My position remains that the government is a horrible manager. It is horrible at managing the military, horrible at managing the court systems, horrible at managing the borders. Now, in those three cases, we have to suck it up because the alternative is worse. But in this case, our people don't need welfare. They need to be protected from foreign labor.

– – – – – – – –

Corvie,

Hello Nate from Vox Day’s blog.

Now that's a compliment. But I can assure you that I am not Nate, sugar tits.

Lol good luck with having your "white ethno-civilization" without white women.

The thirst for male validation is real.

hating white women just as much

Who hates women, sugar tits? We simply look down on you from our lofty peaks of glorious male privilege. Male privilege means you don't have to run around in a constant panic because there might be someone somewhere who doesn't entirely approve of your constantly-changing opinions.

This is why the rest of society looks down on you.

Rabbit-speak, from a SWF? On a blog dedicated to validating stereotypes? /facepalm

Relieving student debt, by whatever process, would have to correspond to sticking academic institutions with the bill.

Just 500,000 Whites can take it ALL back. There is no way to stop it now. Your Cabal went WAY TOO FAR. There is no "coexist". You and yours ALSO LACK SELF-CONTROL. ITS BEEN NOTICED. You cannot walk this back for even a PARTIAL VICTORY. NOT ANYMORE.

BRICS is UP and RUNNING. The petrodollar is living on fumes. Time is running out. TICK TOCK.

Exactly. Now is not the time to be talking about "compromise". They will compromise in the face of our conviction.

Corvie,

Hush now.

Anon,

One last point. There is a Christian man of some minor influence who is enthusiastic about smiting the socialists and Social Justice Warriors. No compromise. But he is also an avowed CivNat.

Why is this okay?

Because the invaders think the Constitution was written by dead white supremacists for dead white supremacists…and they think they are entitled to Social Justice. Meanwhile, the CivNats have no ability to change the invaders' minds.

Therefore, when the time comes to actually enforce the propositions of the "Proposition Nation", CivNats will find themselves enforcing it disproportionately on people-of-color. Incidentally, that is why it is necessary for all American nationalists to support the principles of the Constitution and reject all forms of socialism and central planning—that way the CivNats will have to side with us…or violate their own principles.

We've come a long way since Obama.

The donor class are committed to cheap labor via mass immigration. Can the Repubs win anything withoit the donor class?

First of all, yes. Second, the donor class will figure out that their interests are much better served by funding MAGA candidates than by making MAGA candidates their enemies.

Is the emergence of immigration as a major issue likely to lead to the fracturing of the Repubs?

No, quite the opposite. Conservatives will all find some reason to keep voting Republican (even if they're "holding their noses"). The genuine cuckservatives (who switch parties) are an irrelevant minority. Meanwhile, immigration will bring over many whites from the Democratic Party. The Sailer Strategy!

Anon,

You are being too literal in your interpretation of the language in the Constitution.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed by the same generation that had ordained and ratified the Constitution. 

No. The Naturalization Act of 1790 does not modify, reinterpret, or in any way alter the meaning of the Preamble. You have it exactly backwards. The Preamble inherently defines and limits the scope of all Federal activities.

It's clear, that to them "posterity" meant not only their descendants, but any "free white person" who became a citizen, as well as that persons descendants. 
Otherwise they would have stopped immigration.

Nope. They permitted the immigration of free white persons under the assumption that this immigration would serve the interests of Posterity. If they had known what the country would look like in 1865, or in 1940, or in 1965, they probably would have banned all immigration. They certainly would have at least amended the Constitution to strictly limit the size of the foreign population.

They didn't envision white immigrants being designated non-citizens in perpetuity. 

Citizen ≠ Posterity. Immigrants can become citizens, it doesn't make them Posterity. But the children of immigrants will be part Posterity if the immigrants intermarry with actual Posterity.

They had no intention of dividing the White American population. 

Correct, and they also had no intention of themselves or their Posterity being overwhelmed and outvoted by German Lutheran immigrants, Irish Catholic immigrants, or Italian Catholic immigrants, let alone by black slaves.

Magic Dirt doesn't work for white people. White civic nationalism is not nationalism. It is opposed to nationalism. That is why it doesn't work.

We can demonstrate that it doesn't work very easily: just look at the United States. The United States was ordained and established for the American Nation. Now, the Founding Fathers didn't have a perfect definition of that Nation, but they knew it when they saw it—the same way we can't perfectly define white people, but we know them when we see them.

As foreign white people immigrated en mass to the United States, they changed the demographics and the fundamental nature of society, government, and politics changed, just as when the blacks were treasonously declared citizens, they also changed the nature of society and government. The spics, Asians, Jews, Hindus, etc. are all doing the exact same thing.

The Founding Fathers did NOT envision a country in which Roman Catholic immigrants were playing identity politics against WASPs. They did NOT envision a country with income taxes, Social Security, unions, a compulsory draft, a military-industrial complex, entangling foreign wars, or a Federal government that completely ignored the Constitution. They did not envision civil rights for the entire black slave population. They certainly did NOT envision an immigration policy that would open the floodgates to the third world. All of this happened thanks to white immigration.

White civic nationalism irreversibly changed the country that was ordained and established in 1788. The 14th Amendment changed the country irreversibly. And the global civic nationalism of 1965 changed the country irreversibly.

Nationalism demands that you hand down to your posterity the same country that your fathers handed down to you. White civic nationalism is incompatible with that. When the United States breaks apart into new white countries, those countries will have a chance to embrace REAL nationalism. That means they will define their EXISTING white population as the "Nation" and treat all immigrants—particularly white immigrants from other American states—as aliens.

(1/2)

Feryl,

Agreed.

You can explain away Joe Crowley's loss on ID grounds, but what if he'd gone down the road of full throated soak the rich, lock up the (economic) crooks, criminalize abusive loans, etc., don't you suppose he would've done better?

Possibly, but I think it's important to look at this from an institutional perspective. The individual white and Jewish cogs in the Democrat Machine can go script at their peril, but they can't actually leave the reservation. (See: Bernie.) Even if the Liberal-Progressive Institution wanted to change (even if individual cogs could see that change was necessary!) it wouldn't matter. When you're dealing with an institution this large, change is a process measured in decades, or even generations.

So the institutional cogs have no defense mechanism against the crap-world commie masses. In fact the same thing is happening in the Republican party with Trumpism—see AE's newer post. The GOPe isn't institutionally capable of changing gears to accommodate the changing views of white voters. Ergo, the cogs in the GOPe machine get replaced.

My point is, the old Democrat Machine and the old Republican Machine are relics that no longer have any relevance to this new era of identity politics. The Democrat Machine was built on an older (and now irrelevant) version identity politics. The Republican Machine never cared about identity to begin with. Some of the cogs in the old machines will find homes in the new one. But most won't.

The debt jubilee (whatever ethical or logistical qualms you have about it) is a no-brainer populist measure that will get just about anyone elected in a race with a sufficient numbers of young voters. Morally speaking, these loans were horribly abusive and had no business being legally permissible in the first place.

I don't have any qualms about a debt jubilee. The lying free-market ideologues (while I would agree with those ideologues on about 99% of the issues, I am not an ideologue) can't accept the fact that cheap labor and outsourcing (and the enormous wealth-transfers they have permitted) are fundamentally wrong. Most of these capitalists' wealth was acquired by cheating. Don't even talk about the banking industry, is about 99.99% based on cheating.

However, the people who have rightly grown suspicious of capitalism need to understand that capitalism works very, very differently when the money is centrally planned, especially when you add in a labor surplus on top of it. That puts all the power in the hands of wealth capitalists. But when you have a labor equilibrium, suddenly employers actually have to make serious sacrifices to retain their employees. And when you have real money instead of fake money, investors actually have to make good investments.

What I always say is that capitalism is currently "working as intended". Capitalism works with whatever rules you set for it. If your rules are "fiat money, big government, open borders, free trade" then capitalism will deliver you precisely the sort of shithole economy you want. If the rules are "hard money, small government, closed borders, autarky", then low and behold, capitalism will maximize real economic growth for both employers and employees while minimizing the wealth disparity. You just have to remember prevent employers from changing the rules (as they are naturally inclined to do) since fake money, big government, open borders and free trade all directly enrich them.

If we keep seeing Joe Crowleys get BTFO by radicals, what do you suppose the Dems do?

The Democrat Institution can't do anything except try to run muds who are more moderate. You have to keep in mind that there are powerful groups within the Dem Institution that want radical socialism…

AE,

The most plausible approach is to leverage high time preference against the invaders. Pay them handsomely to leave.

Indeed. And part of what will convince them to take the money and run is the realization that yes, we are deadly serious, and that their only other option is to go back empty-handed.

But if we don't believe we're deadly serious, they certainly won't. Obviously paid-repatriation is a much cheaper solution (financially as well as morally) than hot war. But both require the same level of public conviction, because it's war either way—just with different weapons.

You're making VD more accessible than VD tends to. Thanks, genuinely.

Much appreciated. His reasoning can definitely be arcane.

(2/2)

Once we're less than half the population deportations are going to become almost an impossibility. 

First, you're flat out wrong, for reasons I already explained. Second, we're not going to become less than half the population anyway. You can thank Trump for that.

but they'll dominate the government and many of the institutions of the State,with White Civ- Nats and Leftist dominating the rest. 

Wrong. The fighting CivNats believe in the Constitution. The Invaders don't. That's why the CivNats will, however grudgingly, side with us. (The ones who are serious about fighting, anyway.)

The assumption we'll still control the military is a dangerous one. 
I think most of the military brass is likely to remain loyal to whomever controls the government. 
Many White NCO's and enlisted men will support us, but a far smaller percentage of Officers 

All the white combatants will either side with us outright, or they'll side with us because they're CivNats and the spic socialists reject the Constitution.

So why fight? 

It's our land.

Secession of those areas we control might be feasible, because they'll balk at the prospect of trying to conquer us. 

This is fag talk. I'm descended from German and Slavic warriors. Didn't you read the post about logistics? Logistics means that low IQ populations cannot beat high IQ ones in a 'real' war. Period. A real war, in this case, entails a war over the high IQ population's ancestral lands.

In terms of White unity and the will to secede,we're still at least a generation away from this,maybe two. 

We're about one generation away from the will to dissolve the United States. Two generations from the will to reconquer all lost territory.

216,

A second civil war could easily see the use of nuclear weapons on US soil

Under the Deep State? Yes. Post-Trump? I think not.

I expect Russia and China to mediate the partition of this country into at least 3 successor states.

Russia will never (at least for the mid-future) have the capability to project conventional power into the continental US. China may, or may not—presuming they can beat our submarine fleet. But it's totally moot because you can't project power into a country that has nukes. Which we do. And thanks to Trump those nukes will stay loyal.

Neither China nor Russia will be mediating anything in the former United States. They will be busy expanding their power elsewhere, picking off the low-hanging fruit.

(2/2)

While I agree that a second civil war is the only workable resolution that leaves us with an actual and proverbial fighting chance

This war is going to be a lot more like the Thirty Years War than Lincoln's War, if you take "the United States" to correspond to "all of Europe". Thanks to favorable demographics, some regions may be relatively untouched by war for a long time, only to finally swoop in like the Swedes, or the Rohirrim. The point is, it will take a long time to drive them out. The other point is, war is literally inevitable thanks to Trump.

The only way war was in doubt was if the Deep State could 1) remain supreme and 2) keep the economy solvent until their demographics could beat our demographics. But the Deep State can longer prevent the rise of American Nationalism through normal political channels.

you are overestimating our position.

I think my estimate is pretty conservative. You have to try to imagine how radically different this country is going to look even by 2024. Remember, the Diversity Coalition still thinks it can win by doubling down! Just look at Alexandria Orlando-Cortex or whatever her name is. The Invaders are only beginning to poach Blue seats that are historically white or historically (((white))). Second, don't forget that the hammer has yet to drop on the Deep State. If a tenth of this stuff (especially the pedo stuff) gets official confirmation, that will do more to redpill normies than anything any of us have ever done. By the time we start to hear tales of paramilitary ops, the country will be far more polarized along national lines than it currently is.

And that comes to my final point: the generation war. If the action kicks off sooner rather than later, you'll see older Millenials, Gen Xers, and younger Boomers tilting the field heavily towards militarized CivNat, which implies that we might very well see some kind of regional peace that tolerates Invader-American colonies (e.g., in the Southwest).

But here's the thing. Younger Millenials, Zyklons and Alphas won't give a crap about Boomer cuckery, because this is our land. Boomers lack the authority to sell off our birthright, and we have an inherent right to reclaim it in any case.

Compare to Charles Martel and the Reconquista. The Spaniards recovered their land even though it took 700 years. Similarly, look at how the Thirty Years War started. First, the German Lutherans won the Peace of Augsburg, which preserved their religious freedom within the HRE. Fast forward about 2 generations and you get a Holy Roman Emperor who thinks it is his duty to destroy Protestantism: in other words, HRE Ferdinand II did not give a crap about HRE Charles V's cuckery.

Of course, the HRE lost the war…so that's sort of a bad example, although the HRE was also white on white. But the point stands. There is not going to be "one civil war to end all civil wars". It's going to be a whole bunch of much smaller civil wars, punctuated by various attempts by the Feds to keep the peace, right up until the Feds become insolvent, at which point there will be a bunch of larger civil wars…punctuated by various attempts at peace.

That's the 'best' case for the Invaders, anyway. But they still lose, because we have a right to this land. 'Worst' case scenario…there is one big civil war. Which they promptly lose.

snorlax,

 is that one side appeals to a foreign power (China) to intervene

Thanks to Trump, any military intervention by a foreign power is at best highly implausible. Why? Because Trump has ensured that the essential elements of the US Armed Forces and in particular the nuclear arsenal, will remain loyal. Yes, military readiness will continue to decline, and yes, the ability of the US Empire to project power overseas will also decline, and yes, China will continue to grow in military power, but that won't give China the ability to invade or desire to invade the US. China will expand their empire elsewhere; there's plenty of low-hanging fruit in the Third World. Even if the nuclear equation somehow changes in the mid-future, China doesn't stand to gain anything in a war on US soil.

How has Trump ensured this? Through his war on the Deep State, which will continue to fracture the elite power base. Don't forget, it is more than likely that another white male Republican will win in 2024, since the SJWs and spic nationalists are going to continue to piss off the moderate white vote. (See below.)

In any case, historical precedents concerning civil wars don't apply then you're talking about The Empire. There was no foreign power to intervene for either Caesar or Pompey.

First of all, some percentage (currently a large percentage) of whites can be expected to side with the invaders

That's an oversimplification. First of all, only the most rabid SJWs and most soy-cucked faglets will be seriously willing to fight on the "side" of the invaders. But given the nature of 4th Gen war, they won't really have the physical capability to do so, in large part because the invaders won't actually trust them. You can expect to hear more than a few stories about braindead-SJWs ending up in the proverbial cannibal's pot because they thought they'd "join up" Iwith the other side.

Obviously the greater part of the (white) population will just be trying to keep their heads down, and there will be factionalism amongst white combatants, in particular the "Americans & Whites" Nationalists vs. the Civic "Service Equals Citizenship" Nationalists. Everyone will agree that serious allegiance is necessary, the only question will be 'who is permitted to apply'. But at the end of the day, the various instances of these groups (probably) won't be fighting each other (very much) since they will have roughly the same goal (restore some semblance of American Constitutional Order), although the more cucked CivNats elements probably won't be interested in repatriating "unaligned" alien civilians.

In any case there won't end up being that many Fake Americans signing up for service with the CivNats. There will be some. In some regions, a lot. But on the whole not that many. This is because, in the case of the blacks and the spics, they will prefer to stick with their own kind, since they will be fundamentally opposed to American Government due to their historical grievances. The others will find it much easier to just go home and leave the Americans to their stupid little war.

narrowing any IQ advantage.

What they'll add in IQ they'll take away in testosterone.

A significantly larger percentage of Asians can as well, narrowing it further.

Asians won't side with muds, not in large numbers anyway. The culture gap is way too large. That's something else to keep in mind: the Invaders won't be able to present a unified front, even though they will whine and wail about how everyone should be united against whites. I tend to think most Asians will end up going home or siding with the white CivNats. In the case of Asian ghettos, I'm sure they'll just form their own independent self-defense forces.

(1/2)

Anon,

Do you honestly believe we're going to deport the descendants of Germans,Dutch, Swedes and Italians that came after the U.S was established? 

Of course not, any more than the red Indians are going to deport anyone. There's been way too much white intermarriage. But that's beside the point. Are you serious about nationalist theory, or not? If you are, then any Constitution must clearly state that the State exists only to secure the future of its NATIVE population, and the State does not have a right to redefine that population. Naturalization policies would have to be based on intermarriage. Amendments like the 14th would be treasonous.

Why is this important? Because the US Constitution does explicitly states "posterity". And yet, thanks to the mistakes of history, the population that now inhabits the United States absolutely rejects that the US Constitution was written only for the posterity.

We're not even going to deport most who've come since 1965,or their descendants. 

You overestimate their position.

(1) There is no moral reason we should give up an inch of our country to any post-1965 population, least of all the spics. They all have homelands they can go back to.

(2) The Alien-American population is overwhelmingly concentrated in metropolitan areas, which has two implications: 1) under a dissolution, they would be left not with states, but with counties and fractions of counties—they would not have enough land to support themselves. So their position is inherently untenable. 2) They are highly vulnerable to 3rd and 4th gen warfare. Again, their position is inherently untenable.

(3) The non-spic, non-black Alien-American population has no particular ties to the soil. Most of them will run rather than fight. As far as the spics go:

(4) Their national IQ is 0.5 SD behind ours (worse for the blacks); they have no more chance of winning a real war than did the Iraqis.

(5) We have the guns, the vets, and the military infrastructure.

(6) Due to their dauntless hubris, longstanding national grievances, apparent demographic ascendancy, and virulent anti-white socialism, they are not going to back down. They will not attempt to compromise. They will not attempt to de-escalate.

They will bring the war to us, whether we like it or not. And our sons and grandsons will drive them out. If you're not convinced, you should spend more time reading the comments at Vox's blog.

Dissolution with Ethnoracial Nationalist from all groups working together is the most peaceful and just ending we can achieve. 

That won't be workable or peaceful, because the Alien-Americans desire a unique sort of Lebensraum: free access to white societies. Since we're going to have to fight them anyway, we might as well send them all home. Thankfully, I'm told Mexico is within driving distance for los refugiados who will have to escape us enojado gringos.

Corvie,

Gammas gonna gamma.

Anon,

While I respect Vox, I, and I suspect most Alt Right, disagree with his definition of posterity.

The first Naturalization Act of the United States makes it clear that they envisioned other Europeans and European descended people becoming citizens of the U.S. and their descendants becoming part of the "Posterity"
of which they spoke.

Vox's opinion on this issue is irrelevant and will have no bearing on the future of White American Nationalism.

You have it backwards. The Constitution interprets Congress, not the other way around. Posterity means posterity. It doesn't mean "immigrants" any more than it means "slaves". Far from being irrelevant, this is absolutely integral to nationalist political theory. Future Constitutions needs to state it even more clearly and unambiguously. The sole purpose of a nation-state is to secure the liberty and the future of its nation. A nation state does not exist to secure the liberty or the future of immigrants, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or nationality. Period.

Indeed, the reason the United States failed is precisely because the Federal government's immigration and naturalization policy did NOT secure a future for WASPs, but permitted capitalists to import cheap European labor. Compare Yankee America between 1850 and 1950. Mass European immigration made the country unrecognizable. For example, without white immigrant cannon fodder, the Yankees could not have won Lincoln's War. Without white immigrant votes, the Democrats and (((Democrats))) would not have won the first battles for socialism (including the national bank). Without white immigrant votes, the Civil Rights Movement would have failed.

After the United States dissolves and the invaders and traitors are sent home, whatever new nation-states form will have to explicitly declare that they exist to secure the existence of their own peoples. Actual nationalism > white civic nationalism.

——

AE,

It's easier for millennials not to do things (we're fantastic at that!)

Heh, that's a critical hit.

AE,
Five feet tall, TA experience, never signed a payroll. Bitter. I won't be any less cryptic than that.

Too cryptic for me.

216,
The Religious Right needs a "Darth Bane" type figure, they fell prey to the illusion that you could pick and choose parts of modernity.

Indeed. The Religious Right in particular will be slower in rejecting anti-nationalism because we're so heavily invested in the heretical application of "neither Jew nor Greek" and "turn the other cheek" to politics. We are going to have to wait for Boomer Churchianity to die out.

Is it just me, or does it feel a bit quaint and dated when our socialist friends go on their little rants about economic policy? I think they've forgotten who their audience is. A bunch of far-right white guys are not going be swayed by the claims of central planners. After all, that's just Not Who We Are. The people they want to be talking to are the Invaders-of-Color. I have no doubt socialism will lead brown people into property, just like it did for Eastern Europe.

It's important to realize, though, that foreigners in the US–both legal and illegal–disproportionately reside in urban areas.

Prepare the holy siege-works.

Deus Vult.

In any case our policies and goals remain the same. No retreat, no surrender, only attack.

Can Invader-Americans tolerate the Wall?
Can they tolerate a moratorium?
Can they tolerate English as a national language?
Can they tolerate anti-discrimination policies being broadly applied to them?
Can they tolerate the repeal of Affirmative Action?
Can they tolerate being force-fed American history in the public schools?
Can they tolerate the abolition of welfare?
Etc.

Sooner or later they crack, assuming the economy doesn't crack first. If they don't, we win by default. If they do, we send them home.

It remains to be seen how effective mestizos are at the game of low level left machine politics.

At this point, all that matters is whether they can conduct 4th generation warfare better than us.

They are impatient, arrogant, and overconfident. They are also disarmed and defenseless.

I'd been getting a sinking feeling that Democrats had come to realize doing what they had done to garner big wins in Florida, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, even California was the easiest route to sealing heritage America's fate

Come now, AE. What is the average IQ of the Democratic Party these days? 😉
Their institutional rudder was set a generation ago. All that's left is for them to dash themselves into the rocks.

…

Trump's base is white and also prefers socialistic policies, which is why Trump didn't propose entitlement reform like the mainstream GOP candidates and pols did.

There is no point in attacking Social Security and Medicare until Boomers start to get senile.

AE,

True, that's because the Alt-Right is overwhelmingly post-Boomer. So, a much higher concentration of post-Christians.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html

"Even as Ocasio-Cortez ran defiantly to his left — with universal health care, a federal jobs guarantee and the abolition of ICE headlining her demands — Crowley touted a formidable liberal record of his own."

Democrats are the non-white, anti-America party: confirmed.

Civil war status: on schedule.

It is interesting to hear the Right defined in purely secular terms, since it is only within the last generation (i.e., within millennia's lifetimes) that "the Right" has been seriously disentangled from Christianity. I consider that the secular Right began to emerge in the 80s, as various post-Christian Boomers started to have kids (Millenials) and mature from their radical childhood years, reacting against the fiscal and foreign policy insanity of the communist sympathizers and the proto-Deep State.

Christianity, after all, has no respect for pagan culture, pagan traditions, or pagan ancestors. Christianity is not merely an evolved set of cultural traditions (although it is that too), but a rather radical set of falsifiable truth claims about history and the relationship of man to God.

If Christianity has been falsified, that puts the West in a difficult position. Why would we respect Christian culture or traditions, or the ways of our Christian ancestors, if Christianity is a lie, considering the way Christianity frames itself? Obviously, the remaining Christians have a very specific idea about where the West should go from here, but it's understandable why some want to turn back to paganism or social class systems, or embrace national socialism, or LARP as Christians.

I tend to be contemptuous of Christian LARPing, but arguably it could work. If you take the tack that we should respect the ways of our ancestors because what they did worked, then you can make the argument that Westerners should follow that pattern even if they consider Christianity proper to be reduced to mythology. After all, if morality is social construct, nothing prevents us from following a moral system that says slavery is immoral, infanticide is immoral, fornication and sexual degeneracy are immoral, rape is a crime against the woman (not her male protector), and it is moral to help the weak and needy. Those I think are the major Christian innovations in social/political morality. I think our pagan ancestors basically understood the rest.

But in that case we are defining "the Right" in explicitly Christian terms. Paganism is not of the Right. Obviously, revolutionary theories such as socialism are not of the Right since all of them have a fundamental disregard for received tradition. Even the NatSocs are really just LARPing as traditionalists. At any rate, I don't think it's useful to in any way equate "the Right" with traditionalism, because—as was pointed out—tradition various from nation to nation and from civilization to civilization and from race to race and from religion to religion. There are Chinese traditionalists, but it is not in any way meaningful to call them the Chinese Right.

The Right entails a specific set of traditions: Christian ones. Right vs. Left is fundamentally Christian vs. Anti-Christian. Tradition vs. Progress/Revolution is an independent matter. Although, in the case of the West, obviously Tradition overlaps with Christianity and Progress/Revolution overlaps with Anti-Christianity.

AE,

There is virtually no public stomach for largescale military violence against civilians in the West.

Yet. There was plenty of public stomach for large-scale military violence against civilians about 100 years ago. That spawned the Never Again™ generation…which is just now finally beginning to die out. Millennials are the trailing edge of that pacifist ideology.

I think we can reasonably expect Zyklons to reverse the white demographic trend. Zyklons will be like, "Gee, large-scale military violence against Invader-Americans is the least we can do for our children."

After Zyklons, of course, comes Generation Alpha.

1. Dissolution.
2. Reconquest.
3. Repatriation.

Prepare the Holy Inquisition.

My sense is Trump is going to do worse in most states in 2020 than he did in 2016.

That would surprise me, but we'll see.

There is no way Trump got 36% of the white vote in DC. In fact, if you told me he got 36 total white votes in DC I would be suspicious.

If he got 36% of the white vote in DC, that's pretty darn encouraging.

Well, the good news of miscegenation is that we're all the Chosen People now.

“Meet the Official Opposition”

Because the real opposition is far too dangerous to notice.

If that be the case, more reason for married and Christian men NOT to seek their counsel

Are you a Christian, Corvinus? The Christian Right is Christian. And we say, learn from Roosh and Heartiste.

Well, I think that pretty conclusively demonstrates that Jewish IQ is not 115 as I once thought.

In unrelated news, I am starting to see signs that Alt-Christian vs. Alt-Secular makes a difference on the JQ. Which makes perfect sense and is absolutely hilarious.

We are the true cognitive elite!

WE WAZ ((()))

Jared Taylor expressed regret for not having had more children, noting specifically that the reason for it is that he assumed he wouldn't like fatherhood and nobody ever told him how wonderful it would be–he ended up discovering it later in life.

I understand this rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Hell, it probably rubs most people the wrong way since most white people are below replacement!

In this case, people need to be rubbed the wrong way. Having children is part of growing up. Only when you children do you truly join the ranks of the West. It is your right and your duty.

This isn't a blanket call for MOAR WHITE BABIES (though that'd be fine with me).

What we can say, at the very least, is that all men of the West must put themselves on a path that involves having many children. Those who tread that path are our brothers. The rest, well…don't get too attached. Most of them will fall away in the end.

Regarding white birth rates, a lot of it will require a cultural shift.

So shift the culture, one step at a time.

No, to make themselves appear more attractive to women, with the primary purpose to “pump and dump” them.

When the Christian Right is telling you that Roosh, Heartiste, et al. are essential reading, you know your argument is invalid. Thank you, Vox Day.

The socio-sexual hierarchy is artificially constructed and is liberally applied by “special, high status men” who claim to have the special power to label any and all men who do not meet their standards as a “gamma”. See Jordan Peterson be labeled by Vox Day in this regard.

The male character traits that coalesce into gamma-ness are all negative, harmful, and woman-repulsing traits. All men who have those traits need to change themselves. I had several of them myself, Vox was the first one to explain it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-04/trump-to-deploy-national-guard-units-to-protect-southern-border

"Trump to Send National Guard to Mexico Border to Bolster Agents"

MAGA WAVE 2018
TRUMPSLIDE 2020

11/10 would win again

Losing a battle is not losing the war.
Losing an easy battle for no good reason is not losing the war.

Does anyone remember how many battles the far Left (or the Deep State, for the matter) has lost over the decades? Of course not. That's because losing battles never bothered them. They always kept the faith, regrouped, and attacked again.

Criticizing your leaders for bad decisions is good. Making your support conditional on good decisions is bad. Have we already forgotten McCabe, Tillerson, and McMasters?

Given how many times in we've watched people mistake every dip and rise in this emotional rollercoaster for a long-term trend, I see no particular reason to think there will be a blue wave. Trump signing the bill isn't even a dip. It's just business-as-usual, and it reflects what we've already known for a while: that Trump isn't on the warpath 100% of the time. He takes breaks. Seriously, the man just scalped McCabe, Tillerson, and McMasters. Are you not entertained?

While I am not happy about him signing the bill, Trump will always be my God-Emperor. And we are in a far better position today than we were a year ago, when he scalped Comey.

Oh midwits. Never change! I'm pretty sure that midwits are not actually intelligent enough to genuinely understand how statistics work, anyway. Basically they are barking at the moon.

Corvinus thinks Trump might be impeached. Lol.
Corvinus affirms the Social Gospel, yet claims to be a Christian. Lol.

Sorry Corvinus, but it's your world that's dying, not ours.

Corvinus,

I'm not a liberal. Just an educated white American man who makes his own decisions.

So…Trump 2020, then?

Corvinus,

The Social Gospel is the Word of God, as evident by Isaiah 1:17–Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.

No, the Social Gospel is the attempt to instantiate the kingdom of heaven on earth, in flagrant violation of Christ’s declaration: “My kingdom is not of this world.” It puts the true Gospel (‘for God so loved the world’) on the back-burner in favor of state-managed “social progress”. It is a disastrous misunderstanding of the Church’s mission.

There have been fierce debates by theologians and schisms caused by what is and what is not Christianity.

They will continue until the end. If you won’t acknowledge the poisoned doctrinal roots of the Social Gospel, then accept its rotten fruit: American socialism, the Great Society, Civil Rights, Prohibition, women’s liberation.

They both talk a good game, but they are looking to make a financial windfall along the way.

I wonder how exactly one subverts, destroys, and replaces liberal institutions…without a competing institution capable of turning a profit.

Fascinating. This is why I read this blog.

Clearly Mormons escaped the culturally demoralizing effects of liberal theology. I guess being a cult has its advantages.

Feryl,

We don’t give a damn about Nazis or anything they did (or didn’t do). We don’t care.

Also, we are not Nazis and we do not appreciate people try to revive idiotic Nazi ideology.

Right, too many people on the Right don't even want to be on the same team as their neighbors

Whites “weren’t on the same team” long before the xenos invaded America. Yankees have been studiously grinding the Southern people into the dirt for how many generations? Temporary alliances to remove the xenos are good, but having accomplished that I have absolutely no interest in permitting Yankees to resume their political dominance of North America. Haven’t they screwed the rest of us enough? I want to live in the America of the Founding Fathers. Not the America of Lincoln.

why else do so many Righties bitch about "collectivism”

Probably because “collectivism” is socialism.

Look, this is pretty simple. Anyone who wants the white race to survive needs to join the REAL Right. Those who either refuse to join, or actually attack the Right, are part of the problem.

The Right is so quick to demonize itself

When the Right demonizes Nazis, we are demonizing THE LEFT.

The Right, once and for all, needs to simply ignore whatever idiots there may be giving us a bad name. […] You're going to have terrible PR if you constantly wallow in shame over every single mistake your side ever made.

Everyone makes mistakes occasionally. But if the idiot brigade intends to keep making the same mistakes over and over and over, despite repeated correction, you might get the idea that they’re not actually on your side.

Feryl,

Left successfully conflating the Alt-right, white nationalism, and white supremacy.

They had inside help. From the Alt-Retards.

Dan,

Right. If he isn't being paid by Media Matters, he sure is acting like it.

I don’t believe Nehlen is or ever has been a shill. He’s at least modestly wealthy, from my understanding. He just need to lay low for a while and spend some time reading Vox Day.

AE,

Thought Nehlen had a shot at being that. But it's clear that the Nazi imagery has to go. It's totally counterproductive.

Using it for mockery is one thing, but you can’t mock someone for calling you a Nazi if you actually use Nazi regalia. It’s annoying because there is no way Nehlen is any kind of Nazi or socialist.

The irony is that the very reason the Right gave up nationalism and became cucked is because of white civic nationalism. Becoming nationalist again means accepting that Yankees ≠ Southerners ≠ Appalachians ≠ Midwesterners ≠ Minnesotans…

Though once you accept that, it becomes obvious why blacks, hispanics, Jews, etc. are even less compatible with us than we are all with each other.

Anonymous,

We need a clearly defined organizational hierarchy
Versus…
Vox Day is a megalomaniac that accepts nothing less than unconditional loyalty.

Don’t ask for a hierarchy and then complain when the men at the top slap the rabble back into line and eject the deadweight and traitors. What exactly do you think you owe the leaders if not unconditional loyalty and obedience?

The Alt-Right isn’t hard. Don’t be dishonest. Don’t be a retard. Don’t be a socialist. Don’t attack men who outrank you, don’t “correct” men who outrank you, and don’t expect men who outrank you to care about your opinion.

Cernovich and Posobiec were at one time openly endorsing a white identity politics. Now they are

There is no universe in which you are going to outrank Vox Day, Cerno, Milo, Posobiec, etc. There is no universe in which you are somehow going to control them or displace them. They are your superiors, and what they do is none of your business. If you want to be independent, fine. No one cares if you follow them, let alone approve of them, but you can be reasonable well assured that if you do something stupid and they notice, they will call you out. And you can also be well assured that if SJWs and the MSM can’t beat them in a fight, you won’t either.

Feryl,

My only concern re: Cernovich is the false charge that he attacks the Alt-Right. The fact that he promotes Vox Day, who is easily one of the most extreme members of the Alt-Right, refutes that charge. Whatever else he does or doesn’t do, says or doesn’t say, promotes or doesn’t promote, I don’t care.

AE,

I can’t speculate on the historical relationship between gays and high church, but confessional Lutherans trend strongly towards high church mostly for reasons of tradition, but also to make a stand against boomer non-denominational Church Growth culture.

many mainline denominations that are geared entirely towards women.

Natural consequence of alpha males leaving the church. It’s a bit harder to be at the top of the social pecking order if you have to defend a socially discredited institution. Beta males, of course, only want to appease women.

In the case of the LCMS, there are still a substantial number of congregations that don’t permit women to vote, and a larger number don’t permit women to hold any significant congregational office. I attribute that entirely to LCMS institutional strength, but until Lutherans become alpha again we will continue to slide.

Dan,

I used to consider myself alt-right before the alt-Reich ruined the label.

I’m not giving up the term, it just requires you to point out that National Socialists calling themselves “unicorns” and trannies calling themselves “women” doesn’t make it true.

By the way. What the hell happened to Paul Nehlen? Who the hell gabs a picture of Hitler flanked by HIMSELF and JESUS? Somebody who has totally given up any hope of ever winning any kind of public office in America, ever.

Feryl,

for obvious reasons but also because no other conservatives (who are often closeted) will come to the aid of the victim.

Well, we’re working on changing that. http://voxday.blogspot(.)com/2018/01/mailvox-they-dont-forget.html

It's been real eye opener to see Mike Cernovich turn into such a pussy. He recoils from the "alt-right”.

The Fake Right. Ask yourself why Cernovich has never disavowed Vox Day, who is far more extreme than Dicky Spencerpants. (Let’s not even talk about the Dread Ilk.)

Recently Cernovich and a couple others made the tired point that the Left never disavows it's nutcases, unlike the Right. 

Well, then I guess the Left will never disavow the national socialists.

Jim,

but where do you go to escape the fanatical belief in the moral virtue of race replacement

You don’t escape it. You fight it.

My own conception of Christ is as an individual whose individual integrity was intact and was willing to pay the price for it against "tradition”.

Wouldn’t it just be easier to conceive of Christ the way the Apostles, Evangelists, and Early Church conceived of him? As 1) God the Son, who 2) died for the sins of the world and 3) rose on the third day?

If the irony of me arguing with a Lutheran about individual integrity escapes you

That’s a new one for me. I understand the original “Lutherans” were willing to fight and die for their own individual integrity.

Jig: try to find options within your tradition

Wise words. Institutional Christianity (in America, anyway) is so schismatic that you can pretty much always find a dissident congregation of your tradition within driving distance, although it might be a test of your commitment. (I drive the better part of an hour to go to my confessional Missouri Synod church.)

Even moving around within the Western church is challenging, if you’re say comparing non-denominationalists to Papists. Not to toot my own horn, but confessional Lutheran churches are a pretty good bridge between the papists and the extreme elements of the Reformation, which is valuable if you’re looking for a connection to historical Western Christianity and like the high church style, but aren’t ready to commit to purgatory, gay priests, and the Council of Trent.

Jim: Authenticity religion starts with the individual's relationship to the mystery called life

At this point, all that’s relevant is authentic Christianity. And that starts with Jesus. It also ends with Jesus.

The same can be said for those who don't like the direction the US Government is going with centralization of social policy in contravention to the 10th Amendment. Problem is you can't go anywhere to escape it.

There are plenty of places in the broader Western church you can go to escape the liberals and the gays.

The more detailed the social policy enforced from the central government, the more theocratic, even if it is atheistic Communism that deifies the state and demands that you place your faith in it.

That’s true if you’re talking about Antifa, but most right-leaning atheists aren’t exactly on board with Antifa.

The Episcopalians are simply reaping what the sowed over a hundred years ago. The Social Gospel is Jesus-flavored Social Justice. Of course once they started ordaining women the effects were irreversible. Gay ordination was inevitable.

It's kind of funny how the Roman church skipped over women's ordination and went straight to gay ordination. No wonder they've become so cancerous.

That Lutheran stat is high thanks to the ELCA, which naturally ordains women and gays. Just under 2/3s of American Lutherans are ELCA members, the other Lutheran institutions absolutely condemn homosexuality and do not permit gay ordination.

Good analysis.

I try to keep in mind that averages are a poor reflection of reality here, as fertility rates of atheists vs firm believers demonstrate.

Most (all) of the current members of Western civilization are ultimately descended from people who had high fertility rates.

In 200 years, most (all) of the members of Western Civ will also be descended from people (in our time) who had high fertility rates.

In that sense, I think cheap contraceptives are a powerful selection mechanism to select for people who genuinely want to have children. (In other words: people who want to continue civilization.)

So in 200 years, I expect Western Civ will be stronger than ever before.

^ Correction: There’s no transcendent meaning, but that’s NOT the same as saying “there is no meaning”.

Dan,

Then he went all in on fundamental Catholicism to the point of joining Opus Dei. He married after 40 to a wife in her late twenties. They managed to pop out 11 all after he was 40 before things ran dry for them. Beautiful family.

That is inspiring.

Under atheism, there is no meaning of life. It's all pointless, and the answer is hedonism.

There’s no transcendent meaning, but that’s the same as saying “there is no meaning”. People find meaning in their families, and atheists can have families. It’s just hard work. (People also find meaning in work.) On the other hand, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead to make our lives more meaningful or more fulfilled. In fact, I tend to think that people’s sense of meaning and fulfillment comes from living a life that is in harmony with man’s natural purpose, which is to work, love, and build families.

Of course hedonism makes sense in as much as hedonism is the easy choice.

That’s precisely why it’s less fulfilling.

Unfortunately because of the tendency of atheists to support destructive leftism, atheism is not simply a neutral lack of belief. Usually it comes laden with some very destructive things.

Yeah. That’s why it’s so encouraging to see left-liberals like Sargon openly disavowing progressivism, and atheists like Molyneux exited about virtue. The Church’s mission isn’t to save Christendom, or the West, after all. That’s no less a perversion of our mission than the social gospel.

To be fair to noble atheists/agnostics, the problem is that your intellectual ancestors either 1) couldn’t tell where the institutional church ended and civilization began or 2) openly wanted to degrade civilization (e.g., the family) to defeat Christianity, or 3) were allied with 1 & 2.

When you poll atheists/agnostics I suspect that the bulk of are still of the ignoble variety, which explains why they’re doing their part to create Idiocracy. But I tend to doubt very many of our pre-Christian forefathers were soycucks extolling the virtues of fat, fornication, and faggotry, so there is no particular reason why post-Christians won’t join us in educating the progressive anti-Christian and anti-Western Left on the exciting details of helicopters and gravity.

Thanks.

I see myself here.

Yep. It’s true of most people. This trend is why the religious stereotypes ring true. It’s also why the Church Growth Movement has devolved into psychological funding-raising tactics. It’s also why all talk about neopaganism is so cringy. Christianity is demographically declining in the West because people think it’s fake. So let’s replace it with something else that everyone thinks is fake. M’kay.

Is it possible for humans to have a transcendent moral code if they no longer believe in an afterlife?

There is an objective moral code independent of Jesus, the question is whether people are going to follow it. Truth > lies, courage > cowardice, faithfulness > whoring, work > laziness, non-aggression > aggression, temperance > intemperance, etc.

Unfortunately for the progressive fringe and fortunately for civilization, Jesus is not the source of morality except in the sense that Jesus is the source of reality.

This is why, despite decades of culture war and anti-education, they can’t make men lust after trannies and blue-haired fatties any more than they can make feminist whores happy.

many on the Alt Right (myself included) as the disappearance of the space itself. When a people are replaced, so are their gods.

The issue is that religious is generally believed to be False. In that context, “what happens now” depends very much on the person and their circumstances. As we know, there are broadly two kinds of people: people of rhetoric and people of dialectic. If we lay on this another axis, of people who are successful vs. people who are unsuccessful, some patterns emerge.

First, as you moves from dialectic towards rhetoric, the proportion of people who will feel a “void” rises rapidly. If these people lose Jesus, they turn to socialism, Social Justice, environmentalism, Oprah, motivational speakers, Joel Osteen (et al), mysticism, spiritualism, cults, etc. They need to feel emotional validation from something, anything.

Then as you move from more successful to less successful, you see the same trend. Self-sufficient people aren’t looking for help outside themselves.

So when you’re talking about people who are at least modestly successful (i.e., decent job, middle class, etc.) and at least modestly rational, I don’t think anything in particular has to replace Christianity. They find value and meaning in their work, family, and hobbies. They were simply Christians because they believed it was True. They weren’t (and aren’t) desperate for emotional highs, nor are they, for example, suffering from an alcohol addiction.

As for the rhetorical people, note that personal emotional validation can come from almost anywhere. As a demographic, they get blown all over the place, like leaves in the wind. There’s no particular reason to think they’ll settle on any one “replacement” for monolithic religion.

On the other hand you have people like me, who are on the side of extreme dialectic, and who are still Christian because we believe it’s true.

The natural religion for European derived peoples is something akin to Animism and Nature Worship

That’s like saying the natural lifestyle Europeans is hunting and gathering. Or natural European agricultural is a horse-drawn plow. Were the Roman and Greek pagans “unnatural”?

 I hereby profess my total love for Lauren Southern.

Muh beta…

AE:

I don't think there will be (much) punitive, vengeful violence. But even in a circumstance with minimal relocation (and maximal political separatism), the liberals and non-whites we'll separating from have a historical tendency to want to follow us around. The Right will have to aggressively enforce the new borders.

And economic restructuring will hit urban centers pretty hard.

I think this is indicative of the country being so disunited, those living in it so antagonistic towards so much of the rest of the population, that we've now reached a point where it's conceivable that no elected national politician ever cracks the 50% approval mark.

That is insightful. The two-party system obscures America’s multi-factional nature.

The Right – Alt vs. Civic & Urban vs. Rural
The Left – SJW progressives vs. Classical liberals
Fake America – Blacks vs. Mexicans
Normie America – Can’t we just get along?

May it be relatively peaceful.

If not, God will sort the dead.

1) Ten million black Americans marrying ten million white Americans and having mixed race babies.
2) Twenty million foreign Mexicans immigrating into America and forming closed, bloc-voting ethnic enclaves.

1) "White American" is a redundancy. "Black American" is an oxymoron. Blacks are merely Americanized. The number of blacks who genuinely support the Constitution (i.e., they reject civic nationalism realize that "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity" was never about them) is negligible, although some occasionally comment on Vox Day's blog.

2) Does "white nationalism" mean I'm supposed to embrace socialist Scandinavian cucks? Or for that matter liberal white urbanites? Never gonna happen. White civic nationalism is the poisoned root of universal civic nationalism.

But to answer the question, #2 is obviously preferable because the cleanup process is far easier, and could perhaps even be solved politically. Miscegenation, on the other hand, is guaranteed to lead either to war or irreversible national evolution.

I don't take anything Derb says seriously and neither should you, audacious.

He is married to a colored woman and has kids with her.

Classic ad hominem attack.

I know it’s very hard for spergs & Alt-Retards to understand, but issuing general condemnations does not imply that one must personally disavow all violators and ignore their positive contributions. Cernovich and Milo are leading lights in the Alt Media, whether you like it or not. Didn’t your mother ever tell you, “If you have nothing nice to say, shut your damn mouth”?

There is absolutely nothing we can do about interracial marriage right now, besides issuing general warnings. Disavowing potential allies is a worthless maneuver.

Actually, there is one thing you can do about interracial marriage: marry an American girl and do your part to raise the birthrate.

– 2017 : Before Shithole
2018 – : Ano Shithole

Not even two weeks in, and Trump has already made 2018 the greatest current year ever.

Can confirm.

Jeeze, I've just about given up on worrying about political-tactical details. Should have taken Vox Day's advice the first or second or twentieth time he said to do that.

Trump said this, Trump said that. Trump loves Bannon, Trump hates Bannon.

I have no idea what I'm looking at…besides the results.

And the results are mighty good.

Religion is most powerful as a tool to bind an ethnic group together.

That may be, but any ethnic binding that appears to arise from Christianity is illusory. The binding is just the usual binding that comes from the nation and, perhaps, from the community of the institutional church–but it doesn’t come from any doctrine. Christianity inspires men of all nations to evangelize outside their ethnic group in a way that no other religion (other than the cancer of Islam, which is arguably a perverse inversion of Christianity) has ever even come close to doing. Look at all the controversy in the Early Church over whether they were to really evangelize non-Jews. The evangelists won.

Unlike the myriad forms of paganism (some noble, some not) Christianity has never been an ethnic religion and never will be. This is for the reason reason that Papal theocracy is a perversion of Christianity: Christianity is not about earthly kingdoms.

I point out that if Christianity was concerned with early kingdoms, it would be a lot like Islam, which is also not an ethnic religion.

In terms of dumb churches bringing this stuff about, well, ya know, how many X-ers would become tight-fisted in a hurry if they learn that their pastor is trying to steer monies to the cause of third world immigration?

I hope so. But I rather think, as you point out, that X-ers will help save America precisely because they are less churched than Boomers. In my experience, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between Boomers, X-ers, and Millenials in the church. Zyklon? Remains to be seen.

In the modern US, Christianity has ceased to have any power.

Christianity inspired the Right (in particular, the Religious Right) to turn the other cheek to both communists and their apologists and blacks and their apologists. Pathological altruism is a perversion of Christianity. It is what kept the Yankee & immigrant Right from uniting with the ‘racist’ Southern Right, even in the face of the Great Migration and the communist takeover.

We can give free passes to proles for being the victims of terrible circumstances (unending post-WW2 propaganda about diversity and white guilt)

No. I am not giving them a pass. To clarify what I said, Christianity is inherently pan-ethnic, and when Christians permit that theology to bleed over into the civic and political sphere, disaster ensues because nations are fundamental political units and nations are of course inherently ethnic. Liberal-progressive Christianity was a disaster for the West for precisely this reason, because it seeks to create the Kingdom of God (in which there is no distinction between Jew/Greek/black/white/whatever) on earth, whereas Christ says that the Kingdom is not of this world. And conservative Christians did nothing to stop it, because ‘turn the other cheek’. None of this should be a great mystery to Christians.

but we shouldn't let elites off the hook; said elites have become extremely greedy and irresponsible over the last 40-50 years.

Of course. The only thing I’m denying is that institutional Christianity didn’t play a major role in ruining the West. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Ethnic wars by proxy.

We’re in complete agreement. “Having a pan-ethnic religion doesn’t magically mean the rules of nations and geopolitics no longer apply. (Christian Europeans have spent most of their time killing each other, after all.)” The fact that Christian Europe was consumed by international war is proof that, while Christianity is inherently pan-ethnic, it does not magically supersede the rules of nations and geopolitics. Twentieth century Christians idiots (particularly American ones) forgot that.

As for the idea that Christianity is "pan-ethnic" or pan-national, sure, in theory. But in practice, why do the vast majority of churches, or Mosques, or whatever, remain mono-racial?

Like I said, we’re in complete agreement. You have to separate the Invisible Church† (“All are one in Christ Jesus” Gal 3:28), which can never be fully realized on earth (“We have no lasting city” Heb 13:14) from institutional Christianity, which must also be separated from “Christendom”—the nation-states where Christianity prevails.

†The concept of an Invisible Church gains traction in the Reformation, for obvious reasons.

Christians are members of the one Catholic Invisible Church, and their respective institutional church, but are also citizens of their respective countries, and they therefore have duties to those countries (“Render unto Caesar”, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities Rom 13:1) which are independent of Christianity, just like one’s duty to one’s family is independent of Christianity.

What I have been driving at this whole time is that while Christians are commanded to altruism, we are not free to let that altruism become pathological. In general, Christianity cannot override good government, and “turning the other cheek” to lawbreakers is obviously bad government. For conservative Christians, that pathology has manifested in the form of ignoring nationhood. For liberal “Christians”, it first manifested in the social gospel and support for socialism (see Woodrow Wilson).

If you wanted to be charitable and technical, you could say this is the fault of Christian heretics, but as a Christian I feel that’s something of a copout.

AE:

Japan is what I was thinking of. And for that matter South Korea. It’s more than plausible for high trust to emerge naturally when you combine a healthy shared identity with high intelligence.

I’m interested in what the (Alt) Right equivalent in Japan would attribute it to.

Feral: The idiocy of post-WW2 white Westerners cannot be attributed to Christianity.

To a significant degree, it can. That’s because Christianity is inherently pan-ethnic. If the theology is allowed to bleed too much into the civic and political sphere, you get disaster. Having a pan-ethnic religion doesn’t magically mean the rules of nations and geopolitics no longer apply. (Christian Europeans have spent most of their time killing each other, after all.)

In the reverse sense, if the Crusades are understood fundamentally as national wars with Christian romanticism, that’s fine. The Church has no legitimate business being involved in war, after all.

religion's best use remains intact

About 0% of Christian intellectuals would be Christian if they didn’t believe it was true.

All religions create an in-group mentality.

That’s not an useful way of looking at Christianity except in the context schisms. (You’ll certainly see the tribal mentality in Lutherans vs. Papists.) However, the Church in general sees the whole world as part of the “in group”, which is what creates pathological altruism (if not checked by bloody reality). Other than schisms, Christian tribalism has to emerge solely from independent factors, like nationality.

When Pat Buchanan sounds the death knell of "Christian" America, he is in effect lamenting the death of white Protestant America

Yeah, but that’s Buchanan. The vast majority of American Christians are cucked and will frequently be persuaded to support immigration on the grounds that it brings the “mission field” to us. And they would support Christian immigration/refugees regardless of nationality. Meanwhile, homegrown “evangelization” has matured into its final form: spiritualist motivational speaking combined with a sprinkling of Christian terminology + pyramid funding schemes (megachurches).

Jig: If so, then you couldn't attribute their donations to selflessness or beneficence.

And? From the civic perspective it doesn’t matter; taxes are not necessary for humanitarian efforts. Regardless, neither tithing (to support the institutional church) nor charity (to support widows, orphans, and the needy†.) is about earning anything before God.

†Needy must be taken in the context of, “He who does not work should not eat.” The overwhelming majority of people on welfare are not actually needy.

In other words, you cannot have a free society without high trust.

I’ve been rethinking my extant view that Christianity is essential. I don’t think Christianity is absolutely necessary for high trust. You simply need the ability to plausibly accept that others will follow the rules, which can in theory be attained with a closely-shared identity (i.e., close enough that hurting others creates an emotional reaction)—although shared identity is no guarantee of that, as blacks demonstrate.

Certainly, Christianity makes it easier, because it is a powerful component of one’s identity, and it specifically mandates altruistic behavior†. But you don’t actually need to be altruistic per se. You just have to believe that other people more-or-less follow the rules when no one is looking. This is much easier if people aren’t, for example, impoverished.

†Christians have a competing moral duty to reign in altruistic behavior when it becomes pathological. And if individual Christians won’t do it, state officials (in particular, Christian state officials) have a duty to force them to control it. It’s ‘competing’ in the sense that the line between beneficial and pathological altruism is sometimes unclear.

Thus, Christian societies are uniquely susceptible to disruption by foreign identity groups, especially if they can otherwise pass as Christian (i.e., they look like other Christians). I’ve noticed that non-Christians seem to be modestly contemptuous of various Christian ideals. The most extreme case, of course, hardly needs to be (((mentioned))).

Suck on that, Howard Zinn!

The Internet puts us so far inside the Narrative's OODA loop it's not even funny.

In the marketplace of ideas, the truth wins.

In using the phrase Zyklon for Gen Z, are you indicating approval of or admiration for the Nazi genocide, or do you see it as just being provocative and tweaking sensibilities, or some combination of the two?

I share AE's view, with an emphasis on grim historical inevitabilities. Sadly, America has become the perfect powder keg. If our Gen-Z successfully avoids committing genocide, that will be nothing short of a miracle.

Also, as a friendly reminder, the Yankee abolitionists committed genocide on the Indians long before Hitler.

It is interesting that bad goys have a relatively high value for black ‘discrimination’ compared to boomercucks. I am 99% sure this means “blacks treated less fairly” is being significantly interpreted as “blacks are the beneficiaries of unfair treatment”, rather than “blacks are harmed by unfair treatment”.

This made me interested in the “treated equally” proportions.

Living up to their name, 81.3% of boomercucks think blacks and whites are treated equally, significantly higher than any other group. I guess this is the “wife goggles” effect applied to the country. Meanwhile, only 51.8% of bad goys believe MLK’s dream is real life.

Interestingly, being married vs. single does not significantly effect the general perception of racial fairness for white men (68.9% vs 69.4%), but it does significantly affect the perception of who is being treated unfairly.

Also interestingly, married white women are more naive than white men in general and their husbands in particular (77.3% equal). Single white women are far less likely to believe society is fair (63%).

Christ-cucks are pathologically altruistic. It goes beyond runaway universalism.

Thanks.

It's fantastic that the statement "Merry Christmas!" is has fully matured into an act of rebellion against the Left.

AE: Wrt the talents, yes but the secular is used to communicate an elevated parallel, not to dismiss it. Render unto caesar.

Exactly.

Black Death: "You claim to be a Christian, but you won't support blah blah blah. I'm not a Christian and I've read virtually nothing in the Bible, but I'm still in a position to judge your lack of devotion to your faith."

I recall the cuck mindset. German Lutherans have a natural inclination to “interpret everything in the kindest way” (i.e., Luther’s meaning of the Eighth Commandment). Our own minds were (are) straining to make excuses for enemy war propaganda.

With the first mental reorientation, the silliness of the arguments becomes apparent.
With the second mental reorientation, the appropriate response–pithy rhetorical mockery–becomes apparent.

E.g., “Luke’s and Matthew’s genealogies are different!”
“Huh, it’s almost as if Mary and Joseph weren’t brother and sister…”

Sid: There's a fundamental difference between being a good host and adopting someone into your family. One is temporary and one is permanent. It's intellectually fraudulent to say that arguments for hosting people immediately carry over to adoption.

There is a disastrous Christian error expressed on the one pole by pacifism and monasticism (Anabaptists, esp. the Amish, monks) and on the other pole by papal theocracy (late-medieval Roman Catholicism).

In the first case, Christianity is made to utterly subvert the whole life of the Christian such that the Christian becomes a civilizational parasite: he may refuse to father children, refuse to defend his family or homeland, or refuse to be productive.

In the second case, the institutional church assumes State power, subverting and interfering with the Church’s actual mission.

The solution to this dilemma is to recognize (obviously) that civilization exists independently of the Church, just as the principles and materials of construction exist independently of the chapel and the principles of budgeting and accounting exist independently of the Bible.

Therefore there are two sources informing the Christian’s life: Christianity, and the world. While Christianity should permeate the whole life of the Christian, it cannot be permitted to dominate or subvert arenas beyond its jurisdiction.

In particular, the idea that Christianity can offer political insights (such as on the subject of refugees) must be taken with with endless skepticism.

Prior to the mass introduction of free societies, the vast majority of Christians were not participants in the State and were therefore free of worry about these policy questions. For example, to merely execute one’s duty as a soldier is not the same as being responsible for declaring war, so the Christian can justify soldiering on the basis of Christian instruction to submit to authorities.

A free society complicates matters, because every man contains a little piece of sovereignty in him (though subordinated to the Constitution and law). So every American Christian in that sense becomes partially responsible for State policy. In a free society, it is absolutely essential for Christians (such as German Lutherans) to understand that they must take up the responsibilities that where very recently the sole concern of the nobles or the Kaiser.

We can no longer claim to be merely carrying out orders.

Aren't Christians supposed to be charitable, helping the poor and needy? I'm not sure why the rich need to get a tax break […] Seems like the opposite of Jesus' teachings.

Pick one:
1) Taxes are Christian charity.
2) The United States is secular and pan-religious, NOT a Christian theocracy.

Choices, choices…

Two of the reasons Christians absolutely oppose the welfare state is because the government is secular, and the chief goal of the welfare state is self-perpetuation. The chief goal of Christian charity is to support needy Christians (James 2-3), and secondarily to spread the gospel. It’s not to spread secularism or breed laziness. “He who does not work, neither should he eat.”

Also, there’s this little thing we like to call the Seventh Commandment. Wealth redistribution is theft, not a legitimate use of tax dollars. Christians don’t support theft.

and this will come as no surprise to the ADL or the $PLC–Jews easily come out on top.

I wonder how loose their “charitable” is. Somehow I don’t think donating to universities and political action groups is precisely what Jesus had in mind when he talked about giving to the poor, widows, and orphans.

In Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the talents

Keeping in mind the ‘kingdom of God’ as the center of Jesus parables, the talents represent the Word (the Gospel). The good servants represent those who took the Gospel they received and told others. The lazy servant receives the Gospel, but tells no one.

More directly, there is 2 Thessalonians 3:10,

Heh, nice.

 It's getting increasingly difficult to maintain that a fetus in the third trimester, viable outside the womb, is not a human worthy of

Besides the moral aspect, abortion suffers from the tragedy of the commons at the national level. The gains of abortion (money and energy saved by not having children) are held private, the costs (either everyone else has to have more children, or the nation contracts) are socialized.

AE: I'm wearing my "It's okay to be white" shirt to my side of the family's Christmas gathering. My dad and brother will be on board, the rest will need smelling salts. It's going to be fun. 

That’s great to hear. I’m not in a position when I can do something like that yet, but fortunately there are no shitlibs or SJWs in my family.

Merry Christmas! Think about ways to gently remind your cucked Christian friends about Saint-Peter-the-Jew’s sermons to the Jews in which he pretty much calls ‘em Christ-killers, which has the double benefit of helpfully reminding them that Christmas is really about Good Friday.
“This Jesus […], you [Jews] crucified and killed” Acts 2:22-23
“This Jesus whom you [Jews] crucified” – Acts 2:36
“And you [Jews] killed the Author of life” – Acts 3:15
“Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you [Jews] crucified” – Acts 4:10

When it comes to white feelings towards blacks, the divide isn't north-south, it's east-west

Contingent on geographical gerrymandering.If you ignore the South, True Yankeedom is distinct from Middle America, which is distinct from the Left Coast. If the Deep South was grouped together, instead of split up into three separate regions, the Southern vs. Non-Southern divide would be more apparent. The South Atlantic region is clearly not meaningful: it contains the entire Swamp, a significant part of the South & Deep South, and Boomer Florida. Similarly, West South Central region would closer to Middle America if AR & LA weren’t pushing the scores up.

Left Coast – 3.25
Middle America – 3.59 (+.34)
True Yankees – 3.84 (+.25)
Deep South – 4.27 (+.43)

Btw, that graph says it all about the Jews. “Keep up appearances and cheat like hell.”

Related: how can we judge between the competing effects of assortative mating and regression to the mean? I recall various articles calling attention to regression to the mean in black families. Naturally the effect is much stronger for blacks, because blacks at +115 are rocking 2 SDs. If their child is in the high 90s, that’s still a huge improvement over the black mean, though of course it won’t look that way to the parents.

To me it seems highly unlikely that we would see any measurable effects of assortative mating within only two or three generations, but what do I know.

And exactly how assortative is the mating, really? It’s not like the +2 SD white collar chads didn’t have plenty of access to girls in average-IQ professions, even in their own companies. Given the worthless nature of college degrees these days, they still do. Besides that, go back to regression to the mean. If +2 SD parents have a +1 SD child (or even a +0.5 SD child), that child is going to benefit from the parent’s social status, and that should have a significant effect on who the child marries (especially for girls). For assortative mating to have the full effect, you’d have to unpack that knapsack of white privilege.

Compare to miscegenation, which is “assortative” mating of a sort. If an 85 black knocks up an 85 white, regression to the mean suggests that the child will be more intelligent than either of the parents, because the child’s mean isn’t the black mean, it’s the black-white average. Here the one-drop rule makes ”assortative” mating appear clearly (from the black perspective, at least), since blacks are pulling themselves up by white bootstraps.

This is really interesting and seems to defy explanation.

Dan,

1) My use of the handle predates the Alt-Right. Yes, it comes from Derbyshire. No, I’m not going to use a different one just because my views of changed.

2) What I said: “Once the civilizational downturn burns off the xenos and fatty cucks, the final frontier is the next stop.” Nothing, least of all AI, is going to stop the downturn. But the whites who come out the other side will go to space.

That quote from Vox is melodramatic. If a substantial portion of the low-IQ world was already intermixed with Western populations and actively miscegenating with us, I’d be very worried (see South Africa). But they are *over there*. The act of *importing* them makes our people want to kill them more. Even in America, which is 1/3 xeno, the Diverse populations are heavily concentrated and miscegenation, while rising, is still low, and mudsharks are far less likely than average to produce useful citizens.

Current trends will not continue, and the civilizational downturn will cull the xenos and cucks and uncuck the Right.

High water mark of all all of human history? Pls.

The automation and AI revolution is still in its infancy. We haven’t even begun to colonize the solar system. Earth will be dethroned by the solar array, and the solar array will launch us to the stars.

Diversity will remain earthbound. Only particular nations can survive the hostility of space, and our evolutionary lead is measured in millennial. The hour is far too late to play catchup. Once the civilizational downturn burns off the xenos and fatty cucks, the final frontier is the next stop.

Trump will definitely be the most famous man of our time, but nationalism isn’t exactly groundbreaking. I tend to think Trump will occupy roughly the same status as a Julius Caesar. If you want to live forever you need to found a religion. Of the three notable religions, one actively cripples its own long-term prospects, and the other is the civilizational equivalent of cancer. The third presided over the rise of the West. If Christianity survives the coming crucible, then we can assume Jesus will be proclaimed on Alpha Centuari.

More fundamentally, it doesn't appear to be able to even replacement-level fertility.

Exactly. People vote with their feet and the wallets. Women vote with their wombs as well.

All this discussion of "voting" is hilarious.

There are no political solutions to problems created by politics.

If the Privileged are on the same page regarding who should and shouldn’t vote, then when bankruptcy solves our political problems, perhaps a sustainable civil order will emerge.

"our society has moved WAY past this patriarchal notion of men being the exclusive rulers"

So saith Corvinus, Male Feminist and White Knight extraordinaire.

Sexual egalitarianism will be a greater disaster for the West than communism was for the East.

Free societies of men and class societies of men have advantages and disadvantages, but men can make either work. But the only stable social relationship between men and women is that of lord and vassal. Evaluating a woman’s status with respect to a man’s based on relative wisdom, courage, charisma, knowledge, intelligence, or skill is a recipe for disaster.

An analogy for Frame: a vassal may be wiser, more courageous, more intelligent, and generally superior to her lord in every qualitative and quantifiable trait, and their kingdom will prosper if he listens to her advice. But he is still the lord and she is still the vassal. Break that relationship, and the kingdom will descend into anarchy and ruin.

AE,

That's a remarkable anecdote considering how easily Moore won the primary. Turnout was low, far lower than expected, so it must have been Moore's people who turned out. Major case of buyer's remorse after the scandal.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/how_low_was_alabamas_voter_tur.html