In the late 1800’s – early 1900’s, Protestant groups were infiltrated by two insidious schisms. The first was what we refer to today by the oxymoron “Christian Zionism”.
This was a subterfuge by the zionist Jews including Harold Untermeyer who put up the convicted embezzler Cyrus Scofield with his “notes� to the King James Version of the Bible in which they reached back to the unscriptural dispensational nonsense of Charles Darby and by twisting the scriptures for people that don’t bother to read it for themselves, the heresy of “israel and the rapture� was invented to lay the ground work for this crypto-jewish fraud that has pumped millions of dollars and votes into the khazar jew scam.
Since the jews control the media and have lots of money to buy off crooked gentiles, this religious scam is now wide spread having really got going with the religious con-man Jerry Falwell who was bought off just like jewmerica’s politicians. T.V. “evangelism� are full of these shills including Pat Robertson, and fat pig John Hagee with his mega church for israel.

These kinds of elderly white boomers just LOVE jews, they treat jews like a mascot who they can cheer for.

More like they are the mascots of the Jews.

Everyone who reads the Unz Review should spend some time on FreeRepublic.com. It used to be the biggest conservative website. It’s full of elderly white protestant evangelicals, mostly from the deep south and rural areas, who love jews and who are christian zionists. These kinds of elderly white boomers just LOVE jews, they treat jews like a mascot who they can cheer for. The attitude is like “jews are OUR pet minority, since the ‘libruls’ have the blacks.” They are proud to be Israel First and often cite Dispensationalist “End Times” zionist-theology when discussing any issue having to do with foreign policy. For example, they support destroying Russia because Russia is “anti-semitic.”

There is a huge block of older white evangelicals who are hardcore and deeply committed philo-semites and jewish supremacists. Many of these people have heard white nationalist ideas and explicitly reject them. They often had relatives when they were young who were white nationalists or were exposed to WN material over the years and they don’t agree with us about anything. They are passionaately committed to multi-racialism. They are passionately opposed to white ethnocentrism. What’s so strange is that they are in their 70’s and 80’s now and still think this way.

Excellent article–in fact, instant classic–by Jung-Freud.

Kanye is 100% right. I am really sick of pious, sanctimonious Jews telling us what we can and cannot do. I have no problem with those who leave me the hell alone (the so-called “self-hating” Jews.) If that makes me an anti-Semite, so be it.

I came here prepared to criticize excessive verbiage, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that this writer is capable to sticking to a coherent thesis and getting his point across in less than 2000 words. This is an improvement over previous columns under the same byline.

American Conservatism=The National Review=The Homosexual Pederast Review=Ronnie Reagan’s Whitehouse….

American Conservatism:

1. Oppose any increase in the minimum wage (the floor of all wages).

2. Decrease taxes on the wealthy (the real wealthy).

3. Continue to bad-mouth Social Security (though be smart enough not to oppose it directly).

4. Unlimited immigration (just bad mouth those coming on their own – they must be shackled to an employer).

5. Find magic “minorities” like footballer Herschel Walker to front them.

6. Give out cryptic “dog whistles” about “those people” without any action about it at all.

7. Oppose abortion until they need it (hint: Herschel Walker).

8. Giggle like third rate actor Ronald Reagan at opposing views.

9. EMBRACE any and all wars.

10. Enlist untalented celebrities like Arnold “Roids” Schwarzenegger and “Dr.” Oz.

“Hence, there is no human ethnic group that exhibits ethnic nepotism.”

Single dumbest sentence ever posted on Unz.

Also altruism is the wrong paradigm. Altruism is about sacrificing, laying down your life, etc. Giving your life for twenty six percent chance to save your nephew etc.

The father isn’t ‘sacrificing’ anything so all these ideas about some ‘altruism allele’ are silly. All things being equal, he wants baby carrying more of his genes. That is true if she breeds intra race. It’s that easy.

No ‘self sacrificing allele’ necessary.

From another angle: we all have these in-group/out-group genes for both recognition and affinity. They may not apply in a very safe environment of abundance, or when we’re with a subgroup with whom we feel even more unity (e.g. high IQs may feel more feel more affinity with each other vs. dumbs than they feel for their own race, but this is just another form of group selection or grouping on a clearly genetic trait)

Groups or peoples that didn’t have these instincts to group together and punish shirking went extinct pretty quickly. See: all of human history. And every person’s natural instincts (every person who is within a racial grouping…).

Is it possible a few people evolved to ‘shirk’? Yes, but a huge amount of human psychology is recognizing and punishing shirking, and tribes that were cowardly and prone to shirking…you guessed it, went extinct.

You can’t dismiss group selection when the bulk of human history is group warfare and group conquering. These events were the single biggest shifts in genes.

You seem to forget most genes have immense pleiotropy and the same for cognitive systems/traits. People who don’t ally with their group may not ally as necessary to even cooperate day to day and pass on their individual genes. People who shirk get shunned and may have not found a mate. See: most conversation among group members is most often gossip meant to detect shirking.

So this ideas that the shirking, ‘go at it alone’ allele is adaptive is silly. It gets punished brutally day to day in any small community or tribal setting. It may work in rare cases of anonymity that didn’t exist for most of history but over most of history group ties, group loyalty and low shirking (or very smart shirking) were necessary.

Do we have to group by “race”? No. It could be by any phenotype that seems relevant but for a lot of people the closest thing they can spot (and they’re mostly right according to DNA) is race.

Jayman:

Love your work but this is all hopelessly naive.

The entire history of humanity is genocide. Point blank. From a few million years of evolution only a couple branches from a couple hundred thousand years ago survived. War and conquering have been a constant even in recent millennia and centuries. It formed many of the races (Hispanics, Thais, Vietnamese etc. all were mostly X’s from indigenous and Y from conquerors from the north or across the ocean as the case may be).

Watch a few of those videos of empires over the past 10,000 years and the shift in territories. Look at WWII and Germans reuniting ethnic German territories, killing Jews, Jews plotting to kill Germany and all Germans in retaliation, etc.

We have strong genes to defend and fight for our race, because most of these major battles were between people that looked and acted different than we. It’s remarkably easy to spot the difference between dozens of ethnic sub-groups if you’ve done any traveling. And there’s no doubt those of us who aren’t a blend of everything feel when people share or don’t share our genes.

The fact that you’re a unique mix of every race may mean you love (or are strategically willing to ally with) every race and makes for uniquely insightful writing on HBD, but it also means you have no understanding of most people’s psychology.

As to specific theoretical arguments made, a lot of comments and a basic chart of PCA debunks these. We can very quickly tell those with whom we share genes, and historically when there was conflict or overcrowding people group up that way. It’s very obvious who on the tribe shirks war and who fights for their tribe/race etc. Desertion wasn’t treated any more hospitably before 10,000 bce.

And tribes / sub-races / groups that weren’t willing to fight or perhaps were less group conscious lost every time to those with more power and unity.

The whole of human psychology is based extremely strongly on in-group/out-group morality. Look at any religion. There is a reason groups and peoples with the religious, group-forming impulse survived to pass on their writing and genes. And the other groups went extinct. SEE: Old Testament. History of Islam. Any form of history.

Cute theory. But when it goes against all of human religion, impulse, psychology, and history, then maybe it’s time to admit it’s nothing more than a cute theory.

If I knew how to contact a YouTube content provider I wouldn’t be here. To quote Q think logically.

Is this related with that Milton Wolf guy who ran for Sen in your state a few years ago?

crf, if you are a Fed, try harder (if you are a Russian, ask Vlad about the waifu I was promised). If it's genuine, it only helps the Dems. Power is the only principle, just ask the Anti-White New York Times.

This comment has been removed by the author.

This comment has been removed by the author.

This is one mighty fine blog. Kudos to you, AE.

Here's hoping that Kobach will crush Colyer.

Liberty Mike

I live in Lawrence, Kansas. I too will be voting for Kobach.

Next Tuesday I will be Voting for Chris Kobach as will most of us in this Red flyover state.

I'm normally more forgiving than you lot regarding physiognomy, but come on. Look at his face. Just spread pictures of his face. How does someone who looks like that get elected to dogcatcher, even?

Who the hell calls himself a humanitarian? That's freakin' weird.

I think he hired illegals to put up his signs along the roads out here. Nobody I talk to while going door-to-door is a supporter. Colyer is purely counting on the ACLU and Soros to carry his water.

If this "white privilege" was real, Sarah Jeong would have fled into exile. Instead she's granted the keys to the kingdom in the New York Times editorial board.

Any GOP politician that ever talks with an NYT reporter should be mentally disemboweled. Trump should ban them from the Press Room until Pinch grovels publicly and promises to no longer be anti-white.

Education attainment for girls unlike the cartoon actually will extinct those who participate in it. Returning it somewhat to the low education norm language, arithmetic and homemaking skills or aversion to it from the female sex.

So this cartoon is inaccurate that our current educational system is sustainable. Given the superior alternatives of apprenticeship and classical education.

AE,

A good example is the UK after WW1, which was in hock to the US. That is why Ireland got independence. If President Wilson had avoided his stroke, he might have won a third term and forced total de-colonization of all European empires.

Xi Jinping could in theory force Israel off of the Golan and the West Bank, simply by threatening to dump the PRC's US treasuries. A future PRC leader might be the 21st Century Louis XVI and give us REDexit.

The Pentagon is full of globalist traitors. They think it's "racist" to keep America a mono-cultural and mono-ethnic country. They really do believe the swill about America being beacon of shining values that ought to be the capitol of the world.

Clearly the generations who gave us this crap were only able to do so in the context of the post-WW2 economic boom. Everybody started to question a lot of this in the 1970's, when we weren't building McMansions or anything stupid like that. Resource scarcity breeds realism and tribalism. But after that brief period of wokeness, we went right back to Kumbaya horse shit in the 80's and if anything it seems to get worse with every passing year, though as usual an economic down turn in the early 90's got people's heads briefly out of their asses.

The globalist fools are passing "America" around like the town slut It no longer means anything to be "American", with use of this tribal marker being so indiscriminate and we have effectively abdicated any measures to insure the cultural and demographic stability of this country.

Late 1980's: Politicians, for the first time since perhaps the early 20th century, openly began to voice concern for immigrants in America. Reagan, who remained popular in immigrant magnet CA well into the 80's, genuinely believes that an immigration Amnesty during the go-go days of 1986 will benefit natives and immigrants alike, as the authorities promise to punish employers who hire illegals. Befitting the elite favored trends of the time, this punishment never materializes and Latin Americans continue to stream over the border, while those who flew over to the US on various kinds of visas habitually over-staty their legal residence and often never bother to check in with authorities or work to get full citizenship.

Early 1990's: after the 1990 recession, many out of work native born Americans start to notice how many foreigners are roving about, often on the public dole, not paying taxes, and over-crowding neighborhoods. The DEMOCRATS , on a national level, display more concern for native workers than the GOP does. On a state level, a variety of CA politicians on the Right and the Left promise to reform immigration so that natives get a fairer shake. CA's voters vote to deny illegals most forms of public funding, which a judge eventually overturns and CA doesn't challenge the ruling (by the time they could have done so in about 1997, the economy was on the upswing and the GOP wanted to shake the perception that the GOP was the white party, even though native born whites and blacks in 1990's California were heavily against the practice of illegals on public subsidies). Immigration levels remain at historic levels in 1990-1992, then after Clinton is elected, the cheap labor lobby and the Pentagon decline in influence. So immigration levels decline moderately from 1993-1997.

Late 90's: the economy has been humming since 1993, nativism declines yet further, immigration levels go back up. Elites in both parties now increasingly less concerned about prole American natives., and more convinced that America is country that's beyond a trad. economy, and that the world is borderless.

Early 2000's: Bush elected, does well with TX Hispanics. Pentagon now at it's all time high of influence and popularity. Globalism begans to run amok, as Western elites become openly contemptuous of their constituents. Never ending wars start. This is basically where we are still at, although the election of Trump indicated that people are done with the corporate-military industrial complex, which will either allow itself to be reformed or will likely destroy whatever is left of our society.

? on the Pentagon increasing immigration levels? Was this bureaucratic subversion by Wes Clark style generals that kept the NG off the border? Or was it intentional recruitment of non-citizens to enlist?

What happened?

1960's and 70's: The Pentagon was at a (momentary) collapse in influence and popularity. Genuine refugees did make it to America in the 60's and 70's, often because the US genuinely wanted to rescue people from communist countries. So that's why most immigrants came from Asia and Latin America. Immigrants were vetted much better back then, too, and their numbers weren't very large. The economic difficulties of the late 60's and 70's made people unsympathetic to business owners crying about labor costs.

Early 1980's: Reagan is elected, then re-elected in a historic vote of confidence for private enterprise and against government regulation. The US and various NGO's sponsor "refugee" legislation designed to bring in large waves of immigrants from all over the globe into America. California and Texas see large communities of foreigners established, as the government encourages the creation of ethnic enclaves regardless of how natives feel. The economic booms of the period stave off any nativist backlash, and besides, outside of CA, TX, FL, and the urban Mid-Atlantic there still are relatively few foreigners visible. The Pentagon also get it's mojo back, and encourages high levels of immigration so as to have a bigger supply of foreigners from which to solicit globalist oriented work (e.g., older male relatives of the Boston Bombers and Omar Mateen turn out to be on the government payroll), naturally many of these foreigners are grifters making a fool out of Uncle Sam (e.g., lining their pockets for ostensibly helping the US gain greater access to foreign governments and leaders).

Late 1980's: Politicians, for the first time since perhaps the early 20th century, openly began to voice concern for immigrants in America. Reagan, who remained popular in immigrant magnet CA well into the 80's, genuinely believes that an immigration Amnesty during the go-go days of 1986 will benefit natives and immigrants alike, as the authorities promise to punish employers who hire illegals. Befitting the elite favored trends of the time, this punishment never materializes and Latin Americans continue to stream over the border, while those who flew over to the US on various kinds of visas habitually over-staty their legal residence and often never bother to check in with authorities or work to get full citizenship.

Feryl,

? on the Pentagon increasing immigration levels? Was this bureaucratic subversion by Wes Clark style generals that kept the NG off the border? Or was it intentional recruitment of non-citizens to enlist?

The Right should be demanding the closure of the military academies, which function as excuses for taxpayer funded sportsball teams and are now producing people like that Communist Lt. Rapone exposed a few months ago. The physical structures could be used for OCS.

The farm subsidies lobby is also one of the worst offenders, exploiting the traditionalist's romanticism about rural life. Meanwhile the population becomes obese while a million illegals are doing farm jobs that could be filled by either automation or higher wages to citizens. Food imports from the Third World should not be tariffed. This would provide an alternative to emigration for poor rural farm workers.

"I don't see any infighting on the left. They learned their lesson from '16."

That's kinda what I mean; the Left is gradually shifting away from neo-liberal and Pentagon apologism, while the Right desperately clings to these ideologies as though they can't conceive of a change in identity. This is where the much-derided "principle" stuff gets in the way. The Right wants to be loyal to a certain set of "values", and feels dirty about doing what it takes to win and stay relevant. Thus the constant defeatist rhetoric about packing up to the mountains and getting away from the sick culture of Millennials, minorities, and urban yuppies. Funny thing though is older generations and whites presided over record high crime rates, drug use rates, etc. when they were younger. A lot of older conservatives are deeply in denial of their own problems, and they seem to project their own failures onto young people and non-whites.

Refusing accountability and refusing to change, the Right is due to be shellacked in the next several decades. Also, telling California, or urbanites, or whatever boogeyman to get lost smacks of scapegoating. The older/traditionalist/white Right has screwed so much stuff up at this point, it's not as though giving them their own separate society will do a whole lot. The cuck Right will always create societies with military excess and a non-existent safety net that produces tons of homeless and sick people. When has any modern Pentagon ass-hat talked about saving underclass Americans? They say we need to liberate whatever country from some barbaric warlord, while so many Americans are sick, impoverished, and dying. Then of course there's the Pentagon boosting immigration levels in the 80's and 2000's, when such boosts self-evidently contributed to poverty among lower income Americans.

It's still not the cold war, though; in 1980 100% of Republicans considered Russia to be an enemy, while upwards of 80-90% of Democrats did.

Another encouraging trend is the Independent number. Over 1/3 of Independents don't identify Russia as "the enemy", and partisan leanings decline with younger voters.

Russia doesn't meddle with foreign elections like the US does, Russia didn't renege on treaties first, the US/NATO did. Russia doesn't have 1/20 the military footprint that the US does.

Ultimately, I feel that it's aging Leftists most likely to buy into aggressive posturing towards Russia on the basis of supposed meddling and/or Putin's lip service to Christian values, while aging Righties are nostalgic for the Cold War and want to revive it….Just because.

Caution towards militarism is much more common among younger voters. We grew up with the Mid-East atrocities overseen by the Bushes, and are very much familiar with the concept of "blow-back", as Bin Laden among others was initially funded and trained by the West. Older voters can rationalize Pentagon pork by continuing to fantasize about us kicking HItler's ass…..But hey, it looks like the US itself has indeed become a "Great Satan" by deliberately sowing chaos and discord in a region that's always primed to be volatile, that region being the Middle East and Africa.

If we managed to fuck so much stuff up in the third world, than how are we gonna exactly take on Mother Russia?

I have a feeling that most Millennials are profoundly ashamed of Pax American, and attempts to boost further military adventures will eventually face a severe backlash among younger Americans. And if the culture changes enough, perhaps older adults will finally start to sympathize with younger generations being pointlessly slaughtered. Back in the 60's older people didn't turn their back on younger people, they actually were quite opposed to Vietnam expansion. These days Boomers are far too willing to adopt belligerent rhetoric; sure some Millennials are bitter about Putin, but do they want shots fired or missiles launched? No.

Feryl,

I don't see any infighting on the left. They learned their lesson from '16. Trump can only survive a Dem Congress, if he can get the GOP to vote for Tulsi Gabbard as Speaker with the help of the Dem Progressive Caucus. Otherwise he will be impeached, and the Senate will overwhelmingly vote for removal.

Trump (and the Freedom Caucus) should offer the Dems single payer healthcare and the elimination of Citizens United; in exchange for the RAISE Act and the border wall.

If this country is headed towards Balkanization, and I believe that insurrection is almost certain by 2030; we will need both the moral legitimacy of State Governors and the guns of the Russian Army.

Killing the new B-21 bomber and the new SSBN might prove beneficial for the Right's long-term interests.

Feryl,

If you read Texiera's entire four articles, he makes a lot of hay bashing fossil fuels and supporting Bullet Train style infrastructure. Destroying the coal industry was a loser in 2008, but in 2020 it will be a winner. We should be demanding Made in the USA windmills and solar panels, and make sure that Elon Musk doesn't get a monopoly. We should also be slashing the Defense budget in half, and building a Japanese 500 km/h maglev.

The GOP has squandered any attempt to get more black votes, thanks to Richard Spencer's Great Adventure and the failed attack on Colin Kapernick & co. Boomercons haven't bailed on sportsball, and the muni bond tax breaks were saved thanks to Paul Ryan.

The "woke capitalism" of the neoliberals will only survive if the Right is tricked into maintaining it. Otherwise the Sanders-Corbyn trans-socialists will destroy it.

"As I've said before, we are going to need help from Russia"

The elites of both parties have destroyed any opportunity for meaningful alliance with Russia. Either we wait for elites to run this country into the ground, or we organize and apply pressure to boot the assholes out before it's too late.

Russia tried, within reason and context, to get along with us, but over the last 5 or so years the Pentagon elite in particular has been itching to revive the cold war. Why? to keep up the delusion that America is the good guy (as compared to who else?) and ought to "vigorously" pursue "it's" interests everywhere. Well, it seems to me that the Pentagon is far more concerned about continuing investments in programs and ideologies which make money for a class of arrogant Western fat cats who need to take a hike, than it is in doing what's in our best long-term interests.

We certainly are overdue in reforming the excess of worthless pigs feeding at the trough. Doing things primarily or entirely in the absence of money-driven motives is how things ought to be done.

A rising number of Leftists are calling out Dems for being too nice to crooked-ass elites. While the Right cries in it's beer about it's inability to wake it's elites up. Leftists know that eventually, head are gonna roll. First it'll be the gutless GOP, then it'll be the corporate whore Dems who go too easy on corrupt elites. Then when we've got more populist champions in elite quarters we can then get crackin' on nailing corrupt elites, fining them, taking their assets, putting them in jail, maybe even publicly humiliating or beating them. Whatever it takes.

We went from even the GOP giving us presidents who made sure elites didn't get too big for their britches (Eisenhower and Nixon), to Obama not bothering to significantly punish any wall street house or player for their fraud and greed.

Since the Right has it's "principles" of order and decorum, they usually are more difficult to rile up and motivate to action….Collective action esp. The Right always downplays the group and emphasizes the individual…No wonder the Right sucks at getting things done.

Only after voters told the GOP to fuck off in the 20 year long FDR-Truman era, during which prosperity was established, did voters become more willing to give the GOP a chance, and they elected Eisenhower, who invested in infrastructure and cracked down on Mexicans. When a lot of things seemed to sour around 1970, the public began to turn away from the Dems, although frankly neither party was very popular in the 70's. Then the economy picked up under Reagan, and a fair number of people born before the 1970's became convinced that GOP econ. policies were wonderful…..But good luck getting younger people, who aren't marrying or buying houses, to grasp that. And Democrat Boomers know the con that's been played by supply siders for decades, and they aren't buying it any time soon.

" Democrats will never lose. The last GOP Senator in a West Coast state was elected 16 years ago. The last GOP Senator in NY, 1992. NJ, 1972."

Yeah, and the shitferbrains GOP was much more enthusiastic about high immigration levels in the 70's and 80's than old school Dems could ever dream of being.

Nixon and Reagan thought that anti-big gubmint sentiment out West was so strong that it could sustain floods of people from the 3rd world. The GOP focused heavily on the South and West after WW2, where the belief was that newly developed areas heavily reliant on the Pentagon, and lacking a history of urban ethnic political machines, could form an electoral redoubt from which to launch an assault on the "Eastern elite".

Fact: The GOP's addiction to growth for growth's sake plays much better in rural areas. In heavily developed and resource scarce areas (such as the Northeast and the West Coast), people hunker down and furrow their brows. What are conservatives so optimistic about, anyway? They think. During the economic recessions of the 1930's and 1970's, the GOP was about as popular as leprosy.

High immigration levels contribute to low wages and higher housing costs. In theory, that ought to make people more "conservative", but in reality, the sting of expensive living steers people towards the party that dominates urban and expensive areas, where people have a highly defensive mentality about getting something that's hard to get and then defending it. The Southern US, the Great Plains, and much of the inland West are still so undeveloped and cheap that the GOP can still do well in these places.

The GOP ultimately will always place the interests of moderately educated professionals and business owners ahead of what's in the best interests of proles. Since the use of cheap immigrant labor is regarded as a patriotic right by cuck inc. and a means to run a better workplace, then poof, there goes drastic measures to halt immigration (such as imprisoning elites who use cheap labor). At best, GOP'ers will limit the most brain dead and dangerous kinds of immigrants from entering; but in their bones they know that a full immigration moratorium such that we had in the 30's-50's would, wait for it……..Re-create the FDR era of the proud organized AMERICAN worker….GAAHH!

Moderate Trump voters in the old-school organized labor belt of the Northeast, Eastern Midwest, and Appalachia (the most proleish part of the South) knew that Trump wasn't' a "typical" Republican, so they thought, "maybe this guy doesn't buy into the horseshit about business owners and the Pentagon being the real patriots". Well gee whiz, it turns out that the GOP ain't about to allow its entire image and reason for being get whollly replaced by Trump, who mauled the the cynicism of the Right elite on the campaign trail.

AE,

All it takes is one more mass shooting, especially if it "hits the high score", and society will trip over itself to end the Constitution. The Deep State will quickly see to winding up a psychopath if it doesn't happen out of normal chaos.

If the NRA was trying to win the PR battle, they would have been splicing their rhetoric with the fact that Chinese state media is loudly calling for a US gun ban.

I don't see any violence happening unless several state Governors decide to resist. There won't be any "sanctuary laws" allowed for gun owners.

As I've said before, we are going to need help from Russia.

Continued from 6:55

Our bicoastal metropolitans are at a similar point to the ANC in South Africa. No matter what they do, the Democrats will never lose. The last GOP Senator in a West Coast state was elected 16 years ago. The last GOP Senator in NY, 1992. NJ, 1972.

We are now faced with a moderate white male former Governor in TN, that might well be the next Doug Jones.

A Dem Congress means Trump will be impeached, and an Australia-style gun confiscation will follow shortly after the grant of citizenship to any willing Third World invader.

The federal courts threw out Prop 187 in California, and if the recent case in Massachusetts means anything, they will uphold a gun ban.

We need a strategy of economic disengagement. Violence only works when you have the state monopoly.

https://twitter.com/peterjhasson/status/982406169401679872

Interesting link to an article promoted by Twitter Oligarchs Dorsey and Williams, regarding the oncoming trainwreck that is the GOP in 2018 and 2020.

https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/the-great-lesson-of-california-in-americas-new-civil-war-e52e2861f30

Disregarding their techno-boosterism, I can't find much to disagree with regarding Texiera's conclusions. We cannot vote our way out of this mess.

And we can never accept as legitimate Democrat Congress and President for Life Kamala Harris.

Self-Determination

Long game. Not for anyone over 30, or over 4000 or so. Of course never trust the kids, or the gods.

That shite will get you sort of killed, but not enough to matter to the scribes. Maths is hard.

I'm going to give an example of the unification of the urgent and the long game, using the current action Trump has taken by comandeering the National Guard to, finally, perform the most important function of the US Federal Government: Defend US Territory.

This creates an immediate exigency. The most important _material_ and _immediate_ impact of this isn't that it stems the flow of illegal immigrants, and it isn't even that it stems the flow of illegal activities per se. It is that the illegal activities it stems cuts off deep state black market cashflow to which it has become addicted in its relationship with international organized crime. Without that cashflow, the addicts will become irrational — and I don't mean the opiate addicts, although that is a possibility. I mean the deep state bad actors and their criminal networks. In that situation they can be made to defect against each other and expose the cancer that has metastasized in the body politic.

This is a dangerous time — far more dangerous than people realize.

So, shall we all run around like chickens with our head cut off in anticipation of an impending Civil War, sell off our houses and buy guns and to hell with the long game?

Many would like to portray me as advocating just that — and they do — so as to prevent my message from being heard:

Organize locally in "the short game", think globally in "the long game".

A _very_ simple example:

All young men who identify with the nation of settlers in the US should be volunteering for service as sheriff deputy reservists NOW.

This prepares for immediate crisis situations _and_ it positions them in the wider community for the long game, including politics. The most important next step is a very strategic political play but is most visibly economic: Before Christmas time, the deputy reserves should issue a local, county currency for human services to needy families. Various human services organizations in the county should be admonished to accept the currency in majority if not full payment. The county government should then be admonished to accept the county currency for up to 10% of property tax liability. The reservists should then ask to be reimbursed for their volunteer service, by the county government, in the county currency. This is the seed crystal for greater local autonomy based on a monetary system backed by property rights guaranteed by the young men who are compensated by economic rent.

In the posted photo, in addition to McCain and Hillary, Elizabeth Warren and John Kerry are also visible. A clean sweep!

Insurance investments must divide resources against multiple outcomes to form a rational portfolio. The long game and the urgent game are on a spectrum of games. Nor is this pedantry. When seeking the Pareto Frontier in a multi-objective optimization, it's important to keep in mind that some investments work both in the short and the long game. Keep your eyes wide open for those in preference to unnecessary division of resources. But before you can do that, you have to be open to divided resources so you can realize the appearance of unifications.

The blacks of the early-mid 80s, were *mostly* presently to us as non-threatening types like Arsenio, In Living Color, Cosby, A Different World, Kid n Play, RunDMC, Michael Jackson, Mr.T w/ Nancy Reagan, Sinbad, etc., there was not a lot of NWA, Biggie Tupac until a little later on, starting in the late 80s-early 90s.
It was mental programming for us white, older GenXers or even the young tail end Boomers. They slowly turned it into more and more degenerate, drug fueled, gang banging,viewing.
Culture jamming works.

The thing people don't really get about drugs is that they are used to persuade the borderline LGBTWTF to relax and join the poz squad, when they would have straightened up eventually without the chemical assistance. When homosexuals have influence at the elite level, tolerance for drugs becomes part of the culture. The religious right never really put this all together and the left wouldn't have listened anyway.

Sincerely educated strivers are anti-gay because they want to be fairly credited for the grades they earned in school instead of screwed over in their career path by nepotism and cronyism based identity groups. When universities become controlled by perverts and the best students don't get the best jobs, the culture is lost.

AE,

The image of a ship moving towards an iceberg is superb. But I would say that conservative pundits are there to not just laze around, but also justify the crash after it happens. Gay marriage is the epitome of Judeo-Christian values! Nixon was actually being a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL when he launched the Drug War, and the REAL conservative view was to legalize drugs! The Founding Fathers structured the Constitution to one day bring about transgendermania, so only now is their vision being realized!

In a Panglossian fashion, the cucks will tell people freezing to death in the ice water that the ship had always been meant to crash into the iceberg.

Feryl,

I never got past the first book/movie, but I've read Steve Sailer's reviews and comments about them. I think one commenter said that Harry Potter's appeal lies in how it presents academic hierarchy and authority as being good and just.

The good guys do well in school or at least put their all into it. The powerful figures like Dumbledore have earned their authority by rising through the academic hierarchy.

This really appealed to Millennial overachievers and to Nice White Lady Boomers. Growing up, there were always a certain number of highly conscientious Millennial females who did well with the make-work they would give you in school. You know, the types who loved student council. School was a total institution for Millennials, unlike Boomers and X-ers, so the ones who really enjoyed the groupthink and tasks of school found their love fully validated in Harry Potter.

The Nice White Ladies (Boomers) also loved the books because it justified their worldview and career choices. Those were the two demographics that seemed to eat those books up.

But right, I don't think it had any appeal for X-ers. I am certainly no X-er, but I always found school to be boring, and less about acquiring information and challenging your beliefs than about getting all of the forms and paperwork done in the right manner.

I agree with you regarding fantasy and the need for more than just fire. Conan the Barbarian (1982) is one of my all-time favorites, and it inspired me to read the original stories written by Robert E. Howard. On a personal level, those stories would then help me accept HBD in high school, because race realism was such a core part of the stories, and they had everything a teenaged shitlord-in-the-making could want.

I have little doubt that if Robert E. Howard has been born 80 years later, he would today be a force in the alt-right and would be forming a creative wing that is still lacking in the movement. He would be rocking Twitter while pounding out redpilled ebooks of fictional yarns.

Kids have some nasty habits, but they don't just come up. The 1980s was the high point for black "cool". Mr. T and Eddie Murphy. Bad manners were seen as cool and hip back then. Fuddy Duddies were portrayed as well mannered and that old canard of being "square". You don't want it square, man. You have to cheat to win. The Third World was played up as the future and Whiteness and Rules were the "uncool" things.
Like the "false consensus", all these things were dropped into these kids by the "programming". The media even calls it "programming". The Boob Tube is a Dangerous Thing. That lying box induces alpha waves to drop into subconscious levels. The lies seep right into the lizard hindbrain. It goes right past your superego and plays with your ego and id. It drops and ships bad habits straight into your inner programming. It really does "PROGRAM" you.
Today you see people with their eyes GLUED to their smartphone. That mind control has gone a long way. The alternating waves of the screen are hypnotic. Hypnos in your phones and screens. Ever see that movie "Videodrome"? Its more real than you imagine. Its based on a Real Life Guy. Marshall McLuhan.

https://www.themetropolistimes.com/the-metropolis-times/2015/01/10/your-changing-body-videodrome-and-marshall-mcluhan/

https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-movie-videodrome-and-the-horror-of-mass-media/

Ralph Fiennes, who plays a big role in the Harry Potter movies and whose career didn't take off until he was in his 30's in the mid 1990's, is likely a closet poofer. He's gaunt, has dead eyes, has no children, and was only briefly married in the mid 1990's (when he got a beard so as to reassure Hollywood that he wouldn't face accusations about his sexuality). Hillariously, he supposedly had a "relationship" with a women in her 50's/60's after the first sham marriage ended. Closeted and bearded actors are as much of a plague now as they were in the 1950's and early 60's. People don't have a life these days like they did in the 80's (or 1920's), and we forget how to read people. When we read people better in the 80's, we were much less accepting of fag actors who had no believable chemistry with female co-stars and were not the type to inspire joy and loyalty in other men. Spielberg, who has a wonderful talent for casting, cast Fiennes as a evil Nazi in Schindler's list. Wholesome directors like Spielberg can and do cast fags for villain roles, but know better than to use them as heroes or ordinary people.

Dan Radcliffe is unquestionably a fag. He's pint-sized and unattractive as an adult, and nobody cares about him as an actor outside of Harry Potter. He looks and sounds like a neurotic and faggy drama queen.

"Don't worry, I hated Harry Potter as a kid."

To quote a Gen-xer, fantasy needs blood, steel, fire, and tits. Harry Potter had fire, and….That was it (at least the early stories, young shitlords were too bored with the first couple to get to any of the "good stuff" that might have been in later stories). Kids in the 80's and early 90's (well, the boys anyway) were supposed to play with GI Joe toys, and cap guns, and goof off with their friends out in the woods, on the streets, in the mall, etc. Not become nerdy drones reading gay English Boarding school fan-fic with a campy "fantasy" gloss by a far Left middle aged woman. Also, Harry Potter took off in the very late 90's, so it totally missed Gen X-ers and even borderline Gen X-ers.

"One of the unspoken aims of "progressive" education is to systematically destroy the sense of disgust and sanctity in young people. It's done gradually and in tandem with the pozzed elements of culture, but it happens inexorably."

It may not happen immediately, but eventually we'll be under enough pressure and danger that we'll have to cut the crap. In the late 70's and especially 80's,people started associating "free love" with STDs, and drug experimentation with overdoses and crippling addictions. And the philosophy of "if it feels good, do it" stopped being quite as romantic after umpteen young Boomers and early Gen X-ers were raped or murdered by the early 80's.

The anti-drug argument is seen as fatally weakened by the celebration of alcohol in contemporary society. Those who want cannabis to remain criminalized rarely argue in favor of higher restrictions on alcohol. Though at the same time, tolerance for tobacco smoking has decline rapidly. "

Booze is essentially harmless in smaller quantities. Key word here being "smaller". It's going to take a thousand more years for Northern Euros and Asians to handle higher quantities of alcohol, and weed out the "mean drunks". Light alcohol use, esp. in certain populations, is not associated with long-term negative changes in behavior or mental function.

Tobacco ended up with a terrible rep because the tobacco industry lied it's ass off for decades, and this became public knowledge during a time (the 70's and 80's) when Americans had their guard up about being lied to by institutions, what with Vietnam era military officials promising a cake walk and the whole Watergate thing. Also, second hand smoke is noxious and would not be tolerated by a society in which more and more elites were abstaining. Smoking is tolerated more in Europe, esp. Southern Europe, and oddly enough Europe does no worse on measures of basic well-being and health than tobacco phobic North America. The still present Puritan streak in America just finds….something wrong with the pollutants produced by tobacco. Obama is probably a closet smoker, but we'll never know.

Cannabis certainly has been linked to short and long-term alteration in cognition and behavior. I've heard some experienced drinkers say that they didn't care for the mood changes caused by pot, or for what it did to some of the burnouts they were around. A (clean-cut) actor in a teen horror movie said that his character was supposed to be smoking pot, and he decided to legit smoke some and get high before a scene. He said he regretted it pretty fast, because of how jumpy he got. The whole idea of palliative pot use ain't that surprising, considering that it can warp your conscious senses and perception of reality. No wonder some people claim that it eases their pain. Prayer, meditation, exercise, group camaraderie, and so forth can also help ease pain and stress, but that takes effort. What's the deal with people since the 90's being so fixated on doing drugs to take care of problems? Artificially altering the chemicals in your bloodstream might do some good but it also is going to have drawbacks. In exchange for easing pain (allegedly), we've now got potheaded goof balls running amok and being credulous and paranoid. Pro-pot people claim that you're some kind of Reefer Madness hysteric for badmouthing people on the drug, but plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence points to pot inducing reduced cognition. The alleged "expanded consciousness" provided by the drug is oftentimes a sign of a brain that's no longer functioning on a normal, stable, and rational level.

"Reality" TV in the late 80's/early 90's was Cops and Unsolved Mysteries. There was a real shift in the later 80's that happened, which I think can be put down to maturing Boomers ganging up on Gen X-ers. Many things got really screwed up in the 70's and early 80's because of Boomers, but society didn't start to laser focus on these problems until most Boomers were well past their peak crime years and Gen X-ers were adolescents. And thus the still ongoing animosity between Boomers and X-ers started. Who were Boomers to sanctimoniously lecture X-ers about behavior and responsibility? In addition, the outright morbid and flippant nature of many Gen X kids freaked Boomers out. "Sure, we dropped acid back in the 60's and caused some trouble, but it's not like we didn't celebrate love and Mother Earth, man".

Blank faced Gen X-ers driving heavy metal and grunge to the top of the charts, and driving 1980's and early 90's films to have more per capita incidents of violence than we'd ever seen before (or would see in later periods), really did spook older generations.

WRT ur comment about Millennials being easily spooked, Boomers aren't all that different. Gen X stoicism in the face of terrible things was often mistaken for tolerating and even enjoying such things. By the late 80's, Gen X-ers were deliberately playing up their "bad" reputation in order to annoy the moral watchdogs. Teenagers in the 80's and 90's grew up learning to be authentically tough. Not Boomer LARPing as B-movie greasers or bikers, but the real thing…Ya know, not being a whiny pussy when things don't go your way. The kids of the 70's and 80's, who grew into the teens of the 80's and 90's, from day one saw and heard that the world out there could be a nasty place that could cut you, and scar you. Why pretend that the world should or even could be any different? Just deal with it, have a little fun (but not too much fun).

It's always struck Gen X-ers as kinda funny that sermonizing about the world's problems ever would make any difference, or would compensate for our flaws. As they'd be quick to point, Boomers sure talked a good game but ultimately they are as dysfunctional, maybe more so, than any other generation.

AE,

Derbyshire's analogy is superb, but I would say "Dems R The Real Racists" conservative pundits are also there to justify the leftward moves after the fact.

Gay marriage is the epitome of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Drug War was actually a PROGRESSIVE idea championed by Nixon all along, and TRUE conservatives never supported it! The Founding Fathers structured the Constitution in such a way that transgendermania would emerge inevitably, and it's only been recently that we've achieved the loftier heights of their vision.

So in a sense, I would say they know full well where the left is taking the ship. It's just that they will be Panglossians, telling people freezing to death in the ice waters that the ship had always been meant to strike the iceberg.

Feryl,

Born at the end of 88.

Don't worry, I hated Harry Potter as a kid.

One of the unspoken aims of "progressive" education is to systematically destroy the sense of disgust and sanctity in young people. It's done gradually and in tandem with the pozzed elements of culture, but it happens inexorably.

While I was a stubborn mule in high school, and accepted HBD as the truth by the time I was 17, I could still recognize over time how my sense of disgust was being eroded throughout high school.

It wasn't until after university that my sense of disgust was restored, and I now have the same revulsion to degeneracy that normal people have.

I have explained what happened to me, but not the how. I'll need time to reflect on all of the steps before I commit it to writing. It's akin to recognizing the steps you took in becoming brainwashed: it requires a lot of time and introspection.

The anti-drug argument is seen as fatally weakened by the celebration of alcohol in contemporary society. Those who want cannabis to remain criminalized rarely argue in favor of higher restrictions on alcohol. Though at the same time, tolerance for tobacco smoking has decline rapidly.

Tobacco advertising on television is verboten, and I will presume cannabis ads will never be allowed. Banning alcohol advertising would be a good way of throwing thousands of liberals working in Madison Avenue out of a job. It would also kneecap the Big Media conglomerates.

The US and New Zealand are the only developed countries to allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads.

I am really inspired by Ethan Ralph. Got locked up, spent 7 months in the pokey.

So what did he do? Lose 100 pounds and go from lard to hard. Read it on his blog. Awesome. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon gets wrecked by Potus and Breitbart so he goes over to Europe to kick ass. Real men, badly smacked down, standing up strongly. Inspiring.

"Gay marriage, drug use, transgender nonsense? They're not things we'll encourage on our own, but we'll accept them before too long and then will insist that they have always been part of the American Proposition!"

I dunno your age, but something that a lot of people born after the mid-80's can't remember (and something that older people often forget) is that people didn't take issues of perversion or corruption lightly in the 80's. Why? Because awareness of the rampant violence of the 70's and 80's, and the effect it had on people, was at the forefront. And what really hit close to home were all the stories of kids being kidnapped, disapperaing, and sometimes their mutilated bodies being found. True stories.

Emphasizing the gravity, and urgency, of drugs, prostitution, teen runaways, gangs, etc. was very important back then. Hell, if John Walsh's young son could be lured from an arcade and beheaded, then well, we better have our guard up around homos, druggies, burnouts, whores, pervs, etc.

While contemp. people are still superficially concerned about pedophilia, concern for all manner of vices has generally declined. A lot of X-ers and Millennials think that *anyone* could be a sick pedophile, yet they look the other way when it comes to cross-dressers and drug addicts. Hey, who are we judge? Or assume that those who have slight perversions are more likely to be all-out sickos, Kitty F'ers?

The reality is that the "ignorant" stereotypes of the 1980's were all……True. Based on the accumulated wisdom and experience gathered from the elevated crime levels of the 60's-80's, not to mention the fact that people had more friends and got out more often in the 60's-80's, so we were more personally in touch with people who's lives were ruined by vice and criminals. Actors who got popular in the 70's and 80's were extremely heterosexual for a reason, and the exceptions (John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Eddie Murphy) could pass for straight pretty well. As crime began declining in the 90's (and people started to get out less often), Hollywood began casting more fags and trannies. Our weirdness detector becomes less effective when we don't hear enough about people, including family and friends, being harmed by weirdos.

My two cents:

– Generational factors:
1) The 1990's liberal boost can be put down to Gen X-ers being more flippant about drugs than Boomers. Millennials are even more flippant than X-ers are, as you can tell by recent responses.
2) GIs and earlier Silents, who came of age during the vice crackdowns of the 1920's-1950's and took those values to heart, matter less and less in these surveys as time goes on.

– Crime rate:
1) During the high crime 70's-mid 90's, Conservatives stuck to their guns. Among liberals, there was still a decent amount of opposition to vice, though I think that by the mid 90's liberals were beginning to be nostalgic for the LSD and pot trips of the one time counter culture. Liberals in the 90's would've been much more hostile to cocaine and crack, as they associated these drugs with yuppies and youthful crime waves.

2) Conservatives started cucking on vice (drugs, prostitution, sodomy) when crime began declining in the late 90's. When your butt (or your kid's butt, or your neighbor's butt) is no longer at serious risk of being harmed, the urgency of dealing with weirdos and criminals declines. Interestingly, the generation of youngsters who were so out of control in the 70's and 80's (Boomers and early X-ers) now report fairly conservative opinions, relative to later X-ers and Millennials. When most of your peers are not frequently breaking into cars, getting raped, or getting jacked up on drugs, it's a lot easier to be flippant about vice issues.

Who's president, and political cycles:

1) Liberal opinion of pot correlates heavily with whoever is in office. During Carter, Clinton, and Obama liberals become much more enthusiastic, while during Reagan and under either Bush their mood is more sober, literally and figuratively ,

2) We get the worst legislation (and worst ideas, in general) during a period of low crime and high inequality. The late 30's-early 60's were a period of low crime and falling inequality, so our elites intended to protect the masses by cracking down on vice. As crime rose in the 60's and 70's due to Boomers, GIs and Silents remained committed to protecting public safety (GI college presidents famously fought campus radicals to maintain public order). Into the 80's and early 90's, GIs, Silents, and by then maturing Boomers all agreed that discouraging and stigmatizing drugs remained very important. But by the time you get to the late 90's, inequality had risen dramatically while crime fell. Elites began to vacate their duty to protect us by that time. During the current high inequality/low crime era, the war on drugs has been ret-conned as a nefarious plot to send more people to prison, and as a counter-productive attempt to do something that's impossible (change human behavior away from vice). This paranoid and defeatist attitude towards vice was not possible in the 1940's-1980's, when we had more idealism about encouraging wholesome behavior. Granted, young Boomers in the 60's and 70's chafed against these restraints, but the overall attitude of elites was still admirable back then.

rien,

"Without an ideology of their own, conservatives are relegated to slowing down the leftward move of society. But they are powerless to prevent it."

Paul Ryan's election year statement, "I'm not there yet," can easily be applied to how cucks handle leftist ideas.

Gay marriage, drug use, transgender nonsense? They're not things we'll encourage on our own, but we'll accept them before too long and then will insist that they have always been part of the American Proposition!

"That is why the left fears the alt-right, because they will not only resist, they will also revert."

It is funny how, in retrospect, McCain and Romney were accused of being in bed with racist and sexist forces. The name of the alt-right is still fairly new, but the underlying urge for realism to prevail in racial and sexual issues has been there for a long time. Alt-right, HBD, red pill… Whatever you call it, it's visible in the light here and now.

Andrea – The old Ron Paul supporter in me thinks that marijuana should be left up to the states to decide.

That said, I readily agree that marijuana use is bad for the body and mind. People using it on the occasion isn't a problem in of itself, but potheads have lots of problems.

Blue cities are trying to find ways to normalize the use of hard drugs on the margins. "Safe sites" for heroin is being pushed through Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and San Francisco. It has been and will continue to be a disaster, and it's only the first step.

And of course, we all know leftists aren't satisified with the initial policies they propose. Everything is a first step, and they soon compete within their ranks to see how far they can go.

In isolation, I suppose it's better for people to be able to smoke marijuana if they choose, knowing the costs involved. But I'm wary of getting on board any policy that appears to be an escalator that would inexorably take us to a left wing hell.

This illustrates the "ball and chain" function of conservatives. Without an ideology of their own, conservatives are relegated to slowing down the leftward move of society. But they are powerless to prevent it.

I am pretty sure you can find charts like this for _every_ political standpoint.

That is why the left fears the alt-right, because they will not only resist, they will also revert.

As for 'gay marriage', Conservative caving was totally craven.

But it wasn't so much bending over for homo power as for Jewish power.

Homomania was a Jewish thing, and Conservatism Inc is just a trained dog of Jews.

I don't think people should be smoking too much of that stuff. I'm not a user but I've supported legalization based on observation of users.
I can't say it's worse than alcohol.

That said, a society doped on pot all the time will tend to be hazy and stupid.

One thing for sure, Jews will rake in tons more profits since they set up the networks already.

In the end, I don't care about 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. Based on evidence, I really can't say pot is worse than alcohol.
But I do worry about about too many potheads being out of it.

Why don't you try debating him in real life, apigone?

Are they really going to have the Rock play Doc Savage? The world’s smartest super hero played by a pro “rassler”?

Also, didn’t the movie Idiocracy show a black pro “rassler” becoming dictator of the whole world?

Aldey, you and Atilla would both be all over that like a $20 dress.

Can you smeeeeeeelll what the Rock is cooking? Its the candy ass Lincoln Party.

Cooked Goose.

He’s an ex athlete and a performer. He seems charming and I happen to have Samoan friends. He is probably fun at parties or a barbeque but that’s hardly a reason to consider him for office.

I’d rather have him inside the tent pissing out than pissing in but there’s no reason to make him president of anything. He probably considers himself more Samoan than black, he couldn’t play a black nationalist very convincingly on wwf. My guess is that if we had conservative democrats he’d be one. We don’t really any more so he’s a republican.

Ohhh wow . . .

There’s something new. White people, notably of the elite variety, selecting a black woman to head some elite organization.

Uhhhhh it’s not new, it’s not unique and it is typical color manufacturing, so as hide the bankruptcy the organization cynical color game.

I have no doubt that she is qualified and able, but one has to wonder in all of the organization’s history — there’s only been one and only a female . . . suspect.

It’s called seasoning.

——————-

I am completely unfamiliar with Mr Johnson as a conservative. An actor whose movies I have enjoyed — but as a conservative – unknown to me.

The cucks are always looking for blacks and browns who appear conservative on the surface who they can hold up as a shining example that conservatism transcends race. At one time Rush Limbaugh had a man crush on Charles Barkley because he made some conservative sounding utterances and occasionally dissented from the anti-white musings of his more militant “bruthas”.

But Chaz is now back on the reservation with his recent campaigning for Doug Jones and imploring Doug and the Democrats to do something for black people.

We love to throw that term around but,by jiminy,David French is a real full metal cuck!

You make a good point about Mr. Kersey and the chosen. I know he is a Southerner but I don’t recall him ever talking about his religious background. This is important and I hope he comments about this. This would give a better perspective as to how to deal with the chosen. He does podcasts on AmRen with Jared Taylor. AmRen is easy on the Jews and this has caused controversy among rightists, nationalists, etc. I don’t buy into the “blame the Jews for everything” craziness. But they do have to go to Israel and Jews cannot be a part of any political offices in the West. This is why I support the state of Israel.

As for Mr. Kersey’s focusing on sports, this is actually working out well. The NFL/NBA has collapsed. Whites have abandoned these games which is a great boost to Western movements. It is fascinating to watch 2 multi-billion dollar businesses collapse with no one mentioning the reason for the collapse: the negrification of these sports. Negrophiliacs like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are very unhappy about this. They blame many factors except for the race factor. Now that this collapse has happened, Mr. Kersey will have to move on to other organizations. These would be the RCC and the Zioevangizers. But this is only possible if we know something about Mr. Kersey’s religious background. These 2 groups (along with the Freemasons) are the ones causing havoc in the West with their support of the chosen and immigration of third world peoples to the West.

Identity politics and counter-identity politics only get you so far. I’m sure Johnson as a Republican would attract more black and Hispanic voters than Trump, but not enough to make a big difference at election time. Most Hispanic and black voters vote Democrat out of clear economic self-interest: they are poorer than whites and its logical for low-income minorities to vote for more government spending. Whatever candidate the Republicans run, they can’t get around this problem.

The ideal black candidate would be left-wing on welfare and right-wing on immigration, an almost impossible combination in a right-wing liberal country like the US.

Well, maybe he has no balls after all. But if he does, he won’t have the resources of an Arnold to buy up all the gossip press to keep a lid on his love children. All those big Hollywood guys seem to have some serious skeletons in the closet that would make them unelectable under “contemporary standards”. Have 5 kids by 5 different guys, or be a [female] prostitute, and you’re a role model. Screw a [female] intern once, you’re a predator.

This “Betty” about whom you comment, was she not barred from OCC? Does Pierre de Craon miss her?

I will make note of your grammatical advice regarding paragraphs. Once I start typing, it’s a keystroke stream of consciousness and I just have to get everything out before my thought processes are interrupted. I try to proofread but I have a life and always have other things to do. The most important thing is get out ideas to help the West.

sowell is a zionist bootlick.
automatically disqualified from anything
except bootlicking.

The guy is a steroid user so he’s a fake muscleman. Pro wrestling is fake so he’s a fake on that score. Acting is also faking it so notch another one. He’s a fake conservative and a fake white man so he’s been counterfeit all the way for his entire life.

If he (Trump) understands the importance of demographics, he certainly doesn’t show it in his actions.

That’s right. Like many baby boomers he isn’t much bothered by the racial transformation that mass third world immigration has wrought and what it portends for his own people. And as a radical egalitarian he erroneously thinks that a thriving economy will remedy interracial strife and other social ills. So we’ll just be Brazil with a slightly better economy.

Princess Ivanka was tweeting recently about how happy she was that Latino unemployment had dropped and I’m sure she made daddy really proud with that tweet. Expressing any concern about white unemployment would be “white supremacy and racial intolerance” in white privileged America.

I am delighted to see that this is the same Paul Kersey from SBPDL. His great site was behind a paywall for a while, and now it has been opened once again. Thank you Paul, whoever you are.

Kersey is a very witty race-realist, except when it comes to one self-chosen race. Plus he often cannot seem to break out of that US propaganda bubble. He is way over focused on sports (like Sailer) and other superficial and distracting shiny objects, so he cannot discern many greater truths.

Can’t you go back to occidental observer Betty?

You might have more readers if you used paragraphs.

Hennie, You might enjoy “Jesus Has Two Daddies”…..4.5 stars over at Amazon books. Chronicles the heartwarming saga of Tom and Tod as they start a family in the birthplace of the Republican Party. Remember to wash down your blood pressure pills with three fingers before turning the first page……..

Can you handle the truth?

Hi there Betty.

(((Jonathan Revusky)))??? Trump is changing policies.

Bingo!!! I can blame the Jews for many things, but big picture there is always an RCC/Zioevangizer/Freemason behind them giving them their “power.” I had an ephiphany several years ago and realized that it was these 3 who are causing our problems. As I have consistently stated, the most evil, oxymoronic belief – universal brotherhood – is what is destroying the West. Universal brotherhood comes into direct conflict with IQ (which is tied to race). The left is easy to understand because they work against the natural law and devolve into degeneracy. But the “right” is a bit more complicated. Cucks would go on about individualism, personal responsibility, freedom of association, the uniqueness of the individual. But this came into conflict for me one day when I was at a church service and I thought there was a black priest saying the mass. It was a dark-skinned East Indian (he had an accent). But this jarred me. I had never had a black/Asian priest at any mass I attended and it didn’t sit well with me. I began to question my beliefs and realized I could not accept black/Asian priests-popes. Then I read portions of the Bell Curve and made me realize that IQ is the beginning point of everything. I always understand about differences in intelligence. Where I lived we knew blacks/Asians were not as smart as Caucasians. This brought biology into conflict with beliefs. That is why I now state, biology first, then beliefs. Then looking at the West and its development we can see that only Caucasians/Europeans were the ones who created it. Jews/blacks/Asians had nothing to do with it. The Jewish question will bring out the 2 types of people: the Christian cucks who still believe Jews are the chosen and the trad RCCers/Neo-Nazis who blame the Jews for everything. These groups are easily dealt with. First, from a religious perspective, their covenant with God ended with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. As far as the Nazis, Hitler was against the Bolshevik Jews in Russia and wanted to prevent a union with German Jews and a take over of Germany. Though Hitler was defeated in WWII, the Bolshevik problem was gradually solved with a now nationalist Russia. Let’s put a time perspective into this also. Up until Vatican II, the world was a large, still difficult to travel globe. But now with international flights so common the world has literally shrunk. Today’s cucks, Neo-Nazis can’t deal with this. They are focused on a long gone past and refuse to deal with the most dangerous present. This dangerous present can be summed up in 2 words: IQ, which is tied to race. It is also the sum of world history but we can deal with this later. So at this point in time we can see that the West is best. When we look at the peoples who created this West, we can see the 3 groups that are missing: Jews/blacks/Asians. Here is crux of the problem because it means the end of “universal church” and “universal brotherhood.” It is the “right” that is melting down because it cannot handle these realities. Leftists are very degenerate and cannot think logically. The right can think logically, but it refuses to deal with reality. Cucks won’t say Islam is a Christian heresy because most Muslims are black/Asian. Cucks won’t say Jews no longer have a covenant with God because they’re afraid of being called Nazis. So, since cucks refuse to deal with reality here is what will happen. The West will have to face its “Year Zero,” “Year One” around 2020. The RCC will be mostly gone in the USA. There will be no rapture for the Zioevangizers so they will have to rethink their beliefs. We will no longer be able to believe that education for anyone with an IQ of less than 89 will have a salutary effect on them. This is why dealing with cucks is the most important issue facing us. I’ll name names in another comment.

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

messenger – message

When is the author of this vacuous article (along with the rest of the like-minded dumbasses) going to realize that it doesn’t matter whether the president is a half Samoan, half black professional wrestler OR a Hispanic lesbian OR anything else… IF…

the policies never change!!!

(It’s a rhetorical question. I know the answer… NEVER….)

You strike me as a website commentator stalker. Can you handle the truth?

Most of the commenters here are cucks at heart . A good portion spend most of their time whining about the mistreatment of the same Muslims who would chop off their head if given half a chance . Their hatred of Jews is at such a manic level that they have lowered themselves to be cheerleaders for Muslims just for the hope that Muslims can do a job they are incapable of , as they are too impotent and atrophied to put the internet down for a while.

You are the person who used to post as Betty on the occidental observer

Ron Paul is a cuck just like Rand. They would never do anything like what Trump is doing.