The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
The New Alignment: Patriots vs. Progressive Plutocrats (But Still SOME Signs of Life In GOP)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Marine Le Pen is a patriot—and so BOTH opposing parties cooperated to stop her.
Marine Le Pen is a patriot—and so BOTH opposing parties cooperated to stop her.

Obviously, France’s ruling class was not relieved by the results of the December 13 French regional elections: it is now trying to find a legal excuse to destroy National Front leader Marine Le Pen [Marine Le Pen could face political ban over financial declaration, by John Lichfield, The Independent, December 22, 2015]. This soft totalitarianism appears to be a European Union pattern, seen with Geert Wilders, Nick Griffin, the Vlaams Blok (compelled to reinvent itself as Vlams Belaang), Golden Dawn and the Sweden Democrats.

Marion_Marechal_Le_Pen_rendezvousAnd the French elections certainly did provide Dissident Right satisfaction of a grim sort: in two key regions where the National Front was running actual Le Pens, Marine Le Pen in Nord, and her very photogenic niece Marion (right) in Provence, the Establishment parties were so panicked that the center-Left candidates withdrew so the anti-Le Pen vote wouldn’t be split. The strategy worked: The center-Right won both regions.

But those withdrawals play directly into what we on the Dissident Right have been saying for years: That on National Question issues—immigration, multiculturalism, Political Correctness, demographic transformation—the big established parties are indistinguishable, their pretence at differences just a sham.

A lot of people still think of “Left” and “Right” as some kind of difference over economics. There are still some traces of that, but when we talk about “Left” and “Right” nowadays, the real divide is between nationalism and demographic stability on one side, globalism and multiculturalism on the other.

In all Western countries, well-nigh everyone wants a welfare state, and well-nigh everyone wants a thriving capitalist economy. Those things aren’t controversial. What’s controversial is the idea of a nation as being the home of some one particular people of mostly common ancestry and common culture. The great divide today is between nationalism and demographic stability on the one hand, globalism and mass immigration on the other.

It used to be, a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, you could get a quick rough gauge of how much you were likely to agree or disagree with someone by finding out how much he hated rich people. Note that the person whose temperature you were taking might himself be rich; the expression “limousine liberal” has been around for a while.

But nowadays, if you want to take someone’s political temperature, you get a much more accurate reading by figuring out how much he hates white people. Again, there is no bar to he himself being white: the word “ethnomasochist” hasn’t been around as long as “limousine liberal,” but I did once trace it as far back as 1981.

A change of that magnitude in our way of thinking about politics happens very slowly, though, at both the top and the bottom. This particular change is being driven by huge deep currents: mainly by the slow but colossal worldwide demographic shift against the white race.

Thus in 1922, when my father was a young man, the British Isles had over twice the population of what was then called British West Africa. In 2015, that same West African territory has over three times the population of the British Isles. That’s a stupendous demographic reversal.

The center-Left withdrawal from those two French regions in order to shut out the Le Pen gals — that was a sign that the party bosses are getting it. At this point they would not yet admit, even under torture, that their parties differ in very little except the personalities on offer. But at some level, they understand that they—center-Right and center-Left—are together on one side of the great issue of our age, while the Le Pen ladies are on the other side.

This is the new political alignment, just emerging from the receding waters of industrial-era class conflict and economic ideology.

At the other end of the political scale, where the actual voters dwell, awakening to the new alignment has been partial and local. Voters don’t care as much about politics as politicians do. It takes longer for them to grasp these tremendous changes, unless the changes are really thrust in their faces.

That’s why in France the National Front nationwide polled only 27 percent. It did much better in Nord and Provence, where the National Question has been thrust in voters’ faces: 42 and 45 percent, respectively.

You see similar differences in the U.S.A. Where anti-white or anti-Western feeling is most clearly on display, class and economic issues go out the window and people vote race and ethnicity: In 2012 Mitt Romney got 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi but only 34 percent in Vermont.

It’s customary to say that it will take a couple more 9/11s, or a couple more Paris-type attacks, or San Bernadinos, to wake up a real majority of the electorate.

Well, events like that are accelerant. But if mass immigration continues and multiculturalism spreads nationwide, Mississippi-ization will happen anyway. Unless Vermonters maintain their current lily-white demographics, they will eventually vote like Mississippians.

It’s the Lee Kuan Yew rule. Famous quote from him: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” [ SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew: “It’s Stupid to be Afraid”, August 08, 2005]

A few months ago I attended a talk given by Nelson Hultberg, a principal of the very worthy organization Americans for a Free Republic, which seeks to get a Third Party going based on, quote from him, “libertarian politics and conservative values.” Mr. Hultberg told us he doesn’t actually much care for the expression “Third Party,” because right now we really only have one party. What he’d like to bring about, he said, is a second party.

That of course is what the big old parties dread: the rise of a genuine opposition.

In the U.S. too, we essentially have a one-party state, with Democrats and Republicans on the same side of major issues in our time.


That got even harder to deny when House Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled his omnibus spending bill on December 17—so bad, it caused Rush Limbaugh to call for the disbanding of the Republican Party. There were, to be sure, a few ickety-tick tax breaks in it for the Chambers of Commerce crowd; but on anything related to the National Question it was a total surrender to the Left. Sanctuary cities fully funded, refugee numbers increased, tax credits for illegal aliens, more visas for nationals of countries that won’t accept back their illegals, visa numbers for foreign workers quadrupled…Senator Jeff Sessions, whom God preserve!, gave a fine angry speech about this horrible bill.

So yes, we have a one-party state, with both major parties firmly committed to continuing, in fact increasing, floods of immigrants, in numbers that make it impossible to do any serious security vetting.

But here I want to exercise commentator’s privilege and shamelessly contradict myself, just a little.

Watching the December 15 candidates’ debate, and then Senator Sessions’ fine speech, I have to allow that there is at least some nominal diversity in the GOP. It never seems to be able to manifest itself in legislative action, but it’s there in some latent form.

I’ve quantified and represented this using NumbersUSA’s congressional grades as of December 20th:





Not that, where congressional Democrats are concerned, we’re not even in the U.S.A. any more: this might as well be the Supreme Soviet. The President doesn’t have to work these guys to get them to support his policy of Electing A New People; he just has to stroll into the House chamber once a year and bask in the applause.

So yes: As scornful as I am of party politics, there is that difference at least. There is among Democrat congresscritters no mirror image of Jeff Sessions or Steve King.

I say again: That pleasing diversity of opinion among Republicans never seems to generate any worthwhile legislation. But at least it’s there in potential.

This monolithic quality the Democrats present also accounts for their candidate debates being much less consequential than the GOP’s.

So yeah, there’s that: signs of life in the GOP, while the Democrats are just an inert slab of gray stone.

But I sure hope that Donald Trump has a good tax accountant.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: France, Immigration, Republicans 
Hide 51 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Ragno says:

    It used to be, a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, you could get a quick rough gauge of how much you were likely to agree or disagree with someone by finding out how much he hated rich people. But nowadays, if you want to take someone’s political temperature, you get a much more accurate reading by figuring out how much he hates white people.

    Further, deponent saith not.

  2. Randal says:

    So it comes down to this, basically: there is no difference in legislative practice between the establishment parties, but there is some difference in the noises made.

    Looks like it’s pretty much the same over in the US as it is here in the UK, despite the profoundly different systems.

  3. JEC says:

    So yes, we have a one-party state, with both major parties firmly committed to continuing, in fact increasing, floods of immigrants, in numbers that make it impossible to do any serious security vetting.

    “We’re living in an epoch when political quackery has reached a height unexampled in the history of nonsense.” ~ Thomas Carlyle.

    I guess that words would fail Carlyle if he was alive now.

  4. Two comments: First, insofar as yet another series of accusations have been made against Marine Le Pen and her father, wasn’t it Beria who said, “Show me the man and I will find you the crime?”

    Second, a genuine opposition party probably could incorporate a good portion of the present Republican Party; it might attract some Democratic voters, but (aside possibly from Jim Webb) it is hard to see any present Democratic politician fitting into an ethnonationalist party.

  5. I just laugh when my neighbors argue politics. They still believe that great debates of our time are about small vs big gov’t and tax rates. The vast majority of upper middle class whites remain too insulated to see what’s coming – or, perhaps, they just assume that they’ll be able to avoid storm. Either way, as much as I love Trump, I just don’t think that we’re there yet.

    It’s not enough to get the working and lower middle class whites on your side. You need the upper middle class, and they’re just not there – yet.

    • Agree: snorlax
  6. JEGG says:

    Where do East and South Asian fit into this? For example, what about the Vietnamese in France? What percentage of them align themselves with the National Front? I wonder if Trump is attracting American East and South Asians?

    • Replies: @berserker
    , @Anonymous
  7. anonn says:

    Your analysis suffers because of the bizarre decision to treat the one-party state apparatus as some crafty ploy by liberals. I suspect you’ve never met one, since actual liberals in America voice all of the same complaints about there being no difference between the parties. The most “liberal” thing this supposedly liberal administration has produced has been the Affordable Care Act, which turned out to be nothing more than a gargantuan subsidy to for-profit insurance companies. We expected we would get something from Obama on the environment, and we got nothing but a bunch of speeches. Same for taxes, foreign policy, the military, wages, the economy, etc.

    We got played the same way you guys get played. You vote for smaller government and an end to abortion and get a war instead. We vote for action on the environment or income inequality, and we get war. War everywhere, war forever.

    The budget deal is hated by everyone, as it manages to not spend more money on social programs, education, or infrastructure, as liberals want, but also found a way to not cut taxes or scale back government in any meaningful way, which conservatives want. Instead, it’s (surprise!) a capitulation to Wall St. and the Beltway war profiteers.

    • Replies: @wolfy
  8. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    The patriots are going about this the wrong way.

    They must fight an anti-imperialist war.

    Mass immigration is demo-imperialism.

    How do you fight imperialism?

    How did the Algerians fight?

    How did the Vietnamese fight?

    What did the FLN do?

    What did the Viet Cong do?

    Euro-patriots are losing their homeland.

    They must resist the comprador elite collaborators of globalism.
    They must resist and fight the migrant-colonizers.

    Eurotriots must go CONG!!!!!

    All this electoral pussyfooting is useless.

    Merkel and Cameron are supposed to be ‘conservative’ but what good were they?

    GO CONG!!! The West needs it Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara,and Khomeni.

    Remember the Polish patriots and the Warsaw Uprising.

    But always see the comprador elites as the MAIN enemy. Collaborators are the worst.
    They are traitors.

    White man must fight like Geronimo.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  9. Globalization (and mass migration) are the result of the transnationalization of capital, not from a supposed “demographic crisis.”

    Only a genuine (antiglobalist) left will take the fight to the transnational corporations. The Derbyshires will content themselves with … Jeff Sessions.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @annamaria
  10. Actually if you go back a hundred years or so it was populists versus classical liberals arguing about open borders and free trade, with socialists, anarchists and various single-issue activists on the margins. The left versus right tax debate as the cornerstone of politics didn’t really take off until after the Great Depression.

    However, you’re certainly right about the current situation. The elites in the US still don’t realise that Trump has kick started a large scale populist revolt that transcends domestic economic issues and is threatening to tear apart both mainstream parties.

  11. Derbyshire..last of the White Christian paleo-cons to be purged from Nat Review by Podhoretz and the triumphant, warmongering JewGlobalist neo-conz. You’d think that chastening experience – especially since these same Zionists now control the entire System (Central Bank, mass media, “both” parties, etc.) – would lead him to understand that We Are Not Going to Vote Our Way Out of This Anti-White Open-Borders Deathtrap. Nope, not a bit of it. Instead, more drivel about “a new political party”. Absent debtPonzi collapse, Whites in North America will move from harassed majority to viciously persecuted minority by 2030; Whites will be effectively Palestine’d by 2050; and extinct by 2090…maybe sooner. If the Ponzi collapses in sufficient time, Whites may be able to shoot their way to survival by extincting those who would extinct them. There is no other way

    • Replies: @JEGG
  12. wolfy says:

    astonishingly derb believes us is a Soviet state.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  13. berserker says:

    “I wonder if Trump is attracting American East and South Asians?”
    – Speaking for myself, I would vote for him.

  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    They would vote conservative in values & economy but,

    Their want of more immigration for their own groups plus,

    Fear of pogroms by white nationalists keep them left.

    Plus, as left wing ideology is mainstream any successful people in their community are likely to be left.

    The only exceptions are those who marry out or convert to Christianity.

    The 2nd generation also feels vulnerable as, due to blacks being protected the rage against blacks gets taken out on them making them anti white.

    They will feel that they will be the first targets of United white black pogroms are they are non christian non english speaking rich minorities

  15. John says: • Website

    “Limousine liberal” – I have always liked that phrase, and try to keep it in circulation. But it just won’t catch on. Limousines nowadays are too bizarre and vulgar. Whatever message they communicate, it isn’t one of smug plutocracy.

    I have also liked “parlor pink,” but that is just too obscure.

    I wish there were a word for “having a gray ponytail and still believing everything you believed when you were 19.”

  16. fnn says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Globalization (and mass migration) are the result of the transnationalization of capital…

    No mass migration of aliens into Japan and S. Korea. If they’ve been able to internally resist “the transnationalization of capital” despite being highly successful capitalist countries you have to do some Marxist backflipping to explain that. On a smaller scale, there is also Israel.

  17. “Where anti-white or anti-Western feeling is most clearly on display, class and economic issues go out the window and people vote race and ethnicity: In 2012 Mitt Romney got 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi but only 34 percent in Vermont.”

    I may be way off on this since I’ve never visited either state, but isn’t anti-white or at least anti-Western feeling more clearly on display in Vermont than in Mississippi? Vermont is the home state of Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders, after all. The disparity in Romney’s white vote seems more explained just by straight racial demographics than by anyone’s feelings.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
  18. annamaria says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    The mass migration is also e a results of predatory geopolitics. See Ukraine and the advent of a wave of disposed Ukrainians running from their raped and destroyed country to Europe:

    Some food for thought for the European vassals of the Empire of Federal Reserve:

    “How close is Ukraine to a major nuclear accident? Well, it turns out, very close: just recently one was narrowly avoided when some Ukro-Nazis blew up electric transmission lines supplying Crimea, triggering a blackout that lasted many days. The Russians scrambled and ran a transmission line from the Russian mainland, so now Crimea is lit up again. But while that was happening, the Southern Ukrainian, with its 4 energy blocks, lost its connection to the grid, and it was only the very swift, expert actions taken by the staff there that averted a nuclear accident.
    I hope that you know this already, but, just in case, let me spell it out again. One of the worst things that can happen to a nuclear reactor is loss of electricity supply. Yes, nuclear power stations make electricity—some of the time—but they must be supplied with electricity all the time to avoid a meltdown. This is what happened at Fukushima Daiichi, which dusted the ground with radionuclides as far as Tokyo and is still leaking radioactive juice into the Pacific.”

    Of course the DC puppets care not about the approaching nuclear catastrophes that could be due either to a problems with “peaceful atom” in Ukraine or to the US/Israel-arranged confrontation between Russia and Turkey. The DC deciders (global parasitoids) are still not able to figure out that a gigantic nuclear fallout they are rooting for would finish their cushy lives as well.

  19. Svigor says:

    Obviously, France’s ruling class was not relieved by the results of the December 13 French regional elections: it is now trying to find a legal excuse to destroy National Front leader Marine Le Pen [Marine Le Pen could face political ban over financial declaration, by John Lichfield, The Independent, December 22, 2015]. This soft totalitarianism appears to be a European Union pattern, seen with Geert Wilders, Nick Griffin, the Vlaams Blok (compelled to reinvent itself as Vlams Belaang), Golden Dawn and the Sweden Democrats.

    Whenever the right becomes ascendant in these places, it should crush the left there without mercy. Turnabout being fair play.

    Again, there is no bar to he himself being white: the word “ethnomasochist” hasn’t been around as long as “limousine liberal,” but I did once trace it as far back as 1981.

    While I think ethnomasochist probably works better as an epithet in our current political climate, I find the old WN label of “race traitor” to be more accurate. These people don’t feel guilt, they don’t want to subject themselves to pain; they think we’re guilty, and they want to inflict pain on us.

    They’re Uncle Toms.

    But at some level, they understand that they—center-Right and center-Left—are together on one side of the great issue of our age, while the Le Pen ladies are on the other side.

    Is it really just the Center Right and Center Left? Could the Far Right offer the Far Left economic socialism in exchange for Racial Nationalism? I doubt it. I think the Far Left would happily join up with the Center Right and the Center Left to walk the Far Right to the guillotine.

    I think of the whole lot as “the left.” They all agree on multiculturalism, open borders, mass immigration, and the racial destruction of the West. The rest is irrelevant.

    This is the new political alignment, just emerging from the receding waters of industrial-era class conflict and economic ideology.

    Violence is usually a last resort after peaceful methods have failed. Peaceful methods haven’t failed, they haven’t even been tried. We can’t even get whites to give a shit, let alone exhaust peaceful methods.

    Guerrillas need a populace to swim in, as fish in a sea.

    There is no sea.

    Globalization (and mass migration) are the result of the transnationalization of capital, not from a supposed “demographic crisis.”

    Only a genuine (antiglobalist) left will take the fight to the transnational corporations. The Derbyshires will content themselves with … Jeff Sessions

    If there’s no saving my race, you and your world can burn for all I care.

    Whites may be able to shoot their way to survival by extincting those who would extinct them. There is no other way

    Still wrong, no matter how many people say it. Until we have a substantial number of our race on side, there is no way, period. Not voting, not protest, not shooting. If we can get a substantial number on our side, then peaceful methods will work just fine.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  20. JEGG says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    I think that the persecution of whites is complicated by the reality that economic growth/stability and civilized governance ultimately rests on the shoulders of whites (especially white males). No diverse non-Asian society can stay modern and appealing if whites are too marginalized. I think that this will keep the relatively sane in all races from pushing the current anti-white agenda too far. And, of course, whites always have the option of going on strike in order to make this reality as obvious as possible.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @AnAnon
  21. pyrrhus says:

    “In all Western countries, well-nigh everyone wants a welfare state, and well-nigh everyone wants a thriving capitalist economy.”

    Neither one of which will survive the immigration of large numbers of violent, low IQ, clannish people from the 3d world…..but that is a hate-thought, obviously.

  22. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    “That’s why in France the National Front nationwide polled only 27 percent. It did much better in Nord and Provence, where the National Question has been thrust in voters’ faces: 42 and 45 percent, respectively. You see similar differences in the U.S.A. Where anti-white or anti-Western feeling is most clearly on display, class and economic issues go out the window and people vote race and ethnicity: In 2012 Mitt Romney got 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi but only 34 percent in Vermont.”

    Globalords control the media and academia.

    If patriots ran the media and academia, whites need not be ‘red pilled’ by reality. They could be ‘red pilled’ by info and education.

    But because media and academia are run by globalords, the ONLY way to be awakened to reality is by direct contact.

    This is why patriots and identitarians need more effective means of using the net and other forums to spread the news and the truth.

    People in Vermont(overwhelmingly ‘liberal’) could mostly become arch-patriots IF they got their learning and news from the Right. But they get most info and learning from globalord Jews and homos who contol media and academia.

    After all, most Americans have never been to Iran or Russia, but they hate Russia and Iran cuz the globalord media tell them to. It’s purely due to media-driven hatred.

    American opinion on China has gone up and down and up and down depending on how the media spin it.

    Suppose the media were to be controlled by patriots who no longer made ‘racism’ a taboo and featured tons of news stories on black on white violence.
    Vermonters will be red-pilled by the media.

    Media red-pilling is much more effective than reality red-pilling.
    For reality red-pilling, you have to be where the action is. The radius of effectiveness is strictly local.

    In contrast, media red-pilling can work over 1000s of miles.
    It’s like someone in Iceland will watch a Hollywood movie and come off with the impression that helpless noble Negroes are being oppressed by evil white thugs in America.

    • Agree: Travis
  23. joe webb says:
    @Priss Factor

    no greater goofiness than that of a loopy lady.

    I see your Algeria bit does not show the movie theaters frequented by French civilians ( women and children that might be ) bombed by the crazy arabs. Don’t recall if these wonderful people were decapitating folks back then.

    violence is especially ugly when the ladies are unleashed.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  24. David says:

    Funny, Le Pen is wearing a pair of balls around her neck. Likely not a mistake.

  25. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    We live in the age of media Katyn-ing.

    The Katyn Massacre was carried out by the Soviets, but in order to maintain the alliance, US and UK decided to go with the myth that the Nazis did it. (Of course, Nazis committed similar crimes and worse.)

    Defeating Nazis was seen as SO TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT that even a fact had to be sacrificed for the greater truth: Nazism is evil and must be destroyed by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

    This is how Jews see white people, white interests, and white power. They see the potential rise of white consciousness so dangerous to globalist Jewish supremacism that they will resort to any number of lies and distortions of facts to serve their greater truth: JEWS MUST RULE THE WORLD.

    Of course, Jews won’t gain any allies by saying they want to rule the world. So, Jews have created this great myth that if white people gain racial consciousness, they will be new Nazis and commit new holocausts and enslave EVERYONE and blah blah blah.
    (Never mind what Jews did to Russia in the 90s and what Zionisms did to Palestinians and to Arabs in general, especially beginning with the Gulf War.) And Jews tell white women that if white men were to regain confidence, they will force all women into the kitchen. (But these are the very Jews who form alliances with reactionary Muslims in EU and US. And they use pop industry to turn women into mental sex-slaves who imitate the likes of Miley Cyrus.)

    Jews mask their Jewish Supremacism as ‘multi-culturalism’ and celebration of ‘diversity’. According to the Jews, white power is SO EVIL and ‘diversity’ is SO WONDERFUL that any amount of lies and distortions of facts is justified in order to combat and destroy white power. Jews are into katyning the facts to suit their Narrative.

    That’s why whites must have their noses rubbed on a pile of BLM when, in fact, it is the black who are routinely attacking, robbing, raping, and murdering whites. As for dead blacks, most are killed by blacks. But Jews who control the media katyn the facts to further their Jewish supremacist agenda.

    So, when we think of the new STAR WARS movie, it is essentially Jewish propaganda to bring together non-whites, white race traitor-whores, and white cuckollaborators in common alliance against white patriots, male and female.


    And you’d think from the new STAR WARS that white girl and Negro are the leaders of ‘diversity’ when it is Jewish execs at Disney and guys like F.F. Abrams who are pulling the strings and controlling everything. In a ‘diverse’ coalition, some groups(esp Jews and homos)have a lot more power than other groups.
    This is what moron blacks are figuring out and why they’re throwing fits in college campuses. They sense they’re being shunted to the back of the bus, so BLM is essentially a ‘civil war’ within the Democratic coalition. It is blacks bitching at Homos and Lib college deans. It is about blacks in gentrifying cities aksing, “If you white libs love us so much, why you pushing us out through gentrification, sheeeeeeeiiiiiit.”
    But people like Soros cleverly appropriated BLM–just like Wall Street took over the Tea Party–and spun it around as an attack on KKKops. Better to channel black rage at white cops than at Jews and SWPL elites who really dominate modern ‘progressivism’ that is so privileged.

    Anyway, STAR WARS is like the David Cronenberg film eXistenZ. In it, a bunch of gentile players in a video-game universe are made to think they are in control, but in fact, they are being manipulated by the Jewish creator/designer of the game.

    If you want to understand power, don’t look at the puppets. Look at the puppet-master.

    eXistenZ is an interesting film for X-mas time as it is about the anxiety that Jews feel about how goyim ‘stole’ the Jewish God. So, it’s been the agenda of Jews to regain control over that power. Gentiles stole God from Jews and became Christians and used Jesus against the Jews. Jewish communists sought to destroy Christianity through radical atheism, but that didn’t work. Capitalist Jews seek to take control of Christianity and remold it into the worship of the Anus–the anus features prominently in eXistenZ.

    Another way Jews gain control over us is to take over paganism and re-engineer to suit their needs. The mythic source material of STAR WARS is pagan, fascist, Greco-Roman, samurai, Jung, Nietzsche, even Nazi, etc. Though George Lucas became a political Liberal, he was obsessed with the same things John Milius was crazy about. (Milius is one crazy Jew. He calls himself a ‘zen fascist’. He didn’t so much appropriate fascism to serve Jewish interests as become a fascist himself.) Anyway, the new Star Wars is all about How the Jew Stole Paganism and Fascism(like how the Grinch Stole Christmas). Now, all of that has been appropriated and spun around to suit the multi-culti agenda.

  26. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    We all know what 9/11 was. Just say it and in conjures up horrific images.

    But what has happened to the Middle East and North Africa is far far worse.

    We need a word for the disaster that goes from the horrific sanctions against Iraq that killed 200,000 women and children to the current hell in Syria that set off a huge refugee crisis. 9/11 happened in one day. This hell in Middle East and North Africa has been raging for yrs and will go on and on, all because sociopath controllers of US foreign policy are demented supremacists. Just one look at the likes of Victoria Nuland(witch of Ukraine) and her ilk, and we know what these people are capable of.

    The mass starving of Iraq, the extensive economic damage to Iran(for developing civilian nuclear power), the horrors in Afghanistan, the civil war in Iraq unleashed by US invasion, the utter disintegration of Libya(thanks to NATO intervention), the wreckage of Ukraine, the total hell of Syria. All of it was guided by the dark hand of Globo-Zio-Anglo power.

    We need a word for this.

    Maybe WFI, Wars for Israel. Or Jewish-Supremacist Wars. This is a major conflagration stretching over an entire region. Possibly over a million have died. So many had their lives uprooted.

    While it’s true enough that Arabs and Muslims can be plenty nutty, white Americans should know that the Semitic brethren of the Arabs are no less nutty(and indeed nutty AGAINST whites).

    Here’s the great irony. So many white Americans, especially the cucks of the GOP, buy into the totally hysterical worldview of the Jews when it comes to Russia, Iran, Arabs, Muslims, and etc. If Jews say it must be true, it must be true. If Jews say Putin is Hitler, he is Hitler. If Jews say Assad must go, he must go. If Jews say Iran is about to wipe out Israel(even though top GOP donor says DROP A NUKE ON IRAN), then it must be true though there is no evidence that (1) Iran is close to having nukes and (2) it plans to wipe out Israel.

    What is really amusing is that Jews are no less hysterical about white Americans, especially conservatives in the South. Jews scream ‘Nazi’, ‘antisemite’, ‘racist’, or blab blah blah about any white person with the slightest whiff of Political Incorrectness.
    Jews are acting like ISIS when it comes to sacred southern symbols. They must all be destroyed like ISIS destroyed Palmyra and other sites deemed sacrilegious.
    Jews flip out about white conservatives, white southerners, white Christians, and white males just as much as they do about Arabs, Assad, Putin, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc.

    Given that Jews are so hysterical, hostile, and crazy about both white gentiles and Muslims/Arabs, it is pitifully amusing that white conservatives go out of their way to win favors from Jews by attacking Arabs and Muslims.

    Now, white people surely have many good reasons for not trusting and even feeling hostility toward Arabs and Muslims. But why do they hate on Muslims/Arabs in the name of defending, serving, or appeasing Jews when, in fact, Jews are just as or even more hostile and hysterical about whites as they are about Arabs?

    I mean Jews are foaming at the mouth in US and EU as they excoriate white ‘racists’ and ‘xenophobes’ for not taking in MORE refugees from the Middle East—never mind that those people have been displaced by Zio-globalist war policy.

    Jews hate and despise whites as much as they hate and despise Arabs.
    Jews say “Assad is evil, he must go, and you white folks must support our policy to oust him!!!!!!” But these same Jews say, “you white people are racist and xenophobic, and you must prove that you are no longer Nazis by kissing our ass and opening your nations to endless number of refugees and immigrants indefinitely, and you must celebrate your own ethnic and cultural demise.”

    White people may like or dislike Arabs, but they should NOT dislike them to gain favors from Jews because Jews hate white people as much as or even more than they hate Arabs.

    Never mind 9/11. The current globalist agenda of Nein/Allemagne will be the end of Germany.

    • Replies: @Wally
  27. snorlax says:

    The lower-IQ amongst us live entirely in the moment. They’re not capable of thinking ahead. It’s why the threat of prison is an ineffective deterrent. The only question is whether they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs quickly (Algeria, Angola, Cuba), or more slowly (Lebanon, South Africa, Zimbabwe).

    Best case scenario is Brazil, where the goose is saved (at least for a while) by getting a large enough portion of the non-whites to identify with the whites. However, due to our racial spoils system, the Brazil scenario doesn’t seem plausible in the US context.

    Anyway, at the present moment, an actually effective opposition would do the following:

    1. Boycott the rigged (by voter importation and other means) elections. The government won’t be able to claim “democratic legitimacy” if it’s 100% Democrats elected with 98% of the vote on 3% turnout.

    2. Go on strike, early and often. Even if it’s just the 20% most conservative white people going on strike, the government will be forced to offer extensive concessions. Frequent hardship caused by “white strikes” will teach the in-the-moment types of the importance of keeping whites around, by repetition.

  28. Art says:

    “the big established parties are indistinguishable, their pretence at differences just a sham.”

    Why do people refuse to see the obvious. In America, Jews control both parties, that is why the parties are so much alike. Unresolvable internal conflect is their way to controlling power. Divide and conquior is the Jew game. Our politicions solve nothing because the Jews do not want them too. The same goes in Europe.

    9/11 was America’s Reichstag. History repeats itself. The Nazis took over Germany after the burning of the Reichstag – the neocon Zionists have taken over America after 9/11. Both parties are controlled by Jew money and media power. As the leader of the West, America sets the Zionist Empire agenda for the rest of the West. Who can argue with that?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  29. Art says:

    p.s. French women are the best!

  30. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @joe webb

    Look, what we all prefer is a peaceful solution to these problems.

    But surely when one’s nation is being taken over and invaded, one has the right to use whatever means to regain independence and sovereignty.

    Also, remember the saying, ‘the violence inherent in the system’.

    All systems maintain order by direct violence or violence inherent in the system.

    Direct violence is using force to keep others out. Hungary is using fences and armored troops to fend off the invaders.

    That is one way, and it is effective.

    The other way is effective ONLY IF there is violence inherent in the system.
    For example, suppose a nation doesn’t use fences and armored trucks to keep out the invaders. But it has strictly enforced laws of citizenship and residence. If someone happens to be inside the nation but doesn’t have the papers or the necessary legal documents to remain there, he is immediately picked up, processed, and sent back home. The violence may not be overt, but there is a legally enforced system of making sure that people who don’t belong there are sent back.

    Or consider taxes. We pay taxes because of the violence-inherent-in-the-system. The state doesn’t come door to door with guns to take money from us. But the law exists that says we have to pay such-and-such amount of taxes. And if we don’t, the state will remind us that we better and make us pay a fine as penalty. And if we still don’t pay, the state will send goons with guns to make us pay or end up behind bars.
    So, without the violence inherent in the system, most people will not pay taxes. They may pretend to pay taxes out of goodness of their heart, but they really do it cuz they are forced to. After all, even rich Libs who vote Democratic look for all sorts of loopholes and tax havens to minimize their paying of taxes.

    So, all systems are maintained by either direct violence or violence inherent in the system.

    This video has good demonstration of how ‘violence inherent in the system’ operates:

    There used to be a time when the West used direct violence to keep out the darkies. And then, it got less blunt in its means and relied on the legally sanctioned processes of ‘violence inherent in the system’. Rule of law meant enforcement of the law, so it sent out a clear message to everyone that those who violate the law will suffer consequences. There was the Threat of Violence by means of ‘violence inherent in the system’.

    But even that has gone away. Now, there is no violence-inherent-in-the-system used against the darkie invaders. Tons of darkies come to the US and EU, and they do as they please. If anything, we have cities offering them sanctuary and making moral arguments for their invasion. And Obama used the power of law to help the invaders. So, the violence-inherent-in-the-system is no longer used against invaders but used for the invaders against the natives. In Sweden, it is ILLEGAL to even say ‘too many darkies are invading our homeland’. The violence-inherent-in-the-system is being used against patriots and natives.
    And all those preggy parasitic yellow women from Chiner are coming to the US and laying golden eggs to gain easy citizenship and all sorts of benefits.
    If US had any sense, it would change its laws and say NO MORE OF THAT. It would use its violence-inherent-in-the-system to enforce immigration laws.

    But the opposite is happening. Indeed, if you’re a patriot and decided to go to the SW border to stop illegal immigration, the state will use its violence-inherent-in-the-system or viits against YOU. You will be arrested, prosecuted, and even imprisoned while the invaders are given all sorts of benefits and sanctuary status.

    Of course, we got problems with the Negroes too. When Negroes act like thugs in colleges or burn down Baltimore, the authorities don’t use direct violence to quell the savagery and thuggery. They don’t even use violence-inherent-in-the-system by threatening black thugs with arrest, imprisonment, and penalties. The Baltimore mayor’s response was that blacks needed ‘safe spaces’ to riot and burn stuff. And college deans have been allowing black thugs to roam freely in colleges and make trouble.

    So, we are now in a situation where white people in the West are in big big trouble. Their governments will not use direct violence to keep the invaders out. The governments, for the most part, will not even use violence-inherent-in-the-system or viits to inspect for legal residence, round up the invaders, process their status, and send them back. Invaders are allowed to roam freely all over. Look at the tunnel at Calais. Thugs from Africa and Middle East get to run around and act like apes and vandalize trucks. And nothing is done about it.

    But it is even WORSE. Western governments now use the violence-inherent-in-the-system against their own native populations. So, if a white European demands that something be done, he is charged of ‘hate crime’ and legally forced to pay a fine… or face imprisonment.

    Also, we must keep in mind that the academia and media are essentially forms of violence-inherent-in-the-system. After all, education is compulsory, and all European students are made to learn what the state deems is essential. Parents must send their kids to government-sanctioned schools OR ELSE.

    And what does the state cram into the minds of young ones? “white is racist”, “Mandela is god”, “diversity is wonderful”, “homogeneity is evil if white”, “worship homos”, “worship Holocaust forever”, “abolishing Germany and whiteness is so great”. And if you disagree, YOU ARE A HATER AND MUST BE DESTROYED.

    And the media doesn’t just inform or tell the news. It uses its power to defame, smear, intimidate, threaten, and destroy lives and careers. Media doesn’t put a gun to your head, but it has the power to ruin your respectability and reputation. You will be professionally and emotionally destroyed. Again, the power of violence-inherent-in-the-system.

    When the state will not use direct violence to defend its native people and when it uses violence-inherent-in-the-system against its own people, then white folks must prepare to GO CONG.

  31. AnAnon says:
    @Kirt Higdon

    status whoring is not “and here are a bunch of corrupt and incompetent idiots, that hate you, to rule over you”.

  32. AnAnon says:

    I believe that the 3rd biggest party in SA is the kill the whites party, and the largest party, the anc, gives lip service to the position. That despite the upper level people in the anc knowing full well that a lot of the nice things they enjoy will be taken away from them if whites are gone. Of course those nice things will be taken away from them when a different group of corrupt dirtbags seize power, so ultimately they are living on borrowed time. Turning over our society to foreigners in the hopes that they won’t genocide us is probably not a good idea.

  33. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    You blindly accept the easily debunked ‘6M Jews & gas chambers’.

    Indeed, the impossible ‘holocau$t’ storyline has hoodwinked too many for too long.
    Throw off the chains and wake up.

    There are the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ‘6M & gas chambers’ and there are the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ‘6M & gas chambers’.

    Also note that there is not a single verifiable excavated mass grave that can actually be SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka) even though Jews claim to know exactly where these allegedly enormous mass graves are.

    If there was ‘a plan to kill every Jew the Germans could get their hands on’ then why are there countless numbers of so called “survivor$?

    And if the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it?

    The ‘6M & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  34. Morality, which likely developed to promote the survival of a tribal ingroup, has been high-jacked by rulers to promote the survival of the ingroup that consists of the rulers. A survival that is increasingly at the expense of the ruled. This is evident in their exemption to or special use of moral behaviors. Common criminals also have a similar approach and sense relative to morality, but with the difference that the special moral status of rulers was mostly beneficial in man’s distant past and hence the masses are predisposed to obey. From at least the founding of America to the present, government has been shown to be a net negative force in civilization.

    Government and rulers are no longer needed in modern societies but people are still wired to want them, whereas government and rulers needed the masses in the past and they still need them now.

  35. @Svigor

    Whenever the right becomes ascendant in these places, it should crush the left there without mercy. Turnabout being fair play.

    But making them live by their own rules would constitute torture by any standard.

  36. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    I read or heard somewhere that the National Front gets most of its supporters from the poorer and less educated elements of the French population.

    And I think here we see the problem of merit and elitism.

    In some ways, the Right is a contradiction. On the one hand, it is for hierarchy and privilege(by lineage or meritocracy). But for the right-wing masses, this is bound to be disappointing. Why? Because ‘superior’ elites tend to look down on the dummy masses.

    The dumber and poorer elements of the American Right want both hierarchy and unity(of haves and have-nots). Being conservative, they have greater respect for those with wealth and power. They don’t believe in bringing down the rich and powerful like the commies did. Conservatives admire power and authority. So, conservative masses assume that if they are for the rich and powerful, the latter will appreciate and reciprocate their admiration and loyalty. Now, such is possible but not inevitable. It is possible in a world dominated by the ideology of nationalism. There was a time when American businessmen were full of patriotism and thought in terms of ‘business of America is business’ and ‘what is good for General Motors is good for America’. But in the Age of Globalism, the rich and powerful feel closer to rich and powerful all over the world than with the dummy masses of their own nation. Rich and privileged elites in UK feel closer to rich and privileged in, say, Hong Kong or Istanbul. And those elites, having gone to same schools like Sorbonne or Oxford or Harvard or Yale, mutually admire one another. And this is true of elites outside the West as well. Though Asian-Indian elites may talk the talk of nationalism, your elite Hindu who went to Harvard is gonna want to shmooze with fellow Harvardites from around the world than with his poor dotter nationals.

    So, globalism has created the elite club of high IQ, wealth, and privilege. And the elites no longer have national feelings due to suppression of ‘racism’. Anti-‘racism’ says white elites must not feel affinity with white masses, yellow elites must not feel affinity with yellow masses, brown elites must not feel affinity with brown masses, etc. Anti-‘racism’ not only degrades white unity but brown unity, black unity, yellow unity, and etc. When whites were ‘racist’, they made non-whites feel racially conscious themselves. Now that white elites are dropping ‘racism’, they are pressuring non-white elites to do the same.

    And this is true not only in London and NY but in Paris, Rome, Dubai, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Mexico City, Miami, Buenos Ares, and etc.
    But of course, the globalist elitse don’t wanna seem greedy and self-centered, so they take up ‘progressive’ politics, and this game is played by pretending to care about the ‘oppressed’, ‘marginalized’, and ‘downtrodden’.
    But it is never about representing the poor and underprivileged among their own kind in their own nation. Rather, it is about caring about ‘marginalized’ minorities and, of course, homos in their own nations at the expense of the native majority.

    Suppose there is nation A and nation B. The elites of nation A and nation B feel closer to one another than to their own majority masses. But it wouldn’t be good form for them to say ‘we are the rich & successful and we look down on all of loser masses.’ So instead, the elites of both nation pretend to care about the ‘oppressed’. How do they get away with this? Well, suppose nation A has a minority of B people and suppose nation B has a minority of A people. This is very convenient for elites of both nations. Elites of nation A will excoriate the A majority for oppressing the B minority, and Elites of nation B will excoriate the B majority for oppressing the A minority. What a wonderful way for elites of A nation to gain moral advantage over A majority and for elites of B nation to gain moral advantage over B majority. Even though elites of nation A don’t care about the masses, they pretend to care about the ‘less fortunate’ by championing the ‘rights’ of B minority in nation A. This way, the focus of social critique goes from the issue of the disparity between A elites and A masses to the disparity between A majority and B minority(championed by A elites).
    And of course, the same dynamic happens in nation B. (And of course, the elites of both nations also morally browbeat the masses with constant admonitions about ‘homophobia’.) It’s like the elites(especially the Jewish ones) in the US make a big fuss about ‘white privilege’ to focus our attention on the difference between white masses and non-white masses instead of on the more crucial difference between the 1% and the rest.

    Western Conservatism is still stuck in an outdated mindset of 19th century nationalism where the elites were indeed nationalistic. Because British elites once used to represent the British masses, German elites once used to represent the German masses, French elites once used to represent French masses, and Anglo-American elites once used to represent American masses, there is a sense among conservative masses that if they respect and admire the rich and powerful, the rich and powerful will appreciate the support and, in turn, lead and inspire them.
    But this is the Age of Globalism. Elites think different, especially as the top elites are Jewish and especially feel no connection to the masses(who are mostly gentile).

    Mussolini turned out to be a bad egg, and Hitler turned out to be a rotten egg, but they had a powerful grasp of where capitalism was going. They understood that if everything was just left up to capitalists, the elites would eventually come to care about nothing but their own privilege, power, wealth, and narcissism and NOTHING ELSE. So, the Right had to be ‘socialist’. Not socialist in the commie sense of destroying the rich but in the sense of pressuring the rich to care about the nation as a whole. And National Socialism might have worked if rotten Hitler didn’t go for Imperial Socialism that invaded other nations.

    The reason why Social-Democracy worked well for so long in Scandinavia was because it once had the balance of Left and Right. It was for moderate socialism but it also maintained strict border controls and kept Sweden mostly homogeneous. So, Swedish social-democracy was like a milder democratic form of National Socialism. But when the ideology turned leftist and multi-culti, Sweden allowed in tons of darkies, and the whole social-democratic model is bound to crumble as time passes. It goes to show that social-democracy isn’t enough. It has to be NATIONAL social-democracy. Without the NATIONAL element that pressures the elites to care most about their own people, the elites will eventually cuck themselves out to globalist masters such as the Jews and fruitkins who demand open borders and ‘diversity’.

    When nationalism was once the modus operandi of the world, elites didn’t needed to be prodded to lead their own people. But as the world became more globalized, elites wanted more and more money, privilege, and power; and such could only be attained by playing the global game. Your nation was no longer enough. The world could be your oyster if you got the brains, talent, connections, money, and etc. Why play local when you can play global? Under such a system, the elites are under no sense of obligation to support and lead their own people. Also, even the concept of ‘my people’ become muddled due to massive migration/immigration. Today, even if the elites were to act in the mode of nationalism, they would be practicing another form of globalism since so many of ‘my people’ have been diversified. In the past, to be a French leader meant to be a representative of white Frenchmen. Today, France itself has been globalized. It’s filled with tons of Moos(Muslims) and Boos(Negroes). UK is also filled with tons of Moos and Boos, and they keep coming and coming and having more kids. And what goes by the name of ‘Swede’ today could be a Boo from Somalia or a Moo from Afghanistan.

    This is why Putin is so hated by the globalists. Putin is a Russian nationalist who has put some brakes on the oligarchs who want to play the globalist game. Putin, for all his faults, does have some feeling for Russia as nation, tradition, culture, and people. But most globalists oligarchs have no such feeling.
    The elites are fixated mostly on wealth, money, privilege, glamour, connection, glitz, status, fame, and such stuff. And they keep getting richer and richer. They love being with other ultra-smart, ultra-rich, and ultra-‘creative’ people. You see, they are so cutting-edge, so fancy, so cool, so ‘creative’. Yes, so very very ‘creative’, something that most of the masses are NOT. They are the ‘creative class’.

    Globalists are ultra-elitist, but they understand such is problematic cuz the native masses(and diversifying multi-culti masses) might scream about the 1% vs the 99%.
    So, the elites need to morally justify themselves. And they do this by (1) turning homo-stuff into a huge moral cause. This doesn’t cost them anything since homos are eager to gain fame and fortune by serving the rich class (2) creating hysteria about ‘climate change’, whereby the elites around the world can get together and pontificate about how hard they are trying to ‘save the planet’ (3) excoriating the native majority of EVERY COUNTRY for marginalizing minorities; British elites judge and condemn poor British whites for not being nice enough to the Moos. By pulling out the “are you racist?” card, the British elites preempt any attempt by the poor whites who might bring up the issue of elite greed. It’s like what the Jews do: offense is the best defense; Jews, by screaming about ‘antisemitism’ and ‘white privilege’, preempt gentiles from raising questions about Jewish power, Jewish privilege, and Jewish wealth.
    The elites disenfranchise, exclude, neglect, and marginalize the native majority by accusing it of disenfranchising, excluding, neglecting, and marginalizing the ‘oppressed’ minorities.

    Merit and talent are wonderful things, but they are problematic to nationalism. Why? Because in any given society, only a tiny handful have high IQ and unique talents. Germans are smart people, but most Germans are not that smart. Only a small fraction of Germans are really good at arts, science, math, business, and etc. Same goes for any other nation. Japanese are seen as smart, but your average Japanese is an average Jotomo. So, if you’re a German with high talent, you would probably like to share ideas and thoughts with a Japanese with high talent than spend time with average Germans. After all, the best physicists around the world seek one another out. So, we have organizations where physicists from Germany, Japan, Israel, China, US, Russia, and etc come together. Both Oppenheimer and Sakharov had problems with nationalism. And the Chinee physicist Fang Lizhi or Zhili felt closer to abstract ideas of liberty than affiliation with nation and race.


    At film festivals, the most talented movie makers want to rub shoulders with one another and admire one another’s works. They know that most people in their own nation don’t give a shit about their works. People who care about Art Cinema is a small minority in every nation. So, such film-maker and critics and fans feel closer to one another than with most people of their nation.
    And we see the same thing in sports. Top athletes want to compete with and hang with the best around the world than hang with the average joes of their own nation.
    So, there is something about merit that goes against nationalism.

    Of course, nationalism can try to make use of merit. For example, every nation takes pride in how many gold medals it wins in the Olympics. But if indeed winning is SO GREAT, doesn’t it follow that nationalism is secondary to merit? If a Greek athlete wins a medal but the athlete of your nation loses, whom should you admire more and feel closer to? To the Greek winner for having won? Or should you still favor the athlete of your nation even if he lost simply because he is of your nation and tribe? While merit can boost nationalism when your side wins, it undermines nationalism when your side loses. If a white guy had whupped Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali, it would have done wonders for white pride and nationalism. But as black boxers whupped just about every white boxer, white guys felt either shame by association or figured they would favor merit over racialism and cheer for the Negro as the ‘better man’.

    There is the Crisis of Greatness in culture. Every people, nation, and culture seek greatness, but there is something about greatness that transcends and undermines the concepts of race, nation, and culture. After all, someone as great as Beethoven is more than a great German artist. He was a great world artist as his music can be admired by everyone around the world. Also, it raises the question: Was Beethoven primarily a German or a genius? If a German, then he has more in common with most Germans who are NOT geniuses. If primarily a genius, then he should be grouped together with all the other geniuses around the world regardless of their color, race, and etc. (The paradox of nationalism based on greatness of achievement–cultural or scientific–is that the greater a certain people are, the more universal their achievements are going to be. This sense of greatness makes the people want to forgo narrow nationalism and spread/share the culture with all the world and/or the rest of the world want access to the culture to draw inspiration from it. Both phenomena undermines nationalism. French are so proud of their culture that they see it as world culture that should and can be shared by all mankind.)

    Every race/nation may take pride in its number of geniuses through history, but as geniuses are rare in every people(even among Jews), it isn’t easy to identify a certain genius with a certain people. While every genius is a product of a certain race/nation/culture and represents/reflects its aspirations and themes, he also stands apart from his race/nation/culture because his talents are so unique and rare. Beethoven was a genius. Duke Ellington was a genius. Dylan was a genius. If we admire genius above all else, then it has a way of undermining nationalism. And we saw this problem with National Socialism’s claustrophobic attempt to turn genius into some kind of special property of a certain race, especially the ‘Aryans’. But in truth, many great German scientists and artists had great admiration for Jewish scientists and artists. They didn’t want to be pigeonholed simply as ‘German’ or ‘Aryan’ artists or thinkers. They were, of course, German and ‘Aryan'(for what it’s worth), but genius is always more than mere national or racial identity because, after all, most people of even the most intelligent race are not geniuses or anything special. Anyone who’s gone to a school full of Jews know that while Jews are, on average, smarter than other peoples, your average Jew isn’t anything special.

    Future belongs to high-tech, science, and such stuff. Every nation wants to be most powerful, and in this, nationalism is still a force in the world. But for a nation to gain the edge in the 21st century, it has to attract the greatest number of brains from around the world(outside the nation), and this is where US has a huge advantage. The sight of US elites favoring smart talents from all over the world may upset the white masses(and black masses as well), but from the perspective of US elites in government and business, it makes good sense cuz US will gain an edge by sucking up the smart people around the world. So, while a nation like Russia has great national themes of renewal and restoration, it suffers economically in areas of high-tech and science cuz it fails to attract the smartest from around the world.

    One reason why Jews are eager to bring in smart people from all over to the US is because Jews know that they will still remain on top. Sure, there are some very smart people from China, India, Latin America, and even Africa(as smart Negroes are spreading their genes like wildfire as Chanda the Negro said in his essay about the closing the IQ gap), but they are still not as smart as Jews, not as pushy as Jews. Also, Jews got the Holocaust card, so nobody better mess with their power.

    In the competition for the 1% that are geniuses, the 99% of us dummies doesn’t matter. The support for Sanders and Trump shows that many people in both parties feel left out and ‘marginalized’ by the New World Order. Of courses, it’s sort of surreal. Sanders the Jewish Socialist has the support of highly-educated upper-middle class whites while Trump the gentile billionaire has the support of less-educated lower-middle class whites. Funny that the richer whites like ‘socialist’ Sanders, and poorer whites like the ‘oligarch’ Trump. Only in America.
    Upper middle class whites are well-off but envious of the 1% that really has the goodies. And the lower middle class and working class whites are just confused and angry and grateful that someone like Trump is talking like a cross between Archie Bunker and Richie Rich. They feel like Little Orphan Annie adopted by the rich millionaire.

    Merit and meritocracy are good things. And one could argue that meritocracy is moral since it’s about rules and fair play. It’s about the best guy or gal winning in the competition. It goes against rigging. And it gives most people a chance. You can be born poor, but if you have talent, you can go from rags to riches. Or you can go from the hoods to playing in the NBA.
    That side of meritocracy is indeed moral. It is right as opposed to wrong.
    And the elites like to see themselves as deserving winners. They see themselves as having made it through intelligence, effort, and drive.

    But we often overlook the dark side of meritocracy. While meritocracy is moral within its realm of competition(favoring fair play as opposed to cheating or winning-by-connections), our admiration of merit can blindside us to the abuses perpetrated by the talented.
    In the 90s, CEOs were seen as like gods cuz they seemed so intelligent and talented in creating so many cool internet and energy companies. And indeed, many such people were very smart and capable. But our worship of them made us blind to the fact that smart and capable people who are adept can business can also be lowlife rotten pieces of shit.
    Or take college football. Colleges indeed recruit the best athletic talents from all around. It is indeed meritocratic. But in focusing on athletic meritocracy, colleges overlook other metrics such as academic which is what colleges are really supposed to be about. So, total idiots are allowed to ‘attend’ schools. Worse, some of these athletes are thugs and rapists. They truly win on the sporting fields through merit, but being superb at sports doesn’t mean you have good morals in social behavior. But because there is such admiration and demand for their merit in sports that the college authorities and fans are willing to overlook all the rotten behavior associated with black athletes.
    And take all the great actors, singers, movie stars, and creative people. Now, they have indeed succeed on merit as some people have special talents on stage, with instruments, with creativity and charisma. But that doesn’t mean they are good people. But because we are so enamored of the meritocracy of creativity and charisma, we are often blind to how vain, shallow, nasty, vicious, and even criminal some of these people are.

    So, while meritocracy is a moral principle, it can also undermine morality because it promotes the amoral nihilism of sheer ability and talent above all else.
    Bobby Fischer was a human shit all his life, but people cut him so much slack for so long simply because he was chess genius. Tiger Woods is a real shit, but the media just covered up for him over and over and over cuz he was winning so much and served as good posterboy of ‘post-racial America’. Meritocracy + Correctocracy is especially dead to true morality.

    Too often, Merit means never having to say you’re sorry. Consider all the Rock Stars who got away with so much shit simply because they were so talented and famous and popular.
    And it gets worse when meritocracy is combined with easy moral credits. Roman Polanski is a notable example. He did something sick and gross with a young girl, and he should have faced the court of law. But he was always protected because he is a genius filmmaker and because he’s Jewish. Not just any Jew but a Holocaust Survivor Jew. Now, we can all sympathize with Polanski’s horror as a baby during WWII, but using that as excuse for letting someone get away with a hideous crime surely besmirches the memory of the Holocaust. After all, invoking the Holocaust to rationalize crazy Zionist behavior in the Middle East has gotten rather sleazy.
    When Meritocracy mixes with Moralocracy(the idea that some groups are to be morally favored cuz of past tragedies), it leads to something like Sheldon Adelson who can say ‘NUKE IRAN’ but is still allowed to play a prominent role in US politics. Smart and rich Jews can now talk like Hitler and Himmler in the name of preventing another Holocaust(in a world where Israel has 300 nukes and Iran has none).

    Of course, anything can put moral blinders on us. Even morality can put moral blinders on us as any moral issue comes with righteousness, and righteousness always blinds people by making them feel so self-righteous. It’s like feminists covering up for Billy Boy Clinton in the 90s. Because he was morally kosher for being pro-feminist, he was given license to do things that would have appalled feminists. He could sexually harass people, use interns as whores, pull out his schlong to ‘Rhinestone Cowboy’, and act like Haven Monahan with his cigar.
    And commies like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao were given a lot of slack cuz their movements were supposedly highly moral in championing the oppressed classes against the rich exploitative capitalists and imperialists.
    And blacks are allowed go get away with so much due to moralocracy. Just look at this BLM silliness. Blacks cause the most trouble and violence in the US, but they are bitching about how they are poor victims of non-black violence. An age-old story: how easy it is to invoke morality to be immoral. Christians did it in the name of Jesus, blacks do it in the name of MLK, Malcolm X, and Tupac(as every rapper is now sainted as a poet and prophet).

    Among the globalist elites, the nihilism of meritocracy is a full-blown disease. As the competition is so stressed out in attracting the best talent, everyone is willing to sell their souls to be part of the game. Tim Cook is the face of this trend. Tim Cook is a very talented man but also a fruiter. Now, if a fruiter is talented, there’s nothing wrong with him rising up the ranks through meritocracy. But here’s the problem. The globalist elites made homomania into a new religion. We must all worship the Anus. And this quasi-religion is holy writ in elite colleges. So, if a corporation wants to attract the best talent, it must sign onto to every pro-homo agenda even if the corporate heads and many people in the firm find that stuff distasteful. Even free discussion of homosexuality must be shut down because the company might not attract the BEST TALENT if it is associated in any shape or form with ‘homophobia’. So, there goes freedom, there goes true morality.
    As the Jewish globalists who control media and academia have made homomania the new religion especially among the elites, no company can expect to attract top talents UNLESS it waves the homo banner. While homomania is sold as the New Normal and New Moral, true morality isn’t about caving to the demands of the globalist elites. True morality is about remaining true to one’s conscience.
    Granted, homomania can work against meritocracy. Suppose a brilliant engineer is fired or not hired because of his anti-homo views. It would be a loss to businesses. Even so, in a globalist culture where homo-worship is becoming such an absolute among elite institutions and industries, the chances are that most people of talent and intelligence have been won over to the cause because they’ve been indoctrinated in elite colleges where peers all reinforce each other’s views and ‘values’.

    Anyway, true morality isn’t possible without individual thought and freedom of conscience. But globalist competition forbids this because globalism mixes meritocracy with correctocracy. Correctocracy brainwashes elite-bound children from the cradle that they MUST think along such-and-such lines and never deviate from certain holy truths: Holocaust Worship, MLK worship, homo worship, diversity worship. So, the best talents and minds, the children of high IQ kids, are bound to be very correctological. So, if businesses around the world want to attract such people, they must sacrifice their own moral sense to appease the potential recruits.

    Suppose the owner of a certain company sincerely believes that ‘gay marriage’ is wrong. Now, he is open to hiring people of talent, even homos. But he still believes that true marriage should be preserved and not be perverted by the homo agenda.
    But if he were to express his sincere moral views, many talented people will not work for him. And then, his company will suffer. So, in order to attract the best talent, he must suppress his true moral views and pretend that he is okay with the abomination of ‘gay marriage’. Meritocracy, along with correctocracy, can thus destroy moral conscience and courage.

    Look around the world, and so many nations are now going along with the homo agenda. The homo-agenda-ists would like to say that they are making moral progress and becoming ‘more evolved’. It’s like the apes with the Monolith in 2001. In the 21st century, mankind is said to be more evolved if men worship before a giant sculpture of a homo anus. Why do all those nations sign onto homo agenda? Why are there homo parades in Georgia, Ukraine, Vietnam, etc.? It’s about the nihilism of meritocracy. As US has the most talented people and the most money, the poorer and/or more limited nations need to do business with the US. So, that means caving to the demand of the US empire. Homos and Jews are untouchable like black thug athletes in colleges. Their talents, connections, and power are so prized by elites around the world that their demands must be met and their abuses must be overlooked.
    Consider the abominable behavior of the Zuckerberg character in SOCIAL NETWORK. He was a total A-hole, but he could act that way since he knew he is smart and his ideas would be in demand by others. He could act like a jock geek and be above the rules that apply to most people.

    Now, some people may argue that correctocracy serves as a moral limit on the nihilism of meritocracy. And there is some truth to this.

    Consider THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Rand was into the nihilism of meritocracy. Not that she believed that people of intelligence and talent should be above the law. But she believed that conventional morals didn’t apply to them as their talent and ability needed a wide berth and creative space. They couldn’t be hemmed in by ‘bourgeois morals’ and ‘community values’. So, while she would have been appalled if such people kicked a dog or knocked down an old lady, she didn’t think Bedford Falls values(IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE) applied to such individuals.
    Roark is a visionary genius artist. He sees beyond what others see. He is like modern prometneus.
    Wynand is a maverick entrepreneur. Savvy and driven. Rand admires his intelligence and drive to succeed in life. And she doesn’t care how he makes his money as wealth has to be made by selling stuff to the masses, and the masses are a bunch of morons. So, Wynand sells tabloid trash to the masses and becomes ever richer. As far as Rand was concerned, the ONLY way to become rich is by selling the masses the crap they like.
    So, conventional morality doesn’t apply much to Roark or Wynand. Roark is all about genius and vision. He has no time for petty issues of right or wrong. The only thing that is right is his commitment to his vision, and talent is amoral.
    As for Wynand, he can’t bother about right or wrong. If he is to make money, he has give the masses what they want, and the masses want disposable crap. So, he makes his fortune by doing that.
    But here’s the problem. Roark cannot fulfill his vision cuz it’s too elitist and most people will not get it. He has the vision but not the dough.
    As for Wynand, he is able to make the dough but only by marketing crap to the masses.

    Anyway, Roark and Wynand discover that they have a symbiotic relationship. Wynand can make the dough by selling crap and then use the dough to fund Roark’s project of genuine eternal greatness. Maybe Rand picked this up form what Hollywood moguls did. They made the money by making dumb movies for the masses, but then they sometimes financed projects like CITIZEN KANE.
    Rand admired both Roark and Wynand cuz they were men of genuine merit.

    But she despised the masses as a bunch of hopeless dummies. Indeed, her lack of altruism was due to her low view of the masses. It’s not so much that she didn’t want to help the masses. She saw it as hopeless and pointless since most people are sheep and will never amount to anything more. Since they are dumb, why not just sell them stupid stuff and make money off them and then use that money to fund geniuses like Howard Roark? If there is to be altruism, it must be trickle-down altruism since the great achievements of geniuses will eventually improve the lives of the masses. After all, the fruits of science and technology achieved by geniuses do impact the lives of everyone around the world. Better for someone like Einstein to work on physics than in a soup kitchen ladling out soup to the poor.

    And this is why Rand had such a low opinion of the character of Toohey. Toohey appeals to the masses, but his appeal is moral. Wynand sees the masses as morons, and he is willing to sell them ANYTHING to rake in the bucks. In contrast, Toohey poses as a public moralist. Even though he works for a vulgar tabloid paper that gives people what they want, he dresses it up with pseudo-respectable paeans to morality and standards and responsibility and such stuff. Though a cynic interested only in power, he poses as a standard bearer of moral norms. And even though he despises the public as much as Wynand and Roark do, he pretends to lend an ear to their concerns(even as HE is the one who is manipulating their sense of righteousness and outrage). Now, Rand’s hostility to this character was partly due to her Jewishy anxiety. We see the same kind of negative portrayal of the moralist in David Mamet’s works like STATE AND MAIN and GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS. The Ed Harris character who bitches about the ‘working man’ is just sour cuz he can’t do as well as someone like the Alec Baldwin character. And the bald-headed goy who loses his girl in STATE AND MAIN makes a big fuss about right-and-wrong… but it turns out he was just looking for a piece of the action. Rand and Mamet figure goyim are dumber and get outplayed, so they turn to moralism as a crutch. And Mamet sees such behavior not just among whites but among blacks. And in OLEANNA, we see how PC is a crutch for the dimbulbs who can’t make the grade.

    But here’s the problem with such view. It is narrowly tribal and contemptuous. While it may well be true that the Boos(Negroes) are indeed too ghastly and nutty for any kind of social improvement, it would be wrong to just disregard most of humanity as just morons whose exist only to consume so that the Wynands of the world can make money off them and then fund geniuses like Roarks. (Funny, but the great tycoons of late seem to be funding ‘geniuses’ like Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, and the dreadful Frankenstein Gehry. And genius grants go to the likes of Tahenasty Coates.)

    While the Toohey character in THE FOUNTAINHEAD is indeed loathsome, a kind of Stalinist figure who exploits moral outrage to gain power by public opinion and bureaucratic triangulation, it is possible to conceive of a more responsible and genuine version of Tooheyism.

    Our world has a nasty version of Tooheyism in the form of Political Correctness.
    Indeed, PC is the one thing that can sometimes trump the power of the nihilism of meritocracy. We saw this with the Donald Sterling scandal. Sterling is like Wynand. He’s been a sleazy businessman with the smarts and instincts to make tremendous amounts of money. He got very far by being smart, savvy, ruthless, and clever.
    And as he threw his money around, he could get away with just about anything. Indeed, he even bought over the PC crowd by donating to NAACP and buying himself a couple of awards. But when what he said about black athletes came out, it was too much for even the nihilism of meritocracy to fix. He stepped on the Third Rail of Race, and nothing could fix that.
    So, one might rejoice that PC provides us with some moral absolutes that not even all the talent, money, and connections can overcome.
    And it is through PC that the underprivileged, poor, and ‘oppressed’ people can have some kind of leverage on power dynamics.

    But that would be false. PC is not a genuine moral system or moral value. It is not about individual conscience, truth, liberty, or sincerity. It is about dogma that must be accepted and obeyed without question by everyone. Also, even though PC speaks the language of ‘speaking truth to power’, it is essentially the tool of the Jews, the most powerful people, designed to silence, control, and intimidate any speech or language that might be challenging to the Jewish lock on power. Jews use PC mainly to stoke the fire of ‘white guilt’ over ‘white privilege’ so that whites will be too browbeaten to wake up and honestly criticize and challenge Jewish power(that is served by homos and shielded by ‘people of color’, all of whom have been programmed by Jews to hate white people, especially white males).

    But given the nihilism of meritocracy that favors intelligence, talent, and insider connections above all else in a world of degraded moral standards, the ordinary masses have less and less means of uniting and working for their interests. Since most people are not geniuses like Roarks or enterprisers like Wynand, Tooheyism is the only way they can gain any kind of power and be heard. Tooheyism as practiced in THE FOUNTAINHEAD is awful. Tooheyism as practiced in the form of PC is atrocious.
    But we need some kind of moral movement in order to challenge and counterbalance the nihilism of meritocracy.

    And by meritocracy, I don’t necessarily mean that today’s movies and music are stuff of genius. Indeed, most actors and filmmakers and singers are involved in making crap. So, what does it have to do with intelligence and ability? It’s because even garbage has to be packaged, produced, and executed with real talent and ability to be appealing to most people. While most movies and music are indeed crap, when we carefully observe how they’ve been put together, there’s no doubt that they are the products of lots of talent, top-notch production values, time, effort, and expertise. Take the Rihanna music video Umbrella. It is rather trashy and totally shallow, but it is a work of tremendous talent that turned a silly black woman-child into just about the most hot sizzling ho that ever be. It’s meaningless but we can see how that stuff is addictive like opium was to Chinese and meth is to poor white folks in small towns. Even so, that video is rated G-material compared to some other stuff out there. Much of our movies and music culture are demented and hideous. But a lot of talent go into making them appealing to the masses. It’s like Taylor Swift aint much as singer and personality. Her songs are mostly limp and flat. But there production values employing so much talent in sound engineering and video imagery is such that her stuff has a kind of pharmaceutical druggy effect on people. It’s like some people know TWILIGHT is a silly idea but done so impressively that they fall under its spell. Talent can even make trash look appealing, and the top companies hire the best talent to add golden sheen to even empty silly nonsense, like that sizzling hot ho Rihanna fiddling with an umbrella in that music video. Against such cultural forces, we need someone like the big mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN who done slapped her sassy daughter who think she so fancy and educated and have no need for God in her mama’s house. Or consider how Aunt Esther won’t take no crap from that no-good heathen Fred G. Sanford. Black community used to be much better when Tooheyist or Booheyist moralism had been a dominant factor in black culture.

    Those are positive manifestations of Tooheyism. However limited such may be, a genuine moral sense is the ONLY bulwark that the people have against the nihilism of meritocracy.
    Indeed, it was the absence of such among the masses that made ‘gay marriage’ law of the land. This nonsense was cooked up by the globalist elites, especially the Jews. In the past, when America was a more moral country with people like Pat Buchanan’s Pa, Archie Bunker, Brian Keith character in FAMILY AFFAIR, and Ralph Kramden, there was a sense of moral outrage about crazy trashy stuff. Whenever the elites tried to force on the masses, there was resistance cuz the masses had God and Country and Family and Church and Tradition and Community and stuff. Those were Tooheyist themes. Notice how Kramden doesn’t fall for that funny dance craze his wife is into.

    Tooheyism(the good solid kind of the Silent Majority) once protected America from stuff like ‘gay marriage’. But the cultural revolution of the 60s that put Pop Culture and then PC at the center of everything undermined moral values. Instead of deep moral values rooted in race, history, family, and church, we got fake moral values about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’. And as America became more shameless, people with talent kept coming up with stuff that degraded the morals of young people further.
    mudonna and Tarantino were good examples of this. Certainly not without talent but putting their talent to the use of moral degradation and nihilism. And as the culture got worse, famous athletes and celebs got more and more gross in their behavior. And talk shows degenerated into pig fests like Oprah and hog fests like Jerry Springer.
    It is no wonder that US had no defenses against something like ‘gay marriage’ and ‘Bruce Caitlyn Jenner’ winning ‘woman of the year’ award.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    , @utu
  37. @Art

    Gore Vidal used to say “There’s only one political party in America, the Money Party. It has two branches Republican and Democrat”.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  38. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Get help.

    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
  39. @Priss Factor

    In sum, you want to propagate nationalism so that the elites will reacquire a sense of noblesse oblige. Commies want to expropriate (without compensation) the elites – the transnational corporations and banks – and submit them to control by the working class.

    Why doesn’t the commie program make more sense?

    • Replies: @random observer
  40. utu says:
    @Priss Factor

    You write here really great stuff. I hope you are archiving it somewhere.

  41. annamaria says:


    Here is a Christmas gift for Hillary Clinton (she is of Christian faith, Methodist denomination): “…the West purposefully blamed the government of Bashar Assad for the August 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta that was used as part of the pretext to make US military intervention in Syria possible.”
    Mrs. Clinton (“We came, we saw, he died”) should have been excommunicated for her warmongering and crimes against humanity:

  42. annamaria says:

    actually, here we are, taking an openly undemocratic stance for the whole world to observe:

    “Pentagon refuses to share intel on ISIS until Moscow’s stance on Assad changes.” In other words, the US do not trust Syrian citizens and their ability to conduct democratic elections.

  43. Svigor says:

    Commies want to expropriate (without compensation) the elites – the transnational corporations and banks – and submit them to control by the working class.

    Of course, commies never actually manage to do that. Instead they give control over to whoever controls the working class (a group too large, diffuse, and uneducated to ever really run the show) – typically a new set of oligarchs.

    I mean, you’re not working class, are you?

    It never ceases to amuse me how commies feel free to propagate communism out in the open, despite the abominable record of communism. Never mind all the commie values (equalitarianism, blank-slatism, “anti-racism”), which, despite association with far more deaths than Nazism, never seem to suffer the taint of association the way Nazi values do (because oligarchs’ agenda lines up with commies’).

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  44. Thirdeye says:

    The true Left is still driven by economic justice and community issues. The lapdog “Left” that embraces identity politics and wheels and deals in the corridors of power is a sham. Massive immigration is opposed by true Leftists because it is exploitive economic policy, not because of some perceived threat to the precious whiteness of northern Europe or the USA.

    Derbyshire’s meme of the Romney vote being “pro white” and the Obama vote being “anti white” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read from a supposed intellectual. Romney’s economic proposals and track record were, with the exception of a privileged few, completely anti white in an objective sense. The “pro white” Romney vote among stupid fat southern whites was anti black while supporting a candidate that worked against their objective interests. Identity politics is as much of a dead end for whites as it is for any other group.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  45. The true Left is still driven by economic justice and community issues.

    Balderdash. The true left is driven only by its dreams of naked unanswered power. That’s why nobody on your side believes in freedom of speech or free elections.

    The most vivid display of leftist policy in recent years was during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Poor soldiers raped rich women left, right, and center. The redistribution of sexual wealth.

    • Replies: @5371
  46. @Svigor

    Never mind all the commie values (equalitarianism, blank-slatism, “anti-racism”…)

    …Negroes and white men living on the same continent…

  47. stupid fat southern whites

    The leftist contempt for the working man is rarely this open. At least around here.

  48. 5371 says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    [The most vivid display of leftist policy in recent years was during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Poor soldiers raped rich women left, right, and center]

    Yes, and unplugged incubators full of babies, as I remember ))

  49. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Because the working class as they imagined it was transnational and multiracial.

    In the present condition of the world, it would still mean the extinguishing of any national identities.

  50. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Like if you are enjoying online within your personal pc, then you need to use browsers such as Firefox, Google chrome, safari, etc .

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS