ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

A failure to understand identity

John Wright attempts to criticize identity politics and the Alt-Right, and in doing so, demonstrates that he does not correctly grasp what identity is, or how identity politics tend to function in modern multiracial societies:
Some say that the success of identity politics trumped up by the Left proves that a man will always side with his inborn tribal group, grievance group, and identity politics group rather than with any political doctrine or party or nation into which education, experience, or personal decision might lead him.
No, literally no one says that. First, identity is not limited to race. Religion, too, is an identity, and one of the most powerful. Second, while men can, and do, surmount their racial, grievance, and religious identities in favor of other identities and ideologies, the salient point is that the vast majority will not. One habitual weakness of John's arguments I have observed is that he tends to be inclined towards binary thinking, and binary thinkers are particularly prone to the Ricardian Vice, which Joseph Schumpeter described in the History of Economic Analysis:

He then piled one simplifying assumption upon another until, having really settled everything by these assumptions, he was left with only a few aggregative variables between which, given these assumptions, he set up simple one-way relations so that, in the end, the desired results emerged almost as tautologies.... The habit of applying results of this character to the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice.

John continues with an drive-by implied defense of the fictional concept of the so-called "proposition nation".
Nations are never built on a proposition that all men are created equal and never have been: they are only build on tribes and clans. So runs the theory.
No, that is not the theory, that is the literal historical definition of "nation". The concept is defined as: "an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages." 1250-1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt (us) (past participle of nāscī to be born).

The "proposition nation" concept is entirely false. Neither concurring with any proposition nor contradicting one will cause one to be part of the American nation, or cause one to be separated from it. It is simply incorrect to claim that the United States is fundamentally built on the principle of equality or any other idea; one need only read the entire Declaration of Independence to know that Jefferson's flight of rhetoric was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. "All men are created equal" is not the founding principle of the United States of America nor the basis for any nation.

The irony, of course, is that one might as just as meaningfully cite the statement as grounds for claiming that anyone can become Chinese or Polish.
Those who believe this say that the way to defeat Leftwing Anti-White identity politics is by adopting Pro-White identity politics. They are seduced into making a simple error. It is an error so simple that even a highly intelligent partisan of that movement might not see it. The identity-grievance politics groups on the Left are all about Leftism and nothing about identity.

The only people who ever side with their tribal group and identity politics group are people who have been indoctrinated by the Left. They are Leftists. Identity politics is their stock in trade. It is the only product remaining on their intellectually bankrupt shelves.
First, it is true that for some, their Leftism is their dominant identity. Second, it is apparent that a number of identity groups have concluded that Leftism is in their tribal interest, which may be a source of the causal confusion. Third, it is absolutely and observably absurd to claim that the only people who ever side with their tribal group have been indoctrinated by the Left. Tribalism and identity long precede Leftism, moreover, it is very, very easy to provide examples of those on the Right who practice identity politics. Identity consistently provides a much more accurate predictive model for one's positions and behavior than one's nominal place on the political spectrum. But again, it must be understood that there are multiple kinds of identities; ethnicity merely tends to be the strongest and most powerful form.
Tribalism says that the loyalties one has toward genetically similar groups will eventually overwhelm all other loyalties of religion, culture, language community, political philosophy, and self interest, and that therefore one must abandon loyalty to religion and culture and state but adhere instead to one’s tribe. A more naive reading of history is difficult to imagine: as if civil wars never happened, and nothing but race wars did.
It is strange to see John claim that identity politics and tribalism is a naive reading of history when he is simultaneously denying one of the primary engines of history. Again, he relies on simplistic binary thinking in order to reach a false conclusion. People have multiple loyalties, many of which are not related to their genetic inheritance; the homosexual is loyal to the gay community and hostile to the religious communities for reasons of sexual orientation, the Christian Zionist is loyal to the Jewish community for theological reasons, and so forth. But none of this changes the observable fact that Somalis in Minnesota reliably vote for Somalis, Indians in Quebec reliably vote for Indians, and African-Americans reliably vote for blacks.

John also fails to understand the Alt-Right. Because he seeks compromise and is willing to let the Left live, he implies the Alt-Right it is of the Left. This is a confusion of etiquette with objectives.
The lobbyist of the Right, by way of contrast, is not a religious zealot. He is willing to live and let live, and to compromise when need be. The Right thinks the Left are foolish, but not evil. The Left think the Right are an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical.
The Alt-Right thinks the Left is both foolish and evil. The Alt-Right thinks the Left is a collection of rabid, feral, incoherent, irrational barbarians who are observably incapable of participating in any civilized society without destroying it. We're not religious zealots, we are simply educated observers of the entire history of the Left, from the French Revolution to the Killing Fields of Cambodia, who have reached certain logical conclusions on the basis of those observations.

The Alt-Right is most certainly not willing to compromise with the Left. We have witnessed the conservative Right live and let live, and compromise, to the point that Western civilization itself is at risk. And we are not willing to allow conservatives to meekly permit the destruction of Western civilization simply so they can go down to noble defeat in the sacred names of equality and not being racist.
I note in passing that every time, every single time, the roots of the Democrat Party are mentioned, the Alt-Right goes into a tizzy of sneers and scorn, scoffing that one should never say that Democrats are the real racists. Why one should never say it, they never say.  But it does undermine their whole race-is-politics theory, because the race of the Dems did not change their race before and after Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ programs, but only changed their political tactics. The utility of accusing the Party of Lincoln and Nixon of racism only started then, and so the Democrats only because the advocates of anti-racism then.
This is simply absurd. Again, John is stating something observably false, then using his false statement as the basis of reaching an incorrect conclusion. It's trivially easy to show that what he's saying is not true. On this blog, and in Cuckservative, I have explained why one should not bother saying that Democrats are the real racists: it is ineffective and toothless dialectic that has no effect on a group of rhetorical speakers. I have also pointed out that it is ineffective rhetoric for the Right because no one but cucks and cons fears being called racist.

And the race of the Democrats has most certainly changed since LBJ instituted the Great Society. That's why the Atlantic asks if the Democratic Party even has room for what it calls "less-educated white voters" anymore.
So in asking the Right to accept pro-White tribalism into its political platform, the advocate of race-based politics is attempting to fight a religion with a lobbyist group. This is the same mistake the mainstream Right has been making for decades, if not centuries.
No, we're not asking. We are predicting it will happen as a natural result of the USA becoming a multiracial, multicultural, multinational state. And it will be easy to determine who is correct. If the Alt-Right is correct, whites will continue to gravitate right across the West. The likes of Jack Murphy, who voted for Obama, will vote for Trump in 2020. And the Democratic Party will continue to move Left, as the various non-white immigrants fill its ranks being depleted by the exiting whites.

We're not making the same mistake the mainstream Right has made; quite the opposite. And it is the fact that we refuse to continue making their mistake of holding to the sacred, nonsensical symbolism that has led to their defeat that makes them uncomfortable.

Now, all that being said, John is correct to say that federalism is one solution to tribalism. But it is a solution that accepts and utilizes the reality of tribalism and identity politics, not one that rejects them. In any event, read the whole thing there, including the comments.

I close with a pair of quotes, and leave it to you to decide whether it is identity politics or proposition politics that are more firmly rooted in truth and historical reality:

"In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."
- Lee Kuan Yew

"America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.... Every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American."
- George W. Bush

Labels: , ,

181 Comments:

Blogger S1AL February 11, 2017 7:04 AM  

As regards that final quote, it's worth noting that it only applies if the percentage of multi-ethnic population is high enough. That's the mistake that is most common with right-aligned realists: assuming that because a nation can handle 10 or 20 or 30% of the population bring a different ethnicity, it can handle more. My observation is that a shared religion and general culture can help handle up to about 30% in reasonable conditions, but no more. Throw in a different religion and language and culture, and it's a completely different story.

Blogger SteelPalm February 11, 2017 7:20 AM  

I sympathize with John C Wright's views.

The rise of identity politics does not portend a good, productive future for either the US or Western civilization. On the contrary, it's a sign that dark times are ahead.

However, that doesn't change the reality that this is the future and there is no way of getting away from it.

Leftism has been allowed to fester too long, and now the only cure is hardcore identity politics. It's a dangerous drug with many harmful side effects, but the only possibility of getting well.

The Lee Kuan Yew quote is magnificent because it applies to all races and religions. Yes, even whites and Christians, when one examines societies where either or both are minorities and are ruled by a different race or religion. (Africa and Asia are particularly instructive)

Anonymous Rocklea February 11, 2017 7:29 AM  

"The Left think the Right are an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical."

This is his own words, and yet doesn't see this as an identity driving force.

Blogger Shaman42 February 11, 2017 7:31 AM  

VD, what do you think of Jordan Peterson's assertion that being liberal is a personality type that half the people in any society have, and that in a functioning democracy, conservatives and liberals negotiate a compromise?

I make a distinction between liberal and anything to do with Marxism. Conservatives have failed to keep the Left under control since the 60s because they failed to deal with postmodernism. Hence the immigration problem and the SJWs.

Blogger The Kurgan February 11, 2017 7:32 AM  

I'd agree that John tends to binary thinking.
We all have our weaknesses.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 7:34 AM  

I sympathize with John C Wright's views.

So do I. I previously shared them. But the facts on the ground changed. Dramatically. What is appropriate in one situation is not necessarily appropriate in another. Identity politics have been baked in the cake since 1965.

The rise of identity politics does not portend a good, productive future for either the US or Western civilization. On the contrary, it's a sign that dark times are ahead.

Absolutely. It is a sign that war is coming. However, it is only through the ruthless embrace of identity politics that there will be a possible future for America or Western civilization in any recognizable form.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 7:35 AM  

VD, what do you think of Jordan Peterson's assertion that being liberal is a personality type that half the people in any society have, and that in a functioning democracy, conservatives and liberals negotiate a compromise?

I think it is a nonsensical attempt to convert a relative relationship into an objective principle.

Blogger JACIII February 11, 2017 7:38 AM  

John has been so abused by the left one wonders if he isn't suffering from shell shock.

The leftist is evil and sees polities as nothing more than a means to garner the lions share, if not all, power and wealth (with no thought to wealth generation)to themselves with no rational concern for future generations.

The left has chosen the ground upon which they wish to fight and we will give battle because they are reeling and exposed. We will not employ the obligations of civilized men toward them because those seeking to destroy civilization do not merit such.

Blogger pyrrhus February 11, 2017 7:40 AM  

Wright is really blind to the world. At least 80% of existing nations are rooted in tribal or clannish ethnicity. Modern China, the largest nation in the history of the world, is entirely run for the Han Chinese and accepts zero immigrants or even permanent residents except other Han, who have always been regarded as citizens anyway.

Blogger Jimmy Glover February 11, 2017 7:42 AM  

I am beginning to see a pattern of projection from the right about the alt-right. Every time I read something like this, I don't believe the way they say I do. It reminds me of the occupy movement. Left pundit after pundit explained what the move actually meant, and none of it came from a single protester.

Blogger Stilicho February 11, 2017 7:45 AM  

I think Wright's views on a multicultural America are colored by his view of a multicultural Roman Catholic Church and a belief that civic nationalism can be as unifying a force as Christianity. This view necessarily ignores the fact (and reasons for) that African dioceses demand and receive African bishops, hispanic dioceses, hispanic bishops, asian/asian, etc.

Anonymous Rocklea February 11, 2017 7:46 AM  

"The likes of Jack Murphy, who voted for Obama, will vote for Trump in 2020. And the Democratic Party will continue to move Left, as the various non-white immigrants fill its ranks being depleted by the exiting whites."

I would like point out that while Jack appears to be desperately looking for a place to belong, he did put up a valiant defense of the proposition nation in the last minutes of the debate, which would amount to nothing less than Singapore style totalitarianism. Around 55 minutes in, Vox was explaining that, in a brainstorm which included Richard Spencer, the participants thought they were more extreme than Richard. Despite that Jack seemed to be Alt-right tolerant and Richard Spencer intolerant. Must be a Roman Salute Jew thing.

Blogger Shaman42 February 11, 2017 7:48 AM  

VD wrote:I think it is a nonsensical attempt to convert a relative relationship into an objective principle.
An attempt to recast liberal ideas as a valid moral perspective instead of an immoral one?

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 7:50 AM  

I am beginning to see a pattern of projection from the right about the alt-right. Every time I read something like this, I don't believe the way they say I do.

Exactly. Note that they NEVER mention the 16 Points, which nearly everyone self-identified as Alt-Right has endorsed to some degree, but instead try to provide their own Straw-Right they can attack as an alternative.

In fairness, part of that is because some of them are emotionally invested in their conservative identity, others are emotionally invested in proposition-nationalism, and to address the actual Alt-Right principles is to run the risk of acceding to them.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 11, 2017 7:50 AM  

"Every immigrant, by their very act of immigration makes our country less, and not more, American. Even their embrace of ideals, that Bush will not state and clearly does not believe in, cannot ever be sufficient to offset how much less American they have made us by their very presence."

- Me.

@10. Jimmy, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." - John 1:5.

They are not completely given over to Darkness, but they are given over enough to be utterly blind and incapable of comprehending the Truth.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 7:51 AM  

An attempt to recast liberal ideas as a valid moral perspective instead of an immoral one?

No. I meant what I said the first time.

Blogger Wanderer February 11, 2017 7:51 AM  

S1AL wrote:As regards that final quote, it's worth noting that it only applies if the percentage of multi-ethnic population is high enough. That's the mistake that is most common with right-aligned realists: assuming that because a nation can handle 10 or 20 or 30% of the population bring a different ethnicity, it can handle more. My observation is that a shared religion and general culture can help handle up to about 30% in reasonable conditions, but no more. Throw in a different religion and language and culture, and it's a completely different story.

This is only true of any non-islamic immigrants. If your country exceeds more than 2-3% muslims then you're in for a bad time. Islam is by definition at war with all of non islamic cultures, and for islam to assimilate or institute liberal reforms would be blasphemy.

Blogger Salt February 11, 2017 7:56 AM  

The identity-grievance politics groups on the Left are all about Leftism and nothing about identity.

Then BLM is not about black grievance nor is it anti-white? If it's not about identity, then why should a black leftist tell a white leftist, both sharing the same ideology, to check their privilege?

Blogger SemiSpook37 February 11, 2017 7:59 AM  

@6 @10

And the irony is that if actually did get an explanation from an actual Occupier, it was so incoherent and absurd that it made you think the person was an escaped mental patient.

The fakers behind the news desks may be good at bullshitting most of their copy, but it was painfully obvious to me that their attempts to make Occupy sound less psychotic only made them look like bigger idiots than they already were.

And this was well before the God Emperor had even made the choice to run. This shit only provided him with the ammo to support the effort.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr February 11, 2017 7:59 AM  

Vox, I think you're both about half right.

My Naval War College classes defined a nation as a group of people with a common language, history, and culture. They're often a genetic group, but not necessarily. The real key is that they think of themselves as one people.

American nationalism is fragile. There are many religious, ethnic, and regional divisions. It was being held together by careful cultivation.

The Left has tried to exploit that division for their political profit,with some success. The Old Right rolled over. The Right-With-Fight won't, but is debating tactics. Wright...and President Trump...are advocating a strategy of restoring political unity. This has the advantage of offering the potential to pick off disaffected individuals in Left-leaning groups. You're advocating fighting fire with fire as a more reliable solution. Which it may well be.

I think the best strategy may be to push the cultural nation tactic for the moment, but carefully document the racism of the Left. This will allow us to throw the moral onus on the Left should we be forced to go full-White-nation on them. And we'll need that to unify our own side.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 8:06 AM  

American nationalism is fragile. There are many religious, ethnic, and regional divisions. It was being held together by careful cultivation.

It is nonexistent. It is imperialist pseudo-nationalism, held together by the threat of force.

I think the best strategy may be to push the cultural nation tactic for the moment, but carefully document the racism of the Left. This will allow us to throw the moral onus on the Left should we be forced to go full-White-nation on them.

That's ridiculous. The tactic has already failed for generations. FFS, when are you going to accept that "Dems are the Real Racists" has never worked and will never work? The only reason it ever worked for the Left was that the Right was terrified of being called racist.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 11, 2017 8:09 AM  

@2. SteelPalm, that war is coming is obvious.

Trial by fire is a strength of Christianity, and as such it should be obvious, between the Atheistic(read: Humanist/vainglory-hedonist), delusion-addicted, compulsively lying, degenerate parasites and Christianity, which one is going to come out of this war the stronger. When times get hard, people fall back on the traditions they know, and true Christianity is strong, vital and eternally applicable tradition. False christians will either have their delusions or themselves burned away by the fire.

As such, the coming darkness can only give way to greater light than is seen now, as it always has and always will.

@7. Vox, I'd go a step further and say that Peterson's assertion IS (somewhat) sensible, in that it is attempting to say "modern liberalism is natural and inevitable, bow before the inevitable". The (apparently) correct response is either "Are you ready to be the first martyr for your faithless faith?" or "You have to go back."

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 11, 2017 8:10 AM  

By "sensible" in this context I mean that it can be understood, not that it is correct.

Blogger wreckage February 11, 2017 8:14 AM  

It's a blessing to be able to listen in on an argument between two people who aren't mental cripples.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 11, 2017 8:16 AM  

@20. You're forgetting that the left has no morality or standards apart from the solipsistic "muh feelz". They don't give a crap if they're racist, and they never did. Picking them off for hypocrisy isn't an option. Executing/exiling/deporting them for treason/sedition/identity is.

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 11, 2017 8:17 AM  

"I think the best strategy may be to push the cultural nation tactic for the moment, but carefully document the racism of the Left."

In the light of the last 5 to 10 decades, this is sheer lunacy.

This is not strategy, it is submission.

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 11, 2017 8:20 AM  

"Jakarta vote: Indonesia hardliners call for Muslim governor"

--from the BBC, so it must be true.

Nope, no evidence for identity politcs here.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 11, 2017 8:22 AM  

The left:

"You hate me you're a bad person!"
"You hate him/her/them/xir you're a bad person!"
"You won't do what I want you're a bad person!"
"You don't submit to my delusions you're a bad person!"

This is what ALL of their EVERYTHING boils down to.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 11, 2017 8:27 AM  

Alternatively:

"Compromise? Good bitch. Now compromise more." Ad infinitum.

Anonymous PinochetsChopperPilot February 11, 2017 8:32 AM  

#NoWarWithRussiaTheirWhiteToo
#SaveTheWhiteArabsInSyria
#SolidarityWithCatalan

Whenever I hear a Leftist say ANYTHING about Russia, I do the SAME THING they do with Illegal Immigration and that is to immediately amplify the racial aspect in an accusatory tone:

"I'm not going to support any more wars where white people are forced to go kill other white people"

"Why do they (*implied Left, TPTB) want me to hate people like me? They (TPTB) are only saying/doing this because they, of course, hate white people (Russia)"

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 8:32 AM  

Both arguments have merit. Your objections are correct to a degree, but only to a degree. The world is much messier than that, and history has huge piles of lessons beyond those that may be useful for making a given point.
Lets take the matter of merging of identities. This does actually happen, and the US is not the only proposition nation. Pre-romantic-era nationalism it was rather common. I dont know if foreigners can become Chinese or Polish, but they can and historically have become Spaniards and Filipinos and even Frenchmen. My own family is mixed with more disparate cultures and nationalities than seems reasonable, and it was already so 100 years ago, or even 200 years ago. It may take a generation or two of practice maybe, or perhaps we have lived in enormously different worlds. Mine is complex.
Spanish ethnicity for instance is not a single thing at all, it is a collection of nations each with a different tongue and customs, and the gradations of blending are ancient. Getting rid of the overt Jews and Muslims barely touched this variety. Besides this there was always a considerable flow of foreigners into the polity. Spanish history is full of Weylers and Redings and Blakes and Lacys and O'Neills and O'Donnells and O'Donohus, especially in the upper classes. "Spanish" is an artificial identity. These differences were historically reconciled with a "proposition nation" indeed, Catholicism and the offer of participation in an empire. There was and is a multi-ethnic Spanish Nationalism. Unamuno the Basque was a Spanish Nationalist even as half the Basques were trying to break away in 1936, when both Catholicism and empire were no longer sufficient, the "proposition" had weakened.
Your American problem is in large part the result of the failure of your own proposition, and Wright is right. This failure is the fault of your own cultural elite, not any foreigners. Your elite has lost faith and gone mad besides. I see this on the ground here in California, it is your top down educational/cultural system that is imposing or exacerbating tribalism, where the immigrants themselves may just have adopted Fourth of July Yankee Doodle and tricorn hats on their own - they actually did use to do that you know, there is plenty of history of that in San Francisco, always, from its beginnings, a cosmopolitan city of immigrants.
Its not helped by an excessive, sustained, and uniform immigration, especially from a neighboring country, which creates an irredentist issue. Theres your point, granted.
Ah well, we live to disagree.

Anonymous Northernhamlet February 11, 2017 8:35 AM  

VD,

Posts like these where you go line by line are in your class of best reads. They're instructive on a number of levels.

Blogger Doom February 11, 2017 8:36 AM  

I, as with others, sympathize. I am working on a friend of my own. If I find he has gone antifa, I'll unmask, photo, and deal with him harshly. Not that Mr. Wright is that far. Not sure my friend is. Friend? Who knows these days. Then again some old friends, even from here, from the past, are lost to that.

I don't agree with all your notions, but the bulk is good dope. And I even see your points as well reasoned, I just don't agree with the minor conclusions. Love reading here. Lots of good thinking back and forth. Annoying sometimes, if that's a good thing.

He'll figure it out, if he is serious.

Blogger bosscauser February 11, 2017 8:38 AM  

The left rules by exploiting tribalism.
REPUBLICANS over intellectualize!

#PresidentTrump2020

Anonymous Aphelion February 11, 2017 8:41 AM  

I found this article interesting. It seems some of the Hotep Brothers support the Alt-Right. http://hotepnation.com/hotep-altright/ At least some members of the black community understand the need for self-reliance, policing their own community, opposing feminism, opposed to BLM, and supporting the nuclear family. The Hotep admit that they are a separate nation and seek to work as one, coexisting with the Alt-Right nation.

Blogger Sam Spade February 11, 2017 8:49 AM  

One rhetorical tactic that I found works well with women to expose SJWS, beta liberals and cuckservatives in TV, is to attack their social status.

I have tried to expose, with a lot of effort, their hypocrisy with my girlfriend numerous times, with discrete results.

One day, I began to ridicule and laugh at them, calling them losers, betas, and feminine eunuchs, and I saw my girlfriend face change expression and being incapable of talking a single word in their defence. And then smiling and saying to me "don't be so bad".

The thing the women hate the most is a gamma man.

Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 8:49 AM  

Not much changed from the medieval times, it seems. Hieronymus of Prague, a hussite preacher, defined a nation as people sharing blood, language and religion (can't remember when he wrote this, but this was surely before he was burned in 1416)

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 8:50 AM  

This does actually happen, and the US is not the only proposition nation. Pre-romantic-era nationalism it was rather common. I dont know if foreigners can become Chinese or Polish, but they can and historically have become Spaniards and Filipinos and even Frenchmen.

The French Revolutionary proposition is already acknowledged by the French to have failed. There never was a Spanish proposition, it was an empire. Filipinos are a Catholic mixed nation that have entirely failed to incorporate Islam.

Obviously, new nations can be created by amalgamation, just as new breeds of dog are. But that doesn't make them ideas, they are simply new genetic patterns.

The irony, of course, is that the very concept of "proposition nation" is intrinsically of the Left.

Anonymous PAC February 11, 2017 8:53 AM  

Well, Jefferson's certainly got my vote for MOST APOCALYPTICALLY DISASTROUS & CALAMITOUS RHETORICAL FLOURISH OF ALL TIME.

Blogger Joshua_D February 11, 2017 8:55 AM  

I certainly don't sympathize with the desire to hold onto the propositional nation over the tribal nation. I mean, I understand how such feelz are indoctrinated into us and it can be hard to let go, but the proposition nation is simply false.

People have to have some cultural/identity foundation to stand on together if they are going to argue over other, lesser ideas.

I find it difficult to read John Wright when he discusses these issues because I expect him to address the reality rather than create straw-right arguments.

Someone mentioned they think John's Catholicism may color his opinion, but if anything Christianity should remind us of the invalidity of propositional culture. Christians don't "choose" to accept the faith. They don't review the proposed ideas, weigh their merit, and then accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. No, what happens is Jesus chooses the Christians and brings them into the fold without their consent.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2

Perhaps John still thinks he chose and accepted the Christian faith based upon his superior reason and the obvious merit of the Christian TRUTH, but he didn't. That's not how it works.

People of a Nation can disagree over a lot of things, but they have to have a shared foundation upon which to stand.

Anonymous PinochetsChopperPilot February 11, 2017 9:00 AM  

35. Aphelion: Hotep is making the same argument I (as a White Hispanic) have tried to make repeatedly to dumb white people--you keep supporting these Mexicans and Muslims, who come here and crowd your world to where your kids are in trailers/extensions at their elementary public schools, and you, in other contexts bitch that your IT job market is soft, and you can't understand any cashier, and your wife isn't safe, and you can't find "good schools" for your kids.

So much coding (virtue signaling) and conditioned thought processes from whites--not getting it (as Hotep does), these "people" coming here, legal or illegal, are from tribes COMPETING WITH YOU FOR RESOURCES...RESOURCES YOUR ANCESTORS (directly or casually) died to develop, protect, etc. They aren't coming here to join in the American "experience" (altruism, civic duty, love of neighbor) that exists only in your mind and re-runs of the My Three Sons. They HATE YOU. THEY WILL KILL YOU WITH A THOUSAND CUTS, or worse.

At least some black Americans are getting it.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 9:02 AM  

I add, re Lee Kwan Yew, who deserves great respect of course, that Singapore and Malaysia had a singularly unpromising mixture of peoples for integration. Muslim Malays, Hindu Indians and Chinese are like a Neapolitan confection, layers that dont mix. The quote no doubt is born of experience, and having been in those parts I understand it perfectly.
An hour away however, in a messy place he never thought much of, the Filipinos will integrate with anyone. His Chinese, in that environment, have produced a vast mongrel race, integrated, or sometimes not, in every way imaginable, and often the mixed families are dozens of generations old.
Consider for instance the Presidents of the country have, most of them, been part-Chinese. That is typical. The Filipino national confection, perhaps not accidentally, is the halo-halo, which means, literally, "mix-mix".
Gets to my point about looking about to make points. Seek and you shall find.

Anonymous the management February 11, 2017 9:07 AM  

Identity politics is normal, and a natural subsidiary of ANY overarching Truth, Logos, universal brotherhood of man, I Have a Dream, etc. It's just the real world. After all, God created the identities.

Every ideological denial of this is false. Almost makes you wonder whether it's a form of gnosticism.

The JW/George Bush proposition nation view represents as much an extreme, anti-historical ideology as did that of the Soviet Union. It just doesn't feel that way to an American steeped in it from birth.

Anonymous Taco Town February 11, 2017 9:08 AM  

The "proposition nation" and "civic nationalism" are not unifying forces because they are not religions. On the other hand, Cultural Marxism in all its flavors is a religion.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 9:10 AM  

Ah, I disagree, sadly.
The Spanish proposition was indeed a proposition - Ferdinand and Isabella's, who claimed to reign as Catholic monarchs, and so justified their rule and the unified Spanish state, to defend and extend Catholicism. And it did not begin as an empire but as a federal coalition.
The imperial part came later, first with the overseas empire, and then the centralizing state.
Just because it isnt a proposition from the Age of Enlightenment doesnt make it less of one.

Anonymous grey enlightenment February 11, 2017 9:20 AM  

I think it's time to give up trying to change him..you two can both be friends, but politics is a no-go

Blogger Joe Doakes February 11, 2017 9:21 AM  

Minnesota Somalis not only vote for Somalis, they show up at the courthouse to protest for them and close ranks to prevent investigation of their crimes (see Scott Johnson's excellent series on the Somali refugee recently elected to the state house and the questions about her marriage to her brother).

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 9:23 AM  

As for integrating Islam - you are right, that is one of those things that is very difficult to mix. I think the Euros made a terrible mistake in importing them. There are factors of compatibility to consider, the Neapolitan icecvs the halo-halo. Still, the Filipinos are trying hard in spite of difficulties.
There are a lot of mixed marriages now, down in Mindanao. President Duterte's grandma was Muslim, and his ex-wife a Jew. The Jew part is the odd one.
Also consider that the country is a multi-ethnic mix even leaving the very small Muslim minority aside. In US terms the situation would be as if the native tongue of Texas were German and Chicago French. This is a tolerable situation.

Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 9:25 AM  

buwaya wrote: I dont know if foreigners can become Chinese or Polish, but they can and historically have become Spaniards and Filipinos and even Frenchmen.

I think that any nation can tolerate a small number of foreigners. Any particular foreigner can be accepted as Polish, and indeed, when surrounded by Poles, married to Polish women he may become Polish. However, when millions of foreigners would immigrate into Poland, they, instead of becoming Poles, would change what "Polish" means.

Another thing that "proposition nation" maybe may function, as long as it really does not differentiate between the people; that is, if you claim a condition to being Spanish is "being Catholic and being faithful to the king", then you can't privilege people for speaking particular language, having specific ancestry or whatever. You cannot at the same time claim the nation is constructed by adhering to the principle AND claim that the nation is divided into separate groups defined by blood/language/religion, of which some require special treatment.

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2017 9:28 AM  

I read John's post and emailed my thoughts to my wife. I think the most important point I made (besides pointing out the observable points where John was wrong) was this one: I

"I don't think John is actually capable of believing we'll have round two. Barring a miracle, I'm certain of it."
Now, compare these two comments above:

> American nationalism is fragile. There are many religious, ethnic, and regional divisions. It was being held together by careful cultivation.

> It is nonexistent. It is imperialist pseudo-nationalism, held together by the threat of force.

Then ask folks from the former Confederate States which is true.

> Your objections are correct to a degree, but only to a degree.

At 33 degrees Farenheit, water is a liquid. At 32 degrees, it becomes a solid. A degree of being correct can make all the difference in the world.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 9:28 AM  

On Catholicism - to make the halo-halo, you receive it in a glass, with the ingredients tossed in any which way, then you stir with a spoon.
Catholicism is the spoon.

Anonymous John Scalzi Unfinished Asimov Project February 11, 2017 9:30 AM  

"Well, Jefferson's certainly got my vote for MOST APOCALYPTICALLY DISASTROUS & CALAMITOUS RHETORICAL FLOURISH OF ALL TIME."

--I'm partial to the theory that Tom Paine is the actual author. The rhetorical analysis makes sense: although Jefferson himself was fairly out there on the "Left" of the time, his rhetoric was seldom heated (though admittedly his odd jealousies were). Paine on the other hand is nothing if not a frothing propagandist, and the catalog of indictments against George III is completely overwrought and also very Massachusetts-centric, and Paine had set up shop in Boston.

The classical liberalism of Jeffersonn's First Inaugural is, at any rate, vastly more charming than the Declaration, which really is a rhetorical albatross stuck around the throat of the American nation.

Anonymous Godfrey February 11, 2017 9:30 AM  

It's all bullshit.

The crony wealth financial Globalists are using immigration (and central banking) to destroy nation states. Immigrants are being used as storm troopers against native populations. They want to reduce worldwide IQ and thus eliminate competition and any threat to their rule.

It's open borders for you and closed communities for the Globalists.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 9:36 AM  

szopen,
We agree, you cant forget numbers.
More, and to add, not all mixtures work. Poles and Lithuanians and, most of the time, Ukrainians have got along historically, with large minorities in each others lands.

What you have there, in your second part, is the failure of the proposition, as a proposition, and such is the result, the components settle out, fail to mix. You need a new spoon to stir it up.

Anonymous instasetting February 11, 2017 9:40 AM  

All men are created equal is:
1. A fact of Reality.
2. According to technodeterminism, the reality of a world of muskets and rifles where instead of knights dominating the battlefield, it was every man who was important.

Real racists is useful for opening the door to strengthen those on your side.

As to Bush or Yew, both are wrong. Money, especially in amoral societies, is a chief interest. Its amusing also to see Yew advancing a fairly binary proposition.

Anonymous John Scalzi Unfinished Asimov Project February 11, 2017 9:41 AM  

Buwaya, speaking of new spoons to stir, where my butt shakin' Filipina at, yo?

You're trying to hook all us Alt-Right bachelors up with one, no?

You got one like the de rigeur shy pink-haired waitress in an Asian restaurant who stands by the wall with eyes downcast, using her tele-emoji powers to know whenever a patron needs their water refilled?

I'll try one of those. Do you ship them bubblewrapped or something?

Stick one of those gilt Catechisms in with mine, please. I'll provide the K-pop soundtrack on arrival.

I like to have a girl dancing in the corner while I write. Lends a certain classic ambience to the proceedings.

Anonymous PAC February 11, 2017 9:42 AM  

>The classical liberalism of Jeffersonn's First Inaugural is, at any rate, vastly more charming than the Declaration, which really is a rhetorical albatross stuck around the throat of the American nation.

That may be, but if there's one document you want to get it right, as opposed to 180 degrees away from right, it's as foundational a text as a Declaration of Fucking Independence. I mean Christ. That's no birth of a nation; that's a half-aborted baby that needs to be put out of its misery.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 9:46 AM  

I defend Yew. He knew very well how this worked. He dealt with Malay politicians for decades, who would indeed cut off their nose to spite their face, or so it seemed. Money wasnt everything, or much less than Yew thought it should be. The frustrations of these years are why Singapore is independent.

But his judgement was colored by his circumstances.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 11, 2017 9:47 AM  

"First, identity is not limited to race. Religion, too, is an identity, and one of the most powerful."

Hence, my preemptive push for Catholic Monarchy to take over when this whole American edifice comes crashing down.

Is this post's topic appropriate for mentioning this? If not here, then when?

If people can unite behind religion, then why not unite behind religion? Why can't we talk about this? Why to we have to yearn for an experimental moment in history when the American Sandcastle was first being built?

We are here, on the Right. We can speak dialectic to one another. We have that ability. Why can we not talk about this concept--Christian Monarchy--as a long game concept? It worked for centuries.

Blogger seeingsights February 11, 2017 9:47 AM  

Another proposition regime was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was explicitly founded on an ideology--Communism.

The Soviet Union was internationalist. Not only did various nationalities, ethnic groups, and religious groups live under the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union sought for a world under Communism.

The Communists were globalists. Arguably one of the most successful ones.

Identity politics was a blind spot to Communist theorists. Marx considered religion like a narcotic. The Communists thought that one type of identity, the "working class", was the major factor, while not realizing that nationalism is a force to be reckoned with.

There were various factors contributing to the collapse of Communism, the main one I think being that Communism is economically unsound. Another factor, I submit , nationalism.





Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 9:52 AM  

Scalzi and etc.,
My personal and practical advice -
Learn to dance. Almost anyone can. And sing, if you can. These are important.
Work out at least a bit.
Learn a few words of Visayan.
Fly off to Iloilo or Bohol or one of those less popular islands.
Dance, sing, and they will show up. Dont drink too much.
How to choose between them I leave up to you.

I am serious.

Blogger Shaman42 February 11, 2017 9:53 AM  

VD wrote:No. I meant what I said the first time.
I probably didn't represent Peterson's idea properly. It's based on measurable personality traits that predict opinions on political issues. The point being that while the policies that most liberals are prepared to support may change, especially their attitude towards anything Marxist, there will always be liberals, lots of them.

Blogger YIH February 11, 2017 9:53 AM  

Second, while men can, and do, surmount their racial, grievance, and religious identities in favor of other identities and ideologies, the salient point is that the vast majority will not.
I saw an example over at AmRen the other day: What to Make of Black Conservatives?
Conservatives like to pretend that blacks would be natural supporters if they had not been brainwashed by Al Sharpton and his media allies to hate Republicans, but it is perfectly logical for blacks to support the Democrats. At every socio-economic level, blacks depend on government. The black underclass gets its welfare from the government. The much vaunted black middle class is made up almost entirely of government workers. The black upper class, aside from athletes and entertainers, would hardly exist without affirmative action.
Some blacks have relatively conservative attitudes on social issues such as school prayer or homosexual marriage, but they are more concerned with jobs and handouts for the tribe than with these luxury issues.

I've seen that repeatedly, the only black ''conservative'' I've ever seen that opposed 'affirmative action' was https://infogalactic.com/info/Ken_Hamblin - and that's it.

Blogger seeingsights February 11, 2017 9:54 AM  

Identity politics has been going on in the US since the 1960s. It perhaps was not explicitly stated. It was the reason why, from 1968 to 1988, Republicans won the Presidency 5 out of 6 times, two of them in electoral landslides. And the one loss was narrow. It had to do with issue concerning race, such as affirmative action, busing, welfare, crime. Whites in the South and white ethnics in the North who voted for Democrats in local elections (and in those days there were more centrist to conservative Democrats than there are today) voted for the Republican presidential candidate.

Anonymous grey enlightenment February 11, 2017 9:56 AM  

One habitual weakness of John's arguments I have observed is that he tends to be inclined towards binary thinking, and binary thinkers are particularly prone to the Ricardian Vice, which Joseph Schumpeter described in the History of Economic Analysis

what's a good recourse on learning how not make binary arguments or an example of a non-binary argument that is still persuasive. I would think that to try to convey an opinion/perspective//declaration about something, that likely implies one opposes its opposite, hence binary? Does that mean arguing both sides of an issue. Wish Vox would expound on this

Blogger S1AL February 11, 2017 9:59 AM  

"If people can unite behind religion, then why not unite behind religion? Why can't we talk about this? Why to we have to yearn for an experimental moment in history when the American Sandcastle was first being built?"

1) Most American Christians are not Catholics and do not want a monarchy, much less a Catholic one.

2) Catholics are the most liberal denomination of Christian voters in the United States.

Blogger Lazarus February 11, 2017 9:59 AM  

Laramie Hirsch wrote:Hence, my preemptive push for Catholic Monarchy to take over when this whole American edifice comes crashing down.

Beacause it is historically obvious how seamlessly Christian sects get along with each other.......

not.

Anonymous Avalanche February 11, 2017 10:04 AM  

@17 "for islam to assimilate or institute liberal reforms would be blasphemy."

However: for islam to APPEAR TO assimilate or STRENGTHEN (only in the host population) liberal reforms would be "taquia": lying to further the islamic takeover of a host population before the moslems are strong enough in number and weapons to FORCE the change!

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 11, 2017 10:04 AM  

#20 I'll go with that if its an insurgent tactic of "freedom from" not trying to shame the left which is utterly useless.

By now it is quite obvious that Mr. Wright is comfortable being the old fool as all conservatives gracelessly aged into within that symbiotic relationship with the Left.

Notice he never scolds leftward, I would pay good fiat bucks for a conservative to scold leftward but they never do, they cannot overcome some built up mental block.

Blogger wrf3 February 11, 2017 10:09 AM  

What should my identity be?

Should it be aligned with what is in my head or should it be aligned with what is outside my head?

More simply, mind or meat (or some combination thereof)? Why?

Blogger Alan Gould February 11, 2017 10:17 AM  

@65 Subject your arguments to counterfactuals. Check your models not only for internal consistency, but for predictive capability and correlation with observed reality. Ask yourself 'how would my proposition play out in real life?', and be relentless and honest in sounding out implications and consequences.

Blogger Lazarus February 11, 2017 10:19 AM  

The identity-grievance politics groups on the Left are all about Leftism and nothing about identity.

The only people who ever side with their tribal group and identity politics group are people who have been indoctrinated by the Left


Hotep bruthas would disagree, as would the Nation of Islam.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 10:19 AM  

Ive been reading Mr. Wrights blog for a couple of years now and he has scolded leftwards more or less every post. I think they banned him at File 770 (granted, no great honor, they banned me too).

Blogger Cail Corishev February 11, 2017 10:20 AM  

The irony, of course, is that the very concept of "proposition nation" is intrinsically of the Left.

My thought exactly. If you believe in the proposition nation, you've already accepted some pretty fundamental tenets of the Left.

Someone mentioned they think John's Catholicism may color his opinion

I can't speak to John's beliefs, but there was a Modernist revolution in the Church at Vatican II that parallels the French Revolution and the spread of its errors politically. We have centuries of evidence that Catholicism and nationalism are completely compatible -- in fact, the Church has always encouraged the existence of nations, and is herself a monarchy with a hierarchy. Vatican II tried to democratize religion, pulling God down to our level with liturgical changes and reducing the clergy to little more than administrators and Eucharist-consecrators, functionally making each man's conscience his primary guide. Very democratic, no?

So the Catholic who accepts Vatican II but also thinks favorably of Crusades or the Reconquista, for instance, has a conflict. I know, because I used to be one, and I was only able to maintain that position by avoiding dangerous ideas and sources of information (and being far more ignorant than John).

I see the same process in political conservatives who are knowledgeable and honest enough to recognize the value of nations and the reality of tribal identity in the past, yet want to believe that America is something new that can operate by different rules. Much like conservative Catholics who accept Vatican II, reconciling that conflict means being somewhat choosy about what aspects of reality one faces.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 10:22 AM  

Muslim Malays, Hindu Indians and Chinese are like a Neapolitan confection, layers that dont mix.

As opposed to Afghans, Nigerians, and Scandinavians, who are so famously compatible. Or Irish, Italians, and Jews.

An hour away however, in a messy place he never thought much of, the Filipinos will integrate with anyone.

Right, that's why you require the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, because the 11 percent of the population that is Muslim has integrated so well since the 14th century. You're just another identity arguing the interests of your identity group. I find it moderately amusing how so many immigrants claim to be Real True Americans, then spend all their time educating their "fellow Americans" about the glories of Portugal, or the Philippines, or wherever.

You support a very different case than the one you're intending to bolster.

Blogger Silly But True February 11, 2017 10:23 AM  

The 60s? Italians in turn of last century's immigrant wave were lynched throughout US since about 1885.

The most notable one was in New Orleans when one of of rival WOP dockworkers ended up assassinating the New Orleans chief of police.

On his deathbed, he fingered all of them by claiming "The dagos did it," which caused the city to round up all Italian males in the city indiscriminately.

The New Orleans Times paper reported on the events: “The little jail was crowded with Sicilians whose low, receding foreheads, repulsive countenances and slovenly attire proclaimed their brutal nature." Nine were tried and acquitted and then vigilantes stormed the prison, shot and killed them then hung a couple more for good measure. It was an "international incident" as thecUS government ended up paying Italy $25,000. (I suppose with 34m people today, $77,300,000,000 cash payment would be an absolute bargain to pay to Mexico.)

But before the dagos, it was the Irish. And Germans. And the Dutch. And English. And French. And Spanish. The only ones here who hadn't faced it initially were probably Vox's ancestors when they went on their warpath whoopin' and hollerin' across the icebridge when they invaded North America.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 10:24 AM  

Notice he never scolds leftward

This is not even remotely true. John is staunchly and reliably anti-Left. The fact that he is not Alt-Right, or that he might disagree on the legitimacy of identity politics, does not prevent him from being a strong ally against the enemies of the West.

Anonymous Avalanche February 11, 2017 10:27 AM  

@54 " Poles and Lithuanians and, most of the time, Ukrainians have got along historically, with large minorities in each others lands."

Poles and Lithuanians and Ukrainians are WAS more genetically related to each other than S.American indians/mestizos, White Euro-derived Americans, semitic (muslim OR Christian) and African of any sort are to each other! This is the whole BASIS of identity politics,is it not?

Steve Sailor: (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-race-faq.html)
"Pedigree collapse reveals how the biology of race is rooted in the biology of family. We can deduce from the necessary existence of pedigree collapse that while everybody is related to everybody else in some fashion, it’s more genealogically significant to note that every person is much more related to some people than to other people. Even a Tiger Woods can identify himself as being of Thai, black, Chinese, white, and American Indian descent, but not of, say, Polynesian, South Asian, or Australian aborigine origin.

"Pedigree collapse is how extended families become racial groups. A race is a particular kind of extended family—one that is partly inbred. Thus it’s socially identifiable for longer than a simple extended family, which, without inbreeding, disperses itself exponentially."

and (same source):
"Q. But race is just identity politics!

A. Well, there’s a reason that identity politics are a big deal. However you feel about all the various kinds of identity politics, you need to understand them.

People tend to organize politically around some aspects of shared identity, but not around others. For example, language and religion tend to be politically salient, but not handedness. No politician fears the Lefthanders Lobby, because left-handedness is distributed too randomly throughout the population.

Sex can be politically relevant, but it frequently turns out to be less important than feminist activists hope. As Henry Kissinger supposedly said, "No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy."

Relatedness or race is typically the single most common dimension along which people align themselves politically.

Sharing relatives gives people more reason to trust each other—for instance, Jared Diamond notes that when two strangers meet on a lonely and lawless jungle path in New Guinea, they immediately start a far-reaching discussion of who all their relatives are, looking for overlap so they can be more confident the other person won’t kill them. Similarly, organized crime families typically have real extended families as their nuclei because relatives can trust each other more when outside the law.

Further, blood relatives are more likely to share other potent "ethnic" identity markers, such as language and religion."

Anonymous Avalanche February 11, 2017 10:28 AM  

(Sheesh: Poles and Lithuanians and Ukrainians are **WAY** more genetically related to each other)

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 11, 2017 10:36 AM  

@buwaya
"But his judgement was colored by his circumstances."

In other words, his extensive experience with the reality of governing a multiracial society led him to correct conclusions about the potential for democracy in such a society.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 10:41 AM  

VD, 11% is a vast overestimate, made by persons (Muslims) with political claims to make.
Its closer to 5% as per the actual census and its been consistently in that ballpark for decades. The proportion is actually falling somewhat as Christian Visayans are swamping traditionally Muslim areas. Thats one reason, as if they needed one, for all this Muslim violence. If you want to see a true reconquista (or in this case just a plain conquista) happening today, its going on right there, with babies.
Anyway, Muslims are difficult for anyone. Everything else, Filipinos deal with much better. Chinese, White, even Koreans and Indians, it goes fine.
Raising the Muslim point does not refute the larger one.
Im not doing any special pleading here, though Im not above it, but in this case Im just pointing out a counterfactual. The lessons of history are messy, and its not analytically sound to pull just the ones that serve your point.

Anonymous Ironsides February 11, 2017 10:46 AM  

Throughout history, racial identity has been implicit in practically every identifiable nation. The reason it wasn't explicitly declared is that it was so hard-wired in that everyone accepted it completely, like breathing.

It's true that identity has always contained MORE content than simply race. But to say that it didn't ALWAYS contain race as one of its important elements is absurd. German identity, for example, was a combination of race, language, and culture; which is why German identity is different from, say, French or Belgian or Dutch identity even thought they're all White people. But to say that Germans weren't implicitly White as well is to deny the reality of history.

The British had a multiethnic empire and a multiethnic army, yet their White British identity remained absolutely clear and sacrosanct. One hears about "Gurkha soldiers," say, or "Sikhs," or "Sepoys." At no point did they call these people "British soldiers," even when they spoke English in addition to their own language or even converted to Christianity. A British soldier was a White guy, full stop. They didn't underline it because it was so utterly self-evident to them that they never even thought about it, any more than they regularly announced "I'm breathing!"

One need only look at Blacks in the U.S. to see that identity includes the hard-coded racial uniform. They have had no language except English and no religion except Christianity (with Islam, etc. being very recent additions) for well outside the reach of their folk-memory. And yet, they aren't "assimilated." They think differently, act differently, talk differently, dress differently, etc. There is no sign that this will ever be different. They still represent a totally separate and mostly hostile enclave in the U.S., and generally outright reject the "proposition."

In short, having additional elements to one's identity beyond race doesn't mean that race isn't the foundational element. Nor does adopting certain of the additional elements suddenly mean that the racial part is abolished.

Race was always part of identity, inseparably and powerfully. It's just that the recent insane attempt to decouple identity from its most fundamental element has made explicit what was formerly overarching but implicit.

Mr. Wright's assertions are very close to a Strawman argument. He invents a nonexistent version of the Alt-Right and then attacks it. He accuses the Alt-Right of oversimplifying and then goes on to oversimplify totally -- "race means nothing, it's all muh civic values, anyone who disagrees is saying that NOTHING but race matters and is therefore wrong, so there!" Far from his viewpoint being complex, as he claims, he's trying to simplify it by eliminating a hard-coded, unavoidable, very powerful variable -- race -- so that he can say "everything is solved by one thing, muh Christian civic nationalism!"

His objections are well-meaning but they are simply suicidal down here on the ground where everyone else is aggressively working to further the interests of their tribe, and quite willing to ride roughshod over those weak enough to abandon their racial/tribal/ethnic affiliation in a futile attempt to get everyone else to stand down and abandon theirs. Tribalism is hard-wired into humans as a survival instinct. It can no more be eliminated than the instinct to eat, to breathe, or to fight or flee when suddenly confronted by a sabertooth.

Sure, you can suppress it, like someone can choose to starve to death or to stand motionless and let the sabertooth eat them. But in that case, you die. Suppressing the tribal instinct like cuckservatives or the current rulers of Europe means perishing as a nation just as surely as suppressing the urge to eat means perishing as an individual. Neither is a valid choice for continuing to live and thrive.

Anonymous Avalanche February 11, 2017 10:47 AM  

@60 "The Soviet Union was explicitly founded on an ideology--Communism."

Communism was explicitly founded BY Jews for Jews! It's the weapon, not the unifying proposition that sprang fully formed and armed from Lenin forehead! If you can overcome your dismay and inculcated recoil (who placed that recoil in you? Ever wonder?): Read David Duke's second book "Jewish Supremacism" (or even his much earlier "My Awakening"). In his first book, he provides a HUGE amount of (strongly referenced and backed up) data on (((who-and-where))). In his second book, he focuses solely on that, with way more (strongly referenced and backed up) data.

David's "My Awakening" was most assuredly MY awakening -- followed by a long hard slog down that rabbit hole --and a hard (Alt-)Right turn.

(Start here: Always ask: is it true and uncomfortable, or not true? http://davidduke.com/putin-80-of-first-soviet-government-was-jewish/
"Russian president Vladimir Putin has said that Jews made up “80 to 85 percent of the first government of the Soviet Union” following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917."


(Not-so-) trivial tidbits from around the web:
Marx was ancestrally Jewish; his maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier's rabbis since 1723.

The declassification of documents since the collapse of the Soviet Communist tyranny in 1991 has brought irrefutable proof that Lenin’s maternal great-grandfather was a shtetl Jew named Moshko Blank.

Leon Trotsky was a Jew named Lev David Bronstein.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 11, 2017 10:49 AM  

Notice he never scolds leftward

I would have said just the opposite: he blames the Left for too much.

He once described the New Left with this quote from Ray Bradbury:

“For these beings, fall is ever the normal season, the only weather, there be no choice beyond. Where do they come from? The dust. Where do they go? The grave. Does blood stir their veins? No: the night wind. What ticks in their head? The worm. What speaks from their mouth? The toad. What sees from their eye? The snake. What hears with their ear? The abyss between the stars. They sift the human storm for souls, eat flesh of reason, fill tombs with sinners. They frenzy forth….Such are the Autumn People.”

So I'm surprised to read here that he doesn't consider them evil. They sound pretty evil to me. But he does make a distinction there between New and Old Left, so maybe that explains the difference.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 10:50 AM  

Francis,
LKY was a politician and political activist in British Malaya, later independent Malaya/Malaysia of which Singapore was a part, until he took it to independence. He was disillusioned by the Malays.
His circumstances were specific ones for his mixture of peoples.
Had he been a politician of the huge Chinese community 600 miles East he would no doubt have had very different complaints.

Anonymous Will Martindale February 11, 2017 10:58 AM  

One of Gary North's lesser known books, The Judeo-Christian Tradition is an extensive and well-documented argument that such a tradition does not exist, as VD says. The link is to free PDF of the book.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 11, 2017 11:03 AM  

The paragraph that Vox cites, beginning "Tribalism says that the loyalties one has toward genetically similar groups" is... interesting.

It's probably more effective to define your straw men implicitly, than to lay out the sausage-making process so clearly.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 11:03 AM  

Ironsides,

Wouldnt the racial unity of traditional European polities been simply an accident of geography?
There were few travellers across racial gradients at the time even nation-states were forming.
The exceptions are cases where Europeans settled in non-white lands in sufficient numbers to create a properly multi-racial society, or when they deliberately transported others, like Asians, to other non-white regions.
In these places, Brazil say, but the same is true of plenty of others, national identity is not racial, and racial identity is a separate and more nuanced issue. Or in these places it can get all up in the air.

I believe VS Naipaul figured out he was not really a Trinidadian, though born there of an imported population, nor an Indian, though he was pure Indian, but an Englishman.

Anonymous fop February 11, 2017 11:07 AM  

John Wright, just like the left wing media, writes a piece about the alt-right without doing an ounce of research.

For Christ's sake, John. Your friend and publisher literally wrote the alt-right manifesto. Did a 10 minute phone call never enter your mind before you fired off this garbled Gefühlewerk?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 11, 2017 11:13 AM  

@Avalanche
"Communism was explicitly founded BY Jews for Jews!"

Not just the public face of the leadership. It's interesting to note the close ties that important (((capitalists))) such as Jacob Schiff and Armand Hammer had to Bolshevism. Odd that they would give so much financial support to their supposed class enemies...

Blogger pyrrhus February 11, 2017 11:13 AM  

John Wright, a master of idealistic fantasy (not heroic fantasy in the Robert E. Howard tradition), simply can't deal with the real world of races, ethnicity, and ethnic cleansing. The real world that humans have been living in for at least 200,000 years....Oh well, Heinlein, who was a realist in many ways, couldn't deal with it either.

Blogger pyrrhus February 11, 2017 11:18 AM  

@85 No, he wouldn't. LKY was extremely well aware that the Chinese, who are the money lenders in the Pacific, are thoroughly hated by the Malays and other groups. The communist rebellions in Malaya and Indonesia were thoroughly crushed because the insurgency was primarily run by ethnic Chinese, and the populace wouldn't support them. This was of course ignored in A Year of Living Dangerously....

Blogger Dexter February 11, 2017 11:18 AM  

"When I said 'all men' I meant all free white Englishmen, dummies!" -- Jefferson

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2017 11:25 AM  

> the only black ''conservative'' I've ever seen that opposed 'affirmative action' was https://infogalactic.com/info/Ken_Hamblin - and that's it.

I suspect, though I'd have to check to be sure, that Walter Williams may be in that camp too.

> Notice he never scolds leftward,

I see you've already been disabused of this notion.

> What should my identity be?

What makes you think you'll be the one deciding that?

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 11, 2017 11:25 AM  

Shaman42 wrote:VD, what do you think of Jordan Peterson's assertion that being liberal is a personality type that half the people in any society have, and that in a functioning democracy, conservatives and liberals negotiate a compromise?

I'm going to guess that any compromise which doesn't involve liberals dancing at the end of a rope will not remain a functional society for long.

Blogger The Observer February 11, 2017 11:29 AM  

Muslim Malays, Hindu Indians and Chinese are like a Neapolitan confection, layers that dont mix.

This is bullshit. Singapore has always maintained a Chinese supermajority. Malaysia has always maintained a Malay supermajority. Singapore maintains multiculturalism via propaganda from primary-school level, but that is secondary to the understanding that if you raise so much as the slightest hint of agitation the government will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Couple years ago 19 Indian nationals thought it would be fun to riot in Singapore; the government took out the Ghurkas on them - followed by caning and swift deportation.

Chinese are explicitly second-class citizens in Malaysia, the ~20% of them in the population having taken that status in exchange for citizenship during the Malayan Federation times. Even then, they need unprincipled exceptions in order to gamble (Genting and gambling cruises) and drink, both of which are banned by Islam. It didn't stop them from nearly beating the Malays via the MCP until Harry Lee and the British put a stop to that.

And Identity politics is part and parcel of Malaysian politics.

Blogger Nick S February 11, 2017 11:32 AM  

Well, I guess your either a binary thinker or you're not.

Regardless I think you've missed an opportunity here to accept your role as a teacher and show how each argument fits into or follows from the 16 points. Things that are obvious to you are not always obvious to everyone, Vox.

Anonymous Hesiod February 11, 2017 11:32 AM  

"Muh universality!"

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 11:33 AM  

Pyrrhus,
Like I said, things are quite different 600 miles East. I am from there, I grew up with the local Chinese. Their politicians deal in the milieu, not among ethnic factions. Its a different world from Malaysia-Singapore. And Ive been there too btw.

Blogger tz February 11, 2017 11:37 AM  

The Right thinks the Left are foolish, but not evil.

The Left think the Right are an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical.


I would say the alt-Right identifies the left as evil, and not foolish. Aborting 60 million is "foolish?"

The problem is you can hand the left irrefutable logic and evidence, wrapped in the sweetest rhetoric.
Until last year they would screech "racist! sexist". Now they will hand you a chalice of hemlock and insist you drink it.

The practical problem is you have 60 million people in this country who are trying to "exterminate" YOU (or your culture and everything you value) - I mean this personally and literally, if you went to see Milo in Berkeley, you might be in the hospital or morgue.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 11:40 AM  

The Observer,
I am perfectly aware of every bit of Malaysia-Singapore history, as well as the mutual treatment or mistreatment of ethnic groups there. Worse, and what you dont mention, is a lack of integration/intermarriage plus social separation, which is actually the first thing you will notice there.
I am simply saying that this situation does not apply in the Philippines, or if you like, these days only to a trivial degree. And there is a great deal more to the world than Malaysia/Singapore/Philippines. Hence LKYs observation should not be accepted as a universal maxim.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 11:42 AM  

Regardless I think you've missed an opportunity here to accept your role as a teacher and show how each argument fits into or follows from the 16 points.

I don't have a role as teacher. I don't care. If I felt an obligation, I would not blog at all.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 11:47 AM  

I am simply saying that this situation does not apply in the Philippines, or if you like, these days only to a trivial degree. And there is a great deal more to the world than Malaysia/Singapore/Philippines. Hence LKYs observation should not be accepted as a universal maxim.

You're wrong. And you are quite possibly being knowingly dishonest. Lee Kuan Yew was an educated, highly intelligent man and his statement was neither based solely on his personal experience in Singapore nor was it limited to Malays and Chinese.

And you're STILL babbling about the Philippines. Do you not understand that Americans don't give a damn about your very special snowflake nation you abandoned? Actually, that's not quite true. Duterte is kind of awesome.

Blogger Sheila4g February 11, 2017 11:52 AM  

@60 seeing sights: "Identity politics was a blind spot to Communist theorists. Marx considered religion like a narcotic. The Communists thought that one type of identity, the "working class", was the major factor, while not realizing that nationalism is a force to be reckoned with."

As Avalanche already noted, the majority of Russian Communists were Jews. Marx did not have a "blind spot" regarding identity politics; he was viscerally aware of them as a Jew living amongst Christian Europeans. Like so many before and after him (remember Boas?) he sought a theory that would disregard or subsume clear ethnic/racial distinctions to his own benefit. If class is the most important thing, than Jews cannot be separately identified from Christians. If race is a social construct, than Jews are merely a religion and proclaiming disbelief equals discarding genetic identity.

@81 buwaya: "Im not doing any special pleading here, though Im not above it, but in this case Im just pointing out a counterfactual. The lessons of history are messy, and its not analytically sound to pull just the ones that serve your point."

And yet every single comment you make is precisely "special pleading" for how your vision of the Filippino nation is simultaneously special snowflake and universally predictive. A conquered people (native Filippinos) always, throughout history, breed with their conquerors. Not every single individual or to all the same degree, but consider how few American Indians of any tribe are purely Indian, or even half. For heaven's sake, Mexico is almost entirely native Indian mixed with (generally) a lesser proportion of White Europeans. Brazil is perhaps a more genuine genetic mixture to rival that which you claim Filippinos cherish, and it, too, is a third-world country, from which the less White residents always attempt to immigrant to Whiter nations.

While any clearly identified group will experience a greater or lesser degree of "boiling off" (see Greg Harpending), the very fact that there are existing and distinct differences amongst the various races is evidence that, historically, it is lesser. If it was a great as you would like to think, we'd all be the brown shade the left has long predicted and hold hands singing songs.

As Vox succinctly noted, "Obviously, new nations can be created by amalgamation, just as new breeds of dog are. But that doesn't make them ideas, they are simply new genetic patterns" and ". . . so many immigrants claim to be Real True Americans, then spend all their time educating their "fellow Americans" about the glories of Portugal, or the Philippines, or wherever."

Blogger Nick S February 11, 2017 11:53 AM  

I don't have a role as teacher.

Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean you don't have one.

Anonymous Ironsides February 11, 2017 11:57 AM  

Regarding the Soviet Union, I have some anecdotal evidence to offer. Not only was it initially Jewish (just as most left-wing and communist type organizations have a heavy sprinkling of Jews in the upper echelons -- for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center, most major university Whiteness Studies departments, etc.).

Anyway, back to the anecdotal evidence. I'm married to an ethnic Russian from Kazakhstan. She views herself as a Russian, not a Kazakh citizen. She views Kazakh citizens as ethnic Tartars. And she views the later Soviet Union as a Russian state wherein the Russians helped all the foreigners in the Union out of the goodness of their hearts. (I learned long ago not to argue that point.) She doesn't view the Soviet Union as a multicultural entity; she views it as a Russian entity, in which the Russians generously shared the benefits of their culture, economy, and science with a bunch of ungrateful foreigners who now pretend they never needed the Russians in the first place.

Admittedly, that's just one person. But it's also straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, from someone who has a Soviet Union birth certificate and never lived in Russia for more than a week or two at a time when on vacation with her parents. I'm willing to bet her perceptions are not unique.

And finally, here's a thought for Mr. Wright and those inclined to agree with him:

An example of people who have explicitly rejected the racial/ethnic part of their identity exists. These people are the Looney Left; people who are also militant atheists, haters of Western culture and Christianity, worshippers of homosexuality, people who reject there's a difference between male and female, who hate men and want them subordinated or extinguished, who say all intercourse is rape and that pregnancy can exist without intercourse, etc. etc.

The group he's calling for -- who reject white ethnic identity and believe only in some weird proposition of equality -- are right here, right now. He doesn't need to strain and struggle to create them. If he wants to see the actualization of the proposition nation, in the solid, breathing flesh, he only has to look at Trigglypuff and the Antifa. There it is. You've got it, Mr. Wright. It exists in all its destructive, chaotic, insane, fascist "glory" right in front of your nose at this very instant.


Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 11:57 AM  

VD, it is my example. I know it, and Spain, in painful detail. Its also useful, for perspective. We are discussing human universals after all. Perhaps someone can comment on the applicability of this line in Lithuania, or South Africa.
LKY thought the Phils was a shithole. He also backed Marcos against the democratic/Catholic opposition. So lets grant him one out of two on that, your choice, and his status as a fallible human.

Blogger tz February 11, 2017 12:04 PM  

Another common thread missed is at least the alt-right is fighting - hard and has a path to victory.

Trump is a civic nationalist, so technically both paths are open, but "conservatives" are still worrying about a rulebook the left doesn't and will never play by.

I've not heard one proposal on how to fix the problem of 60 million anti-Christ demoniac barbarians in our midst from the ideological side. It requires either the Guadaloupe miracle or the LaPonto miracle. Can they be converted?

Wright's answer appears to preach Christ, Christendom, and the founding documents, but from afar. How can something like Berkeley be fixed?

The right has surrendered to the left for a generation. They cannot see it as anything but fear and surrender, not turning the other cheek in love. And the latter works only on people with consciences.

An old movie The Mission illustrates the problem. The end is a battle with both paths.

The alt-right in defense is about doing what is needed to destroy the left and restore our country.

I'm not sure if there is anything left of Conservatism. Is there something new on the ideological front? Something active? Or more talk? At best a realization the left wants them dead or enslaved, not just silenced.

Show me how the ideology can win when violently opposed? When the left is willing to sacrifice its own for the cause?

The ideological path has been the road to a 3rd world hell-hole, and we took one of the last exits and turned around. If the sum of the argument is not to return to the road to hellhole I don't see it.

Blogger buwaya February 11, 2017 12:06 PM  

The larger example of persons that have rejected their ethnic particularity is one I am very familiar with - Catholic clergy, and in many places anyway, the Catholic laity.
This pre-existed political ideologies.
When Francis Xavier rang his bell on the shores of Comorin, for people who's tongue he had not yet learned, he was not doing it for any worldly ideal, for any tribe or race or class.
It is a universal church after all, and deals in matters greater than our petty concerns.

Anonymous John B. Wrong February 11, 2017 12:14 PM  

Vox... did you see how the (((media))) is freaking out about what books Steve Bannon reads?

Not only does Bannon read Moldbug and Evola... but also Nassim Taleb and Anti-Fragile ....literally Hitler!

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/steve-bannons-dangerous-reading-list/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/steve-bannon-books-reading-list-214745

Blogger praetorian February 11, 2017 12:21 PM  

Catholics are the most liberal denomination of Christian voters in the United States.

Catholics went 52/45 for Trump, v. 58/39 for proddies.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

White catholics went 60/40. Hispanic catholics voted their ethnic group, not their religion. No serious Catholic could vote Clinton based on the abortion question alone.

I'd like to see how the catholic result holds up against each of the mainlines. I doubt very much that, by that metric, catholicism would be the most liberal.

Catholicism is a strange one, basically the inverse of The Modern American values: fiscally liberal, socially conservative. So the term 'liberal' applies in a qualified way.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 12:24 PM  

VD, it is my example. I know it, and Spain, in painful detail. Its also useful, for perspective. We are discussing human universals after all. Perhaps someone can comment on the applicability of this line in Lithuania, or South Africa.

Yes, Buwaya, we know that you know the Philippines, just like Sarah Hoyt knows Portugal. That's because you're Filipino and she is Portuguese. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that you also try to pretend to be Americans when you're observably not, on the basis of your current residence. Which is why you make my case even when you try to argue against it.

There are many, many other examples that we could cite besides Singapore. Are Russians resident in Ukraine now Ukrainians or are they Russians? What is all the fuss about there, anyhow? What need is there for NATO when the mere act of crossing a border provides one with a new identity?

Your position is nonsense and you are sufficiently well-traveled that you should know that by now. I suspect that if you moved back to the Philippines, you would miraculously understand it again, particularly if 30 million Mexicans followed you there.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 12:24 PM  

Not only does Bannon read Moldbug and Evola... but also Nassim Taleb and Anti-Fragile ....literally Hitler!

That's good news. About the only book I'd rather see on that list is Cuckservative.

Blogger S1AL February 11, 2017 12:32 PM  

@Praetorian - I probably should have said "division" vs. denomination. Evangelical whites (i.e. Baptists and non-denominational) voted 8:2 for Trump, so I suspect you're correct that some of the "mainlines" were very liberal - specifically Anglicans and Episcopalians. I believe Methodists have regional variation.

Though this does go to show that Catholicism is not sufficient to overcome ethnic division in voting patterns. And I suspect that it would be even starker if you factor out Cubans.

Blogger Silly But True February 11, 2017 12:39 PM  

"Duterte is kind of awesome."

We're probably less than 20 more murdered Americans in Acapulco from a cartel roundup and crucifixion of them facing towards Mexico at key places like Brownsville, TX.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 11, 2017 12:41 PM  

tl;dr What I think people like Mr. Wright miss is that action is guided by biological processes in the brain, processes that do exhibit differences between genetic tribes AND, above all, change from one time to another (in my opinion, clearly guided by social mood.)

Notwithstanding endless protestations to the contrary, all of the propositions I encounter posit that people choose their actions volitionally and that there are no larger social fads or fashions occurring in waves beneath the surface.

The reason history (and economics) do not line up neatly into a series of if-then statements is because there are massive tidal changes always underlying collective actions, tidal flows that are visible only to those who realize it's necessary to look for them.

Just looking at a stock chart going back to the 1600's and matching it to important social events in history causes an immeasurable breakthrough in seeing this. If one then is able to scale up the smaller patterned fractal and apply it to the largest scale for which there's objective data, the message is inescapable.

Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 12:46 PM  

I am just wondering... What about Switzerland? Four different languages, different religions, relatively stable for quite a long time. And it seems Swiss still are Swiss no matter whether talking in German, FRench, Italian or that silly local dialect. An exception proving the rule?

Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 12:47 PM  

I mean yeah, the cantons, federation and all, but still they seem to consider themselves ONE tribe, don't they?

Blogger VFM #7634 February 11, 2017 12:50 PM  

No, literally no one says that. First, identity is not limited to race. Religion, too, is an identity, and one of the most powerful.

I suspect I see one problem that Mr. Wright has with identity politics. Namely, that while religion may be an identity, it's a false one; identifying as a member of a false belief or perversion such as Islam or homosexuality (or both, in the case of transsexuality) is quite different than identifying as a given ethnic group because it's of your blood.

Although this is consistent with binary thinking, I guess.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 11, 2017 12:51 PM  

"Duterte is kind of awesome."

We're probably less than 20 more murdered Americans in Acapulco from a cartel roundup and crucifixion of them facing towards Mexico at key places like Brownsville, TX.


@115 Silly but True
One of the EOs that Trump signed after Sessions was sworn in sounded suspiciously close to a declaration of a drug war like they have in the Philippines or Mexico.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable February 11, 2017 12:53 PM  

About the only book I'd rather see on that list is Cuckservative.

It's on there. He's just not telling anyone yet.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 11, 2017 12:55 PM  

I'd like to see how the catholic result holds up against each of the mainlines. I doubt very much that, by that metric, catholicism would be the most liberal.

@111 praetorian
White Catholics are more conservative than mainline Protestants but less than evangelical Protestants.

But also keep in mind that "identifying" as Catholic doesn't mean they actually are Catholic... particularly if they approve of gay marriage and abortion. People who "identify" as Catholic generally mean they identify as an ethnic group that was historically Catholic (Irish, Italian, French Canadian, Polish, Mexican, etc.), not that they actually believe in the faith.

Anonymous Lit Dog February 11, 2017 1:01 PM  

While still reading the first part of this piece, I concluded that Wright is one of those guys who says, “Dems R the Real Racists.” And sure enough, there it was near the end of the post.

However, Wright has taken it to the next lower level. He acknowledges the alt-right critique of DR3, but steadfastly holds onto it by claiming the critique has no substance. VD helps him out here by reminding him that no one but people like Wright himself fears being called a racist.

Cucks block out the truth by deluding themselves into accepting the left’s stated principles. Then they pat themselves on the back when they can point out that the left isn’t living up to those principles. Hence, DR3.

If cucks would open their eyes as much as their hearts, they’d see that leftist universalistic principles are simply propaganda tailored to the moment. That’s why leftists denounce racial discrimination in one breath and demand racial discrimination in the next.

Leftist denunciations and demands consistently pursue an anti-White agenda. When cucks figure that out, they can move on to the alt-right where they have an actual chance of saving the societal values they claim to cherish.

Blogger Travis Kent February 11, 2017 1:01 PM  

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the confusion of identity politics from those like Wright seem to be that they equate them between the Left and the Right as if they're the same thing. The problem is that the Left's identity politics, while tribal, are built on sand. It's a false identity based on a R-selected reaction to K-selected biological and historical truths. Everything they do is either an aversion to such things or a violent reaction when they can't avoid it.

On the other hand, Identity on the right has a fundamental origin in history, in genetics, and the culture that grew from all that. That is why Milo is right that we're going to win. It's not that we're trying to claim the victim-hood status of the Left's identity politics. Rather, we are reclaiming the self-evident truths that have been erased through Leftists' indoctrination, and then attacking the Left's weaknesses instead of nobly defending lost causes.

In fact, that's the point. You can't be a noble, compromised man and have the ground to fight the ignoble. Compromise is the crack in the wall that the enemy chips at first; and that's only when they're outnumbered. In power, you either submit or be killed to the enemy. There is no more compromise. There is no argument. You either fight or get out the way.

Blogger praetorian February 11, 2017 1:03 PM  

I am just wondering... What about Switzerland?

Johann-Ulrich von Salis-Soglio did nothing wrong.

White Catholics are more conservative than mainline Protestants but less than evangelical Protestants.

Agree entirely with your analysis.

Anonymous JI February 11, 2017 1:07 PM  

Steve Sailer had an article speculating that the preposition "in" was missing from the introduction to the Declaration of Independence (I think Vox had linked to this article). The conjecture was that, in the rush to publish the document, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, IN that they..." lost the word IN.

Anonymous FP February 11, 2017 1:10 PM  

> It is nonexistent. It is imperialist pseudo-nationalism, held together by the threat of force.

The most obvious truth for this in my opinion being DC withholding tax dollars from states who dare not raise the drinking age or not lower voting age. Let alone issues like gay marriage or gun laws. They'll kill whole industries like timber or coal and then blame the slack jawed yokels for living off their welfare bribes and meth addictions. Move to NYC say the National Review Brahmins.

Blogger seeingsights February 11, 2017 1:16 PM  

There have been some posts, in response to my post about Communism, about Jews as leaders of Communism.

The prominence of Jews in communist movements I take not as that Communism is geared for Jews, but simply that Jews are active in politics generally. Libertarianism, which is mostly the diametric opposite of Communism, had Jewish intellectuals such as Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 1:22 PM  

What about Switzerland? Four different languages, different religions, relatively stable for quite a long time. And it seems Swiss still are Swiss no matter whether talking in German, FRench, Italian or that silly local dialect. An exception proving the rule?

Do you have any idea how many wars were fought between the cantons? Or the religious cleansing that took place, so that there are Catholic cantons and Protestant cantons to this day separate from the linguistic divides? The Italian-speaking canton was actually held as conquered territory for nearly 300 years. And it now has Italian language and culture written into its Constitution.

Switzerland is evidence that federalism and identity politics are two sides of the same coin, and that the former is not a solution to the latter.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 11, 2017 1:23 PM  

I probably didn't represent Peterson's idea properly. It's based on measurable personality traits that predict opinions on political issues.

It's still bullshit, easily observable by noting that the political debates in Western countries have almost nothing to do with debates in other countries. The Chinese don't debate the same things we do. And to the extent any other political entity has something resembling an American left-right debate, or really any ideological debate, it's never a nation with mixed ethnicities sharing power.

In states where power is shared between ethnicities, the debates are about which tribes get how much. It's only when you have one ethnicity in control that ideological debates can happen. And even then, they don't reliably break along the same lines as in America.

And even if you could have multi-ethnic ideological politics, the left-right mid-point of different ethnicities is hardly in the same place. If you put Black Americans onto a left-right political spectrum and drew a line in the middle, 80% of the "conservative" Blacks would be to the left of the average White conservative.

Peterson's theory is just more Magic Dirt/Propositional Nation bullshit.

Blogger S1AL February 11, 2017 1:24 PM  

@szopen - I posted this on Wright's as well:

Culture, genetics, religion, language. The Swiss are still about 3.0-3.25/4.

Anonymous CC February 11, 2017 1:28 PM  

We have witnessed the conservative Right live and let live, and compromise, to the point that Western civilization itself is at risk.

I used to sympathise with Left-wing idealism and thinking because it appealed to the better natures of people. But I could never really embrace it totally; I could see that at its extremes it was frankly, nuts and I knew about the horrors of Communism. I also implicitly trusted that the right were selfish and uncaring and there was also the constant refrain of Nazis, fascists and Hitler.

But I believed there could be an effective and fair way of applying Left-wing ideas. In that sense I was misguided and reachable. And anyway, over the last few decades Left and Right seemed to have become largely redundant, whoever was elected would produce the same results: social progress and corporate economics etc.

I see now that true Left wing aims of remolding the world never went away. But I see the true schism is between Globalism and Nationalism even if the true Leftist believers don't really understand that (many might still believe globalism to be bad). I also see there is no way to sensibly apply Left-wing ideas, because they're unreal and anti-nature. I read somewhere Orwell came to the view near the end of his life that Democratic Socialism always led to totalitarianism.

There can be no live and let live with the left. To survive we need to live and left die.

Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 1:40 PM  

S1AL wrote:@szopen - I posted this on Wright's as well:

Culture, genetics, religion, language. The Swiss are still about 3.0-3.25/4.

Not sure whether I understand you. They share culture. Genetics? I am not sure. They are all white European, but they are as similar as French are to Italians.
Religion? All Christian, but they are Catholics and protestants (not to mention "unaffiliated").
I guess that when facing muslims, all Christian denominations are same, and compared to Africans/Asians, all white Europeans are same too; but within Europe, the differences catholic/protestant were quite important not that long ago.

Blogger Thucydides February 11, 2017 1:59 PM  

i'm sure many of us have noted that Leftism in all its forms is a religion with the supernatural God (or gods) redacted and replaced by "Historical Materialism", or supposedly scientific principles (Global Warmisim).

They have their deitiies (Gaia, Karl Marx), deal with heresy by expelling or excommunicating heretics and treat "their" religion as revealed truth. No wonder they believe that their collection of identity storm troopers is or can be considered an actual nation, since they all really do share a "national identity" (or so they think).

I do find it amusing that the academics, bureaucrats and politicians who promote these ideas even now believe that "they" will continue to be in charge in the face of BLM, Mexican gangbangers, Islamic Jihadis and non violent but still obstructionist groups like LGBT or feminists, all of whom are already agitating for possession of the entire pie, not just their assigned "slice".

Instead of throwing out the crumbs, the Leftists currently in charge will be lucky to receive any when their revolution is over (much less when the Alt-Right pendulum swings into them at full velocity).

Anonymous Grandma Soapbar February 11, 2017 2:03 PM  

Libertarianism, which is mostly the diametric opposite of Communism, had Jewish intellectuals such as Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman.

(((Opposite)))... lol.

Both are anti-white. Both are globalist. Both are anti-Christian. Both were funded by Jew bankers. Both are for open borders and free trade.

Too late, the goyim know.

Blogger Jose February 11, 2017 2:14 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Jose February 11, 2017 2:14 PM  

VD wrote:VD, what do you think of Jordan Peterson's assertion that being liberal is a personality type that half the people in any society have, and that in a functioning democracy, conservatives and liberals negotiate a compromise?

I think it is a nonsensical attempt to convert a relative relationship into an objective principle.


I believe Jordan is referring to a [somewhat contested] result of a factor analysis of Minnesota MultiPhasic Personality Index results that showed a significant, though not dominant, factor correlating to variables that appear political & the subsequent cluster analysis that showed some clustering close to the extremes of that factor. That's what the media, never capable of understanding technical material, refer to as the "conservative" vs "liberal" mind.

(The people who understand factor analysis and cluster analysis said "oh, that's interesting, how does the clustering change when you add in the factors with higher eigenvalues?" But by then the media had their story and the word-thinkers had something to talk about.)

All respect due to Jordan, but he did pick the smallest hill to die on. "The Wehrmacht can come up to Piccadilly, but it won't go into Piccadilly. This far and no further!" Pronouns! On pronouns, third person pronouns that are never used in addressing a student at that, he chose to make a stand.

On a related matter, I self-identify as the AC-130J Ghostrider gunship; correctly address me as "your mighty howitzer." A bit Freudian, I know.

Blogger Silly But True February 11, 2017 2:16 PM  

@7634,
I could fully support such a military adventure, provided it is no holds barred.

Unlike Panama, we need not waste resources or increase overall operational risk by taking anyone alive.

I must admit I am a bit curious to know how a cartel stronghold fares against an ac130.

Blogger Mastermind February 11, 2017 2:23 PM  

"The lobbyist of the Right, by way of contrast, is not a religious zealot. He is willing to live and let live, and to compromise when need be. The Right thinks the Left are foolish, but not evil. The Left think the Right are an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical."

So John thinks that people who think he is "an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical" are not evil? Sooner or later John will have to get over this intellectual cuckoldry. He sounds like a battered wife looking for sympathy.

Anonymous Urban II February 11, 2017 2:41 PM  

I would suggest that the leaders of any mainstream political movement, such as communism, the French Revolution, and liberalism are deeply committed to the ideology. These are the top 1%; the people at the head of philosophy departments, etc. The leaders of the liberal movement are not motivated by race, but by a deep commitment to "equal freedom". The fact that this is true of the architects of the movement doesn't make it true for the majority of the population, who are more likely to be motivated by racial identity than philosophy and ideology.

Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 2:45 PM  

@140 Urban II
I would hit "agree" button if it would exist here. HOWEVER, there is also a possibility that from those "true believers" some THINK they truly believe, while subconsciously choosing an idealogy which suits best their ethnic/religious/racial identities, don't you think?

Blogger John S February 11, 2017 2:48 PM  

The JW/George Bush proposition nation view represents as much an extreme, anti-historical ideology as did that of the Soviet Union. It just doesn't feel that way to an American steeped in it from birth.

You nailed it. When the people didn't joyfully embrace communism, (paraphrasing Molyneux here) the Soviets didn't reexamine their retarded premises;they wanted to make New Soviet Man.

I guess our rootless cosmopolitan elite (and gullible cucks) believe they can manufacture New Democratic Man .

So far the results look pretty similar.

Blogger S1AL February 11, 2017 3:01 PM  

@szopen - It's a WIP, but the bare-bones version is that you grade on a 0-1 scale for each category, then take the total and compare. By the metric, the all-white, mostly-Christian, culturally cohesive country that has three official languages, of which one is almost universal, is far ahead of the United States in cohesive qualities.

And as Vox pointed out, still plenty of conflict in its early history.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper February 11, 2017 3:20 PM  

Tribalism and identity politics is inherently Right Wing, K selected since its all about loyalty something that Leftists R selected can't understand.

Still good people like JW can make the honest mistake of assuming civic nationalism can work. Its understandable even laudable to desire it in some ways but simple, its not a thing that works and the time the US seemed to have it was a falsehood, a product of of the Cold War, New technology and a rising prosperity in a rather homogeneous nation. Even with that homogeneity it took only a tiny amount of pressure to wreck it, Just a tiny push

Every society is about blood and soil or it fails, best case, third rate status




Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 3:22 PM  

@VD I knew about the wars, though not about ethnic cleansing and the occupation of the Italian part. But nevertheless, the last war was more than 150 years ago, and before of that the previous war was 100 years before. Wouldn't that suggest that given enough time and no newcomers, there is a chance that a common uniting identity may finally materialize and overcome the differences in religion and ethnicity?

@S1AL OK, I understand.

Anonymous Daniel H February 11, 2017 3:57 PM  

The left doesn't use national identity, national identity uses the left. Even the merest understanding of the development and history of communism will bear this out. Casto, the Vietnamese, Sandinistas, Pol Pot, Sendero Luminoso, China, Venezuela, even Russia post-Lenin, never really gave a damn about leftism per se. They just used it as a rallying point to face off against their perceived enemies. And our political leaders have been so stupid for the past 80 years or so that they have never grasped this simple observation.

Blogger Sheila4g February 11, 2017 3:58 PM  

@145 szopen: "Wouldn't that suggest that given enough time and no newcomers, there is a chance that a common uniting identity may finally materialize and overcome the differences in religion and ethnicity?"

As Vox already responded - only possible with strictly segregated federated lines, and/or after a new genetic amalgamation has occurred and replaced the original race of people.

Anonymous Immigrant American February 11, 2017 4:01 PM  

Let me remind you that according to myth, Jesus was killed by blood and soil nationalists... the Roman Empire.

The wise Jews warned Jesus about the Romans.

But Jesus didn't listen and was killed.

Maybe you too should listen to the warning signs.

Blogger szopen February 11, 2017 4:02 PM  

@147 Sheila4g
Fair point. OK

Blogger Cail Corishev February 11, 2017 4:05 PM  

On the other hand, Identity on the right has a fundamental origin in history, in genetics, and the culture that grew from all that.

That's a great point. On the right, I'd say that identity starts with the family and works out from there. In Catholic thinking, that's part of subsidiarity. The family, headed by the husband, is the foundational unit of society. Responsibilities (and loyalties) start there and work outward in gradually expanding circles, to the extended family, the parish, the neighborhood, etc. Two of the circles that fall somewhere between "my family" and "all people" are "my race" and "my nation."

The liberal doesn't like that (reasons vary), and prefers to pick a circle and declare that to be his most important one. A leftist may say that his circle is "the poor" or "disadvantaged minorities." A conservative may say that his circle is "all Christians," or even "all people."

But people don't work that way, and healthy families and societies don't work that way. Pretending that some of the circles like race don't exist doesn't make them go away. Trying to replace them with political designations doesn't work either. You can fake it for a while as long as everyone's comfortable, but those circles will tighten quickly when times are tough.

Anonymous vfm #0202 February 11, 2017 4:11 PM  

John Wright seems to think Reconquista 1.0 was an unusually vile slice of history. I disagree with him about that, but feel privileged to hone my deepening resolve against his arguments. I expect that I'll arrive at Deus Vult with more shin for having pondered them.

Anonymous Sharrukin February 11, 2017 4:12 PM  

148. Immigrant American

The wise Jews warned Jesus about the Romans.

But Jesus didn't listen and was killed.


1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone

Anonymous BbigGayKoranBurner February 11, 2017 4:37 PM  

man will always side with his inborn tribal group, grievance group, and identity politics group rather than with any political doctrine

I am willing to throw criminal and stupid gays under the bus, but I don't actually belong to those subgroups.

The lobbyist of the Right, by way of contrast, is not a religious zealot. He is willing to live and let live, and to compromise when need be.

There is no live and let live. The left want control over you & believe all of their failings are because of others. For leftists, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.

The left wont even let you live & let live after the Supreme Court rules in your favor. The boy scouts got the supremes to back them on who to allow, yet 1000+ lawfare arrows reversed the ruling.

About the only book I'd rather see on that list is Cuckservative.It's on there. He's just not telling anyone yet.

Prepare to raise it's price by a dollar then donate that dollar to something leftists hate.

Still good people like JW can make the honest mistake of assuming civic nationalism can work

It could work if anyone has ever seen a mestizo doing the reverse of latino littering anywhere other than the 84 lumber ad or a chain gang.

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 4:52 PM  

Wouldn't that suggest that given enough time and no newcomers, there is a chance that a common uniting identity may finally materialize and overcome the differences in religion and ethnicity?

No. The numbers are so much smaller and time-frame so much longer as not to be relevant. Switzerland has the population of Minnesota.

Anonymous Urban II February 11, 2017 4:53 PM  

@141 szopen

That certainly could be the case, but I tend to shy away from that kind of psychoanalysis, since all reason breaks down if this is universal. I will add that many white liberals would agree that they have an implicit bias, which is why they work so hard convincing themselves and everyone else that they are not racist.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable February 11, 2017 4:59 PM  

buwaya wrote:An hour away however, in a messy place he never thought much of, the Filipinos will integrate with anyone.

That is both true and false. In America you keep a tight community, and also do chain hiring like the Indians (dot not feather). (And I don't begrudge you that; I just think it's unconscionable that Native Europeans are the only people legally forbidden from doing so in our own countries.) At the same time, you also encourage linguistic and cultural integration (while in public) and intermarriage with (Catholic) locals. And the fear of (filipino) community disapproval keeps trouble-making at bay, very polite and law-abiding.

So of all non-Europeans, you're probably the most copacetic. I'll grant you that. But you still aggressively crowd out Unhyphenated-Americans from jobs at a time when over 90 million are out of work. We just shouldn't take any more immigrants at all for a couple of generations.

Blogger Sheila4g February 11, 2017 5:15 PM  

Off topic: BigGayKoranBurner, about a week ago (?) you made a comment that referred to the legal group you use/recommend for people with CCLs, but I can't find the comment or remember the name of the group. I passed my CCL test yesterday (yeah me!) and the tester (retired cop now in charge of security at my husband's office) said he uses "Legal Shield." If you (or anyone else here) uses someone else, please let me know so I can compare and join and recommend to some friends who are also interested.

Blogger praetorian February 11, 2017 5:19 PM  

The prominence of Jews in communist movements I take not as that Communism is geared for Jews, but simply that Jews are active in politics generally.

The Jewish revolutionary spirit.

Libertarianism, which is mostly the diametric opposite of Communism, had Jewish intellectuals such as Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman.

The Jewish revolutionary spirit.

Reading Rothbard's comments on bankruptcy protection and reestablishing debtors prisons was when I realized I was being had by a foreigner.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 11, 2017 5:31 PM  

@154 VD
Switzerland has the population of Minnesota.

Eh, it's a little bigger at 8 million CH vs. 5 million Minnestoans. But close enough for cultural estimates.

And even now it is a federation. Despite a lot of attempts to centralize power, CH is still a confederation of disparate cantons. Vaudois Suisse don't order Schweizers in Luzern around, and vice versa. Even with a lot of intermarriage there are still clear differences between the French speaking / German speaking / Italian speaking cantons. Plus Romansh is now coming back.

The proposition of the Helvetican Confederation is "One for all, all for one", or as the Swiss general told the Kaiser's general, "Then we would shoot twice and go home".

Mutual defense in the face of external hostility is not at all the same thing as Emma Lazarus / Melting Pot propositionalism. Swiss history and geography is unique, there are distinct genotypes there, it just doesn't translate to 'Murica.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 11, 2017 5:40 PM  

Wait, wait, I just thought of one proposition where the Swiss Confederation model works; the alt-Right.

In an alternate universe where the Kaiser decided to move south and the Austrian Emperor decided to annex more land onto Tyrol, Germanish and French speaking Switzers would shoot North while Germanish and Italian speaking Switzers would shoot East.

Keep your own canton. Shoot "outside". Go home. How does this not apply to the alt Right?

As for conservatives, Conservatives, nu-Right, etc. the challenge was simple: lead, follow, or get out of the way. Since conservative leadership has failed the choice now is "follow" or "get out of the way".

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 11, 2017 5:41 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:White Catholics are more conservative than mainline Protestants but less than evangelical Protestants.

My guess is that there is a higher percentage of Christians among White catholics than among mainline Protestants. Christians can easily leave an apostate denomination for one that still preaches God's word. Catholic Christians find that more difficult.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing February 11, 2017 5:48 PM  

Sweet! Loved the conclusion. If you ever want my help, let me know.

Blogger Travis Kent February 11, 2017 5:49 PM  

#144

I think the belief in civic nationalism is only part of the overall picture they see. For men like Wright, the other side of that coin is the fear that we're right about Identity. It's something I have found in myself as well as before I truly swallowed the red pill, I hoped in great faith that these historical and genetics lines could be crossed in relative peace. As is common with White people--at least in my part of the country--it's peace and debate first, then action and violence maybe. For plenty of these people on the left are in our own families and that means there will be a terrible schism that we do not want to cross.

For conservatives, neocons, and the Alt-Lite, it's ultimately in great faith and hope that there is another way; even if it's illusionary. Hell, even as the left proves again and again that the Age of Arguments is over, those on the right still hang on for a miraculous solution. But we've gone on far too long in history for the nature of man to endure these falsehoods.

Blogger tz February 11, 2017 6:14 PM  

In the previous post on Wright's blog it reveals a possible semantic confusion.

The Alt-Right will appeal to the loyalty men feel toward their skin color, which, as far as I can tell, outside of Leftwing Fever Swamps, is none at all. The Last Crusade will appear to the loyalty men feel toward Western Civilization, toward life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and toward goodness, truth, beauty, virtue and Jesus Christ.

What Wright calls the "Alt-Right" is what Vox has termed the "Alt-White".
What Wright calls the "Crusader" is what Vox has termed the "Alt-West".
Vox's list for the Alt-Right is Winning, The Rule of Law, and Christendom.

But a larger error or confusion is not "skin color". Michael Jackson? Or I could take melanin or even enough colloidal silver until I'm blue in the face (Argyria).

At least get the ethno-nationalism right - it is the package deal, the genetic, cultural, religious package.

The early 1900s were people self-selecting hard working people who were expected to learn English and fight for the country (World War 2, the cold war). Assimilation though imperfect still was the goal.

The post 1965 immigration doesn't even bother with assimilation. They don't even demand proficiency in English. They don't demand productivity.

In the comments, he also gets "magic dirt" wrong, though is corrected. "We can take in 30,000 Muslim Syrians that have multiple wives, marry cousins, aren't literate in their own language, have sub-90 IQs, but they will somehow become proper "Americans" and accept Christendom (even if they still believe in Allah)".

If you happen to find someone who is a libertarian in another country and they accept the constitution when they read and understand, maybe they could come here. But we aren't getting them - Milo seems to be one.

Anonymous BbiggayKoranBurner February 11, 2017 6:16 PM  

Shiela4g also consider having your gun coated. There are special paints for the barrel and you could have your gun hello kitty pink which would look non threatening to a jury.

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2017 7:00 PM  

> I'm not sure if there is anything left of Conservatism. Is there something new on the ideological front? Something active?

Noting that I've seen or heard of.

> I doubt very much that, by that metric, catholicism would be the most liberal.

I'd guess Episcopalians are far more liberal than Roman Catholics.

Blogger Robert What? February 11, 2017 7:07 PM  

Unfortunately Jefferson never completed the sentence. He meant "all men are created equal before God". Equal in intelligence, capabilities and creativity, no way.

Anonymous CC February 11, 2017 7:16 PM  

I'm not an expert on Switzerland but from what I've learned, her citizens have more loyalty to their cantons than to the overall country. The mountainous geography had always helped the Swiss defense ensuring her neutrality and might also explain the lack of internal conflict between the different people. The separate cantons were built up over many centuries of mainly religious refugees from the neighbouring countries whereupon was created a federation of distinct statelets. It doesn't really fit the idea a successful multicultural country, it's like a micro USA (the earlier model).

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2017 7:36 PM  

> Move to NYC say the National Review Brahmins.

> they wanted to make New Soviet Man. ... I guess our rootless cosmopolitan elite (and gullible cucks) believe they can manufacture New Democratic Man ... So far the results look pretty similar.

That because the people running both groups share the same ideology.

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2017 7:38 PM  

Hmm. left out my response to the first quote.

If I was forced to move to NYC, I wonder how many NRO writers and editors I would take out before they got me?

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton February 11, 2017 10:17 PM  

"one should never say that Democrats are the real racists. Why one should never say it, they never say."
There are a number of reasons why we think the Dems are the REAL racists! line doesn't work, and they've been explained to death in my opinion.

I'm going to give Wright the benefit of the doubt and guess that his lack of understanding about the alt-right comes from the fact that he's so prolific and doesn't have time to read everything and know what we're all about.

Anonymous Avalanche February 11, 2017 10:53 PM  

@157 " I passed my CCL test yesterday (yeah me!) and the tester (retired cop now in charge of security at my husband's office) said he uses "Legal Shield."

Congrats! Sheila, please check out Armed Citizens Legal Defense Fund. I chose them because they kick in $10k as soon as you call (provided you weren't committing as crime!) -- for lawyer or expert witness as needed. Most of the others I looked at ONLY give you money AFTER you're founds not guilty. But you need support BEFORE you go to court!

ACDLN also provides (I think it's eight, now) DVDs for education -- what you need to know by folks like Mas Ayoob, and some lawyers and Gila Hayes and I forget who-all-else. I'm very pleased with the outfit. Newsletter with interviews and info, including a question answered by several lawyers -- oh! And a list of local-to-you lawyers who've agreed to answer the call (essentially go on retainer for you without charging you a retainer!); that they recommend you interview and see with whom you feel comfortable.

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/

Anonymous Avalanche February 11, 2017 10:58 PM  

@165 "your gun hello kitty pink which would look non threatening to a jury."

oooooh,no no no! This is problem I see created for cops: With "pretty" guns now -- when a 5- or 6-yr-old comes out of the house carrying a "pink" gun -- how does the cop decide if this is a toy, or if the kid got in mom's purse while she was napping and has a "real" pink gun! Shoot or not shoot?

Blogger Sheila4g February 11, 2017 11:29 PM  

@172 Avalanche: Thanks for the suggestion; I will check out armed citizens. No worries re "pink" guns; it's just not me (altho' a friend somehow considers me "girly" and bought me pink hearing protection for Christmas; don't want to hurt her feelings so I'll use it).

Blogger Ponce Du Lion February 12, 2017 12:01 AM  

Your naval college is fooling you into believe that nation is by definition a proposition nation, when is exactly the opposite. If a nation is proposition nation not only isn't a nation but is the opposite. Is a family a group of people who live in the same house? If a think I am a wolf this make me part of the pack?

Anonymous Mathias February 12, 2017 6:13 AM  

@148

Please, Murder for Hire is still murder, and the Roman Empire was well known to take contracts from it's vassals to remove their local enemies to "keep the peace". "Our blood be upon our hand and the hands of our children!". So it is, and always shall be.

Anonymous Mathias February 12, 2017 6:15 AM  

Sorry, "His blood".

Blogger WTF February 12, 2017 10:49 AM  

I was having dinner with some friends a few weeks ago, when self described millennial started asking questions, he seemed genuinely curious, so I responded in an understanding manner.

He asked many questions that night, and one of my responses was to paraphrase Churchill.

Winston Churchill once said "A man who is not a [leftist] at 20, has no heart. The same man who is still a [leftist] at 40 has no brain."

He asked me if I had gone through this phase, and I responded that I had been raised differently from the get go.

So aren't leftists supposed to grow up eventually?

My question/point to this group is: Isn't their a (rhetorical) strategy we can use to get some of the leftists to grow up?

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 13, 2017 2:44 AM  

@67 Hence, my preemptive push for Catholic Monarchy to take over when this whole American edifice comes crashing down.

Beacause it is historically obvious how seamlessly Christian sects get along with each other.......not.

Heaven forbid the clans unite, and we have a single Christian banner, and stand indivisible against the Left.

Very well, keep your sects.

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation."

Blogger Servant February 13, 2017 5:55 PM  

Maybe wage of time to comment here but how can you compromise? If you hold values, how can you compromise your values, for someone who believes in nothing and no one? What do they give up? Nothing. You traded your principles for chaff. Compromising with the immoral is evil and stupid.

I admit to being a binary thinker, as you accuse john c wright of being, but I fail to see how him being dead wrong invalidates my position.

Blogger Servant February 13, 2017 6:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts