ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, April 20, 2019

An inability to break free

The Z-Man observes how civic nationalists, melting-potheads, and proposition nationalists repeatedly fail to grok the reality of a demographically failed state:
Those who have tried to engage with hardcore civic nationalists or evangelical patriots will have experienced a strange phenomenon where they appear to be strangely blind to certain topics. For example, the story about the black seeking out and throwing a white child over a third floor railing at the Mall of America. These super-normies respond to it by blaming communism or democrats. It’s as if the facts cause their code to reboot and they start repeating whatever they saw on Sean Hannity the prior evening.

If you press them on the obvious racial angle, they get flustered and either change the subject or break into a different chant about how America is an idea. It’s an odd thing that suggests these people have some sort of shunt in their consciousness that prevents them from seeing certain aspects of life. It’s not just a matter of self-censorship in order to avoid taboo subjects. Something seems to have been altered in their brains that prevents them from seeing anything that contradicts the colorblind fantasy.

It is an important fact for dissidents to accept. A lifetime of conditioning, perhaps generations of conditioning, have made it impossible for some people to ever look up and see the great divide, much less cross over to this side. Part of it is the normal desire of most humans to belong to the pack. To stand outside the main, with regards to biology, is a dangerous place. It is a form of self-exile. Naturally, most people would not choose it, even if it meant degrading themselves by repeating what they know to be untrue.
Aristotle explained this mysterious phenomenon: "Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."
- Aristotle, Rhetoric   

Their attachment to racial equality, civic nationalism, the melting pot, and the concept of the nation as idea is emotional, not rational. Reason will not change their minds. Only emotion will do so, and the most convincing emotion is fear. They will not, they cannot, change their minds until they begin to fear for their lives, one way or another.

Labels: , ,

110 Comments:

Blogger Stilicho April 20, 2019 1:06 PM  

Oh, they already fear...just not enough to outweigh their fear of criticism by the likes of Mitt Romney and the media.

Blogger tublecane April 20, 2019 1:09 PM  

Strange, because I went through Conservatism Inc. in my formative years, after being hardboiled by PC culture. And though I didn't go full Race Realist until the Trayvon Martin Fiasco, I don't remember ever possessing that Melting Pot, American Exceptionalism, we're all individuals, Nation That Isn't Actually a Nation mindset. The Melting Pot in particular always came off as stupid. No less stupid than the lefty alternative mixed salad, or whatever.

Perhaps it's a Boomer thing. Raised on Victory Culture and MSM not merely all day but probably in their dreams. I had the dark corners of the internet and old books to read. I don't know.

Blogger #7139 April 20, 2019 1:23 PM  

They will not, they cannot, change their minds until they begin to fear for their lives, one way or another.

Yep, so true.

Blogger Christian Schulzke April 20, 2019 1:25 PM  

Z Man is describing every BoomerCon I have ever run into.

Blogger Brian Dean April 20, 2019 1:27 PM  

"They will not, they cannot, change their minds until they begin to fear for their lives, one way or another."

Didn't Vox say that you shouldn't live your life based on fear?

Blogger Jeroth April 20, 2019 1:55 PM  

I was arguing with a civnat conservative who, within the context of a conversation on race, insisted different dog breeds don't vary in intelligence or propensities to certain behavior. I couldn't believe what I was dealing with. The guy was a moderately intelligent army engineer. I tried an extreme case to highlight the absurdity of this, and asked him if he truly believed a wild fox to be as intelligent as a pug. He accused me of moving goalposts, and suggested that the pug might be as intelligent if it were raised in the wild. He then demanded "scientific studies" proving the intelligence differences. I gave him one, and he said "the sample size was too small". It's like getting sucked into a black hole from which there is no escape.

Blogger rotekz April 20, 2019 1:57 PM  

The Z-man calls you a retard on Gab. I don't know why you signal-boost his writings when he says such petty nonsense.
https://gab.com/TheZBlog/posts/Q3E3ajh4aHZJTXpwb3d3NFVucXZNQT09

Blogger Jim April 20, 2019 2:01 PM  

If America is an idea, then two things need to happen immediately:
1) All birth-right citizenship must end, as genetic memory is limited to the realm of science fiction.
2) The First Amendment must be repealed to establish the American religion upon which America is supposedly based.

Blogger Doktor Jeep April 20, 2019 2:06 PM  

Rhetoric it is, then.

Blogger Azimus April 20, 2019 2:37 PM  

I am a civic nationalist more by default than by choice. Genetic nationalism is problematic because it is an infinitely fractal purity test - its not all humans its just whites. Its not all whites its just northern Europeans. Its not all northern Europeans its just the British. Its not all British its just the English. Its not all English its just the Anglo-Saxons. Its not all Anglo-Saxons its just the Anglo Saxons of Kent. Its not all the Kentish Anglo Saxons, its the such-and-such clan. So on and so forth until there's 2 guys at a pub with one explaining to the other that he, and he alone, is the only true member of the nation.

I tend to agree the main line of national expansion is through the rearing of children, but it is a combination of friendly genetics with proper education, and I think this explains why the 21st century English are so completely cucked despite having the blood of Nelson, Wellington, Boedica, William Wallace, etc etc, pumping through their vanes.

Blogger Daniele Grech Pereira April 20, 2019 2:38 PM  

Great analysis once again by Zman, his blog has recently become one of my go-tos for current event discussion.

Just realising that in my head I am saying "Zed man". Friggin' Canucks.

Blogger Arthur Isaac April 20, 2019 2:39 PM  

There is a local story. Boys entering a girls High School restroom and one gets kicked on the way in by a girl. They were going in there to protest the fact that a transitioning student had entered the boys restroom and posted a selfie in there to Snapchat. The boys of course are the only villains in the eyes of the cowardly traditionalists.

Blogger Daniel April 20, 2019 2:41 PM  

This nation has always had its Tories. They have my sympathies, and should be allowed to die with their misguided honor. I vote no mass graves for them, even if they have to be put down before the invaders.

Blogger Mystic On Main April 20, 2019 2:43 PM  

Shocked at how far Vox Popoli has slid. Used to be a good place to find good conversation and an active comment area. Now it looks dead mainstreet.

Blogger VD April 20, 2019 2:44 PM  

The Z-man calls you a retard on Gab. I don't know why you signal-boost his writings when he says such petty nonsense.

Because I don't subscribe to the genetic fallacy. I am considerably more intelligent than the Z-man, which is why he calls me a retard. He isn't capable of understanding much of what I write about. I could not care less about his opinion of me.

All I care about is whether what someone says is true or not, and the more accessible to the average it is, the better.

Blogger Daniele Grech Pereira April 20, 2019 2:52 PM  

This is why so many people trust VD and believe that he means what he says.

Blogger Noah B. April 20, 2019 3:02 PM  

The civnats need to hear that they're putting their own childrens' lives at risk by believing lies because insanity is a bottomless pit.

Today the globohomos demand you subscribe to the equality myth, tomorrow they will demand that everyone cheerfully serve up their own children to psychopathic doctors who will carve them up into monstrosities destined for depression and suicide.

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 20, 2019 3:04 PM  

@10 So tell me, how's the national unity looking these days? That civic nationalism is working great, isn't it? Everyone just has such a sense of togetherness. There's a definite agreement about where the country's going and what our future is.

Blogger The Cooler April 20, 2019 3:10 PM  

I am a civic nationalist more by default than by choice. Genetic nationalism is problematic because it is an infinitely fractal purity test [...]

No, it isn't. The mode of thinking that sees the Problem of Nationalism as an ultimately infinite regress is something spergs are prone to. Spergs, people who have limited real-world experience with other human beings, or people who think in mathematical terms as regards humanity.

At the point the definition of "American" was "now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America," Actual Americans were still in charge of not only who gets granted citizenship, but which citizens were admitted into the nation. And yes, people of European but non-British descent were admitted, thus the conveyance of American-ness. This is how nationality works, has always worked and is the organic means by which nations evolve from within.

The problem now:

Actual Americans are no longer in charge of conveying American-ness; it is some-now-nebulous-everyone-and-no-one thing dictated from without by post-1965, technocratic, liberal consensus-spewing non-Americans who have commandeered the ship so as to run it aground.

This is in fact the wellspring from which the Alt-Right/Nationalist Right in the United States flows.


Blogger pyrrhus April 20, 2019 3:25 PM  

Z-Man flip flops between agreeing with fundamental tenets and facts behind the nationalist right and attacking the inevitable conclusions to be drawn from those facts...He's a schizophrenic..

Blogger ZhukovG April 20, 2019 3:28 PM  

@Azimus: Civic Nationalism is a 'Delusion of Choice'. No one, including you has to be one.

Nations are messy, because they are made of people and people are messy. But the example you have given does not cause any issue for Nationalism.

I am a member of a Nation and a member of a family. I love my family more, but I will not commit treason to benefit my family. However, should the Nation seek to harm my family, I will defend my family.

Blogger Gettimothy April 20, 2019 3:31 PM  

The thing described is indistinguishable from a spell.

Blogger tublecane April 20, 2019 3:32 PM  

@Brian Dean- The fear wakes them up. They don't live the rest of their lives under its control, unless they're neurotic.

Blogger nbfdmd April 20, 2019 3:39 PM  

I have a career where I get first hand knowledge of the parenting styles of different ethnicities. Here's what I'm seeing:

Asian parents are focused on fostering discipline and educational attainment, especially in the fields that require analytical thinking. They have long time preferences, zero patience for excuses, and generally don't believe in things like ADHD.

Middle Eastern (Muslim) parents are similar, but are very religious and might therefore limit the intellectual achievements of their children slightly by making them conform to Islam.

European parents: mostly lazy fucks who let ipads do their parenting for them. Not particularly interested in their child's (because they probably have only one kid) academic achievement, because it might detract from their own narcissism. They actively tell their children that there is nothing transcendent about reality, and that Christianity is for fools. They are neglectful (again, narcissism) and drug their kids with antidepressants and stimulants when they rightfully lash out.

With that being said, I'm sure I'll get lots of hate for asking this, but: Even as a white person myself, why should I be rooting for the success of a group that are complete failures and don't want to put in the effort to succeed?

Of course, there are also really good white parents. But they're the exception. On the other hand, really good Asian parents who care about their children are the norm.

Blogger NO GOOGLES April 20, 2019 3:42 PM  

@10
What a silly objection. "No true Scotsman" is a pretty trivial thing to deal with. For example, color is on a spectrum - does that mean that "green" doesn't exist? Or do you know what green is when you see it even if a very technical exacting definition is something hard to agree on?

Secondly even if you were to go full Israel and want to DNA test people to see if they were part of your nation or not - it's trivial to define standards and follow them (I don't think this is a good idea but it is certainly an idea that is possible to implement).

The idea that because there is some fuzziness on the exact boundaries of ethnicity that one has to dismiss ethnicity entirely is like saying Cindy Crawford was ugly because she has a mole.

Blogger cheddarman April 20, 2019 3:42 PM  

It is not as hard as you make it out to be. The population of any viable nation will have variability. The nation just can't be taking in outliers and trying to homogenize them into the population

Blogger lowercaseb April 20, 2019 3:54 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:On the other hand, really good Asian parents who care about their children are the norm.

High IQ, but LOW trust. They care about their children, but not about their community. Look at San Francisco districts if you want to see the future where they govern. they can plan for the future...but ONLY for the future of their individual family and the connections that can get them ahead.

Blogger Makabura April 20, 2019 4:02 PM  

But there is no permanent change either. When the emotions change they change again.

I have a childhood friend who is an NPC, once I said something threatening like "people WILL react vilently to these changes" the NPC agreed with me and repeated back to me what I said as if he had always believed it.
But a few days later, when the fear was gone, he was back with the usual NPC programming.

Birds can fly because they have wings, fish breathe underwater because they have gills, these are easy to see, but a human brain, in order to think, it also needs something,
maybe a chemical reaction, maybe electrical impulses... if the body of the person is incapable of harnessing these chemical substances required for thinking, there is no thinking. The limitation is biological.

I don't see any hope for them. I think we just have to wait untill they just vanish. Personally, I don't even want my NPC friend to live in fear.
I'd rather keep him living his happy life as a computer simulation if the price to pay for rationality is terror.

Blogger SciVo April 20, 2019 4:07 PM  

Azimus wrote:I am a civic nationalist more by default than by choice. Genetic nationalism is problematic because it is an infinitely fractal purity test - its not all humans its just whites. Its not all whites its just northern Europeans. ... So on and so forth until there's 2 guys at a pub...

You made three mistakes:
1. Starting with a bad definition of nation;
2. Reasoning poorly from it; and
3. Drawing a fallacious conclusion.

1. A nation is a People. It is a cohesive genetic, linguistic, and cultural group. Neither "whites" nor "2 guys at a pub" are capable of being a nation, which should have been your first clue that your thinking was sloppy.

2. Your second clue should have been that you are using the reasoning of the "anti" argument that human races don't exist; 2a. that is a very different proposition, and also 2b. you don't address the "pro" arguments at all, 2c. which are almost superfluous anyway since the "anti" argument is so easily disposed of.

You might as well claim that colors don't exist as that races don't exist; yet most humans with eyesight can see colors. This is because they exist as perceptual frames, and existence of a distinguishable category is not negated by a little subjective fuzziness at the boundaries.

3. Finally, it is illogical to conclude that just because you can't think of a good argument to support the existence of something you can see, like the color blue, you must disbelieve in it.

In conclusion, you made a category error between nations and races, used a bad argument that doesn't even work for races either, and then drew a fallacious conclusion from an objectively incomplete examination of the question.

(For completeness, an example of a "pro" argument is that anthropologists can consistently determine the races of skeletons. But that should come as no surprise when you understand it as a perceptual frame; the question is ultimately philosophical.)

Blogger ZhukovG April 20, 2019 4:07 PM  

@nbfdmd: Your nation doesn't need cheerleaders, it needs Men. So, what are you doing about it?

Blogger Mark Stoval April 20, 2019 4:10 PM  

"Their attachment to racial equality, civic nationalism, the melting pot, and the concept of the nation as idea is emotional ... They will not, they cannot, change their minds until they begin to fear for their lives, one way or another." ~ VD

This is exactly the case. This is also true about so much more than just the topic at hand.

Mankind is mostly monkeys with tools who use reason only as a very last resort. The white nations have been seduced by Satanic lies of "love the other no matter what". I am not sure the whites will survive their delusions.

Just the fact that the white people let the US government import hoards of people from India and subsidized big corporations hiring them even thought they are untrained and stupid is just one example mentioned on a recent thread. OMG.

Monkeys with tools. And I do apologize to the average monkey who is probably wiser than the average US citizen.

Blogger tublecane April 20, 2019 4:21 PM  

@Azimus- This is a trivial objection to nationalism, especially considering the problem is all the worse when you try to determine the dividing lines between Civic Nationalities.

Part of me sympathizes, because I think modern nations (not just nation-states) are too large .Or conceived to be too large. But your fractals are merely the fuzzy boundary problem, or the problem of the beard. When does stubble objectively become a beard? No one knows. Or cares.

Distinctions about nations are based on blood and soil and Culture and Tradition. Which are sticky things. But they do not always lead to "purity spirals."

Blogger The Cooler April 20, 2019 4:25 PM  

My family has 400 years of blood and bones in this ground. Save one lonely Scotsman, I am entirely of English descent.

If I say someone is an American, they are an American -- i.e. if I have vouched for them. For example, Vox is an American.

When am I wrong? When a sufficient quality and/or quantity of actual Americans say I am.

That's how nationality works, folks. And is also, very generally speaking, the chrysalis through which new nations arise.

Blogger David Ray Milton April 20, 2019 4:28 PM  

First of all, keep in mind that with the two groups you mentioned, statistically you are seeing the best and brightest that they have to offer. Immigrants to first-world countries (Rio Grande hopping aside) tend to be towards the top-tier of their host civilization. As you alluded to, migration requires long term thinking which is indicative of intelligence.

Secondly, you are grossly misrepresenting whites. While whites do lag behind East Asians in educational attainment they are light years ahead of Arabs.

Lastly, you noticeably left out the two largest minority’s groups in the US. I think you may find it harder to talk about their respective parenting styles and educational achievements, eh?

Blogger David Ray Milton April 20, 2019 4:33 PM  

Fear is an important motivational tool, indeed.

I think the phenomenon that woke a lot of people up, myself included, was the Black Lives Matter movement. To see how the hordes behaved, their ridiculous reasons for why they were rioting and protesting, and most significantly, how POTUS Obama defended their reprehensible behavior left me no other choice but to anxiously conclude... “Dear Lord, they hate us because we’re white.”

Blogger Matthew T April 20, 2019 4:33 PM  

***Just realising that in my head I am saying "Zed man***

It never occurred to me that it might be anything else.

Blogger Alexamenos April 20, 2019 4:34 PM  

Can confirm. I've spent my commenting time on normie conservative websites for last few years and it's like banging one's head against a wall.

Blogger matveidaniilovich April 20, 2019 4:35 PM  

Zman is also a non-Christian, which means he lacks a certain wisdom that someone like a Jesse Lee Peterson possesses. (James 1:5)

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 20, 2019 4:37 PM  

@24 As a white parent myself who is guilty of allowing too much iPadding, I can only say in our defense that we feel stretched pretty thin. There doesn't seem to be much sense of community or togetherness around here where we could, for instance, allow our kids to just run out and play in the neighborhood. And barring that, paying personal attention to them yourself constantly would just be exhausting for two working parents.

Or maybe I'm just making excuses and I could do far better. God knows, and one day, I will answer to him.

Blogger VD April 20, 2019 4:39 PM  

Z-Man flip flops between agreeing with fundamental tenets and facts behind the nationalist right and attacking the inevitable conclusions to be drawn from those facts...He's a schizophrenic..

No, he's just a coward.

Blogger Avalanche April 20, 2019 4:45 PM  

@10 "I am a civic nationalist more by default than by choice. Genetic nationalism is problematic because it is an infinitely fractal purity test -- it's not all humans it's just whites. It's not all whites it's just northern Europeans. It's not all northern Europeans it's just the British...."

So, you believe there is no difference whatsoever between deadly ill and healthy? If there is no 100% clear-cut hard line between groups, you decide there are no groupings AT ALL? Can you not almost always, and almost always without fault, tell at a glance who is black and who is White? Do the extremely few you cannot immediately ID mean therefore there ARE no blacks or Whites!?


"national expansion is through the rearing of children, but it is a combination of friendly genetics with proper education "

So, after 400 years, the blacks are no more members of the United States "nation" than they were when they were unwillingly brought here? Guess they have unfriendly genetics -– or should they have been educated differently from the WHITE children who fit into the nation?

Blogger Avalanche April 20, 2019 4:57 PM  

@28 "Personally, I don't even want my NPC friend to live in fear."

I feel a slight bit of ... not quite guilt" perhaps sorrow? -- that my friend down the street has started to really know about the unmentioned / unmentionable race war and her own and her daughter's actual lack of safety. NOT enough yet, for her to want to see what's truly going on, but she no longer feels safe without their new alarm system, and I'm teaching her shooting so she can get a carry gun. I got her husband to recognize reality a couple years ago; his new gun is now the 'house' gun -- when he's out of town, she sleeps with it on her bedside table!

She is unhappy that she's feeling all this fear now, but on the other hand, she's also recognizing that being asleep was NO protection at all. Do I want my NPC friends to be afraid? Yes. Absolutely. Because if they do not see reality, and get through the fear to as much preparation as they can swing; then they ARE merely food for the jaguar.

Just as a child resists potty training, NPCs and snowflakes resist adult-knowledge training. We're doing them no favors by letting them stay in their diapers!

Blogger Jack Ward April 20, 2019 5:15 PM  

What a wonderful telling quote from Rhetoric. Hard to beat the classics. I have got to get Rhetoric in Kindle. Or, check and see if I already have the thing sitting on the cloud.
At any rate know I have not read it cover to cover. That said, visiting here so often you almost have a working knowledge of Aristotle by osmosis, if nothing else.

Blogger Damelon Brinn April 20, 2019 5:23 PM  

Genetic nationalism is problematic because it is an infinitely fractal purity test

Only if you sperg about it or let sperges lead you off into the weeds arguing edge cases. That only happens online where people can fantasize about using DNA tests to gum up the works. In the real world, everyone already knows who belongs and who doesn't; and if you don't know, you'll find out soon enough. That black man who threw the white kid down three floors at the Mall of America didn't have any doubts about it.

Blogger tublecane April 20, 2019 5:25 PM  

@Avalanche- Blacks should have been better educated, yes. If we were oingg to keep them and have univeesau education.

But that never would have worked. They'll always be a Nation Apart. Interbreeding doesn't appear to work, either.

Blogger Avalanche April 20, 2019 5:29 PM  

@1 Oh, they already fear...
@28 a few days later, when the fear was gone, he was back with the usual NPC programming.
@35 Fear is an important motivational tool, indeed. ... "Dear Lord, they hate us because we're white."

There’s a continuum of response-emotion from Apathy to Terror. Risk communication consultant Dr. Peter Sandman has written about this. Search here: http://www.psandman.com/col/fear.htm for "we typically draw a scale": a graphic of the continuum. From Terror, there are two probable endpoints: Panic or Denial. It's probably close to impossible for the blankest CivNat to not see how far his world has fallen. Trying to get him to see how-and-why this is so, increases his fear. The harder we push, Sandman suggests, the deeper he retreats into Denial.

The more we try to scare him into recognizing reality -- e.g., financial collapse is coming; next Ice Age is coming; U.S. break-up is coming; race war HAS started! -- the more he dives into safe-seeming denial: "it won't happen to me!"


From: http://www.psandman.com/col/westwing.htm
... Whenever people are ambivalent, seeing merit on both sides of some issue, they tend to focus on the side others are ignoring. This is the seesaw. When addressing an ambivalent audience, therefore, you can choose among three pure options plus a hybrid.

Take the obvious seat.
The worst strategy -- and the most common one -- is to take the position you wish your audience would take, as if the game were follow-the-leader instead of seesaw. Companies and government agencies do this all the time. You want your stakeholders not to worry, so you tell them there's nothing to worry about. The unworried seat on the seesaw being thus occupied, your stakeholders reliably become all the more worried. Somebody needs to be worried, after all; if not you, then us.

Take the counterintuitive seat.
A far better strategy is to stress the side of the ambivalence that does you harm, leaving the other side -- your preferred side -- for your audience to stress instead. This is profoundly counterintuitive. But it works.

A typical seesaw issue is responsibility. If you emphasize the sense in which a problem is not your fault, we will emphasize the sense in which it is. But if you blame yourself more, we will blame you less. In the famous case of the Tylenol poisonings, for example, several people died after someone added cyanide to random Tylenol capsules. The CEO of Johnson & Johnson held a video news conference in which he took moral responsibility for the poisonings, insisting that it was J&J's job to have tamper-proof packaging. Millions of people who watched the clip on the news that night said to themselves, "It's not his fault, it was some madman." You can't do better PR than to have millions of people telling you it's not your fault.

Another common risk issue where the counterintuitive seat on the seesaw works superbly is catastrophic potential. If you emphasize that a catastrophic possibility is low-probability, we will emphasize that it is high-magnitude. But if you keep saying how bad it would be, we will point out how unlikely it is
...

Move to the fulcrum.
A more sophisticated, long-term approach is to move to the middle of the seesaw, forcing your stakeholders to come to terms with their ambivalence, to recognize that there are good arguments on both sides ... in other words, to move to the middle themselves. I sometimes call this "dilemma-sharing." It is most obviously the best strategy when you're genuinely undecided or at least perplexed, when you're ambivalent yourself: Say so.
...


Couple others to help you figure out a better approach to normies and frightened sheep:
"Games Risk Communicators Play: Follow-the-Leader, Echo, Donkey, and Seesaw"
http://www.psandman.com/col/games.htm

"Seesaw your way through ambivalence"
http://www.psandman.com/CIDRAP/CIDRAP8.htm

Blogger The Cooler April 20, 2019 5:50 PM  

Even as a white person myself, why should I be rooting for the success of a group that are complete failures and don't want to put in the effort to succeed?

I had a drunk uncle. He denied God, Christ; was a vulgar, violent, prurient cad who just assume kill you as look at you. I never stopped letting him know where he was headed, in both this life and the next. I was unrelenting.

He ended up dying of cirrhosis. On his death bed, he accepted Christ and admitted that I had him convinced a full year prior about the self- and soul-destructive path he'd been on. He was "just to pig-headed to admit it."

The point is: You don't give up on your dipshits. They need you the most, after all, and are, after all, your dipshits.

Blogger SciVo April 20, 2019 5:56 PM  

Their attachment to racial equality, civic nationalism, the melting pot, and the concept of the nation as idea is emotional, not rational. Reason will not change their minds. Only emotion will do so, and the most convincing emotion is fear. They will not, they cannot, change their minds until they begin to fear for their lives, one way or another.

I agree -- with the caveat that I think "ego death" not only counts, but is actually scarier for most people. If your body dies, then you will have the advantage of ceasing to experience it; whereas if your self-concept is killed, without rebirth (e.g. in Christ), there's an added element of necromantic horror, as you continue to shamble along through a meaningless imitation of life, acutely aware of the deadness inside.

If true, it is both bad and good. On the one hand, even mortal danger would be insufficient; on the other, it would also be unnecessary. Theoretically, "all" we need to do is cause their national disloyalty to threaten their pictures of themselves as good people, and they would fix that right up.

Blogger Mystic On Main April 20, 2019 6:03 PM  

One the primary reasons so few people are willing to embrace the ethno-nationalist worldview is that the solutions offered by the ethno nationalists have absolutely no hope of succeeding, making their cause seem ridiculous and childish.

It's one thing to argue over who is an "American". It's another honest solutions.

Blogger Pierre April 20, 2019 6:04 PM  

> They will not, they cannot, change their minds until they begin to fear for their lives, one way or another.

This is true. Threats to one's core set of beliefs and worldviews trigger the hardwired fight or flight response, which hijacks the brain into a much simpler and therefore quicker mode of thinking because you don't have time to think when you're running away from Alaric the Goth.

When the threat is to one's worldview (instead of a physical threat), it gets interesting. A dimwit will get physical. A midwi will quickly come up with a rationalization to counter the threat, reason it away, cover up the bad feels with mushy virtue, and return to their default state of blissful ignorance.

They really go full NPC, it's hilarious to watch. The other day a friend crashed her firmware and spouted "Don't be so judgmental!!!!!!" so I replied "Hm, you're judging that judging is bad?" and her face said "LOADING... PLEASE WAIT..." and she changed subject like nothing happened at all. DELETE OFFENDING THOUGHT. BEEP. RESUME PROCEDURE "CHILL".

I can feel it when it happens to me too. I'm not sure why I can hijack the hijack, that's probably due to IQ so I'm sure most people here will have the same experience. It's like my brain tells me "THIS IS BAD WE MUST CONFORM TO SOCIETAL NORMS" and I'm like "fuck off, we're getting to the juicy bits here, I've got to watch this get off the screen!".



Blogger pyrrhus April 20, 2019 6:35 PM  

>Z-Man flip flops between agreeing with fundamental tenets and facts behind the nationalist right and attacking the inevitable conclusions to be drawn from those facts...He's a schizophrenic..

No, he's just a coward.

I was being charitable...

Blogger kmbr April 20, 2019 7:26 PM  

**nationalists have absolutely no hope of succeeding, making their cause seem ridiculous and childish.**

Only because people don't know or won't accept what comes next. If they understood hard solutions today meant survival and life for their children, they make think differently.

Blogger Raker_T April 20, 2019 7:42 PM  

I'm facing a very pressing deadline, so I only read half the comments. Emotions yes, but pride as the underlying one. The irrational left and irrational right share a pride of identity; and it would be a personal crisis to become one of 'those bad people'.

Blogger Kat April 20, 2019 8:10 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:I have a career where I get first hand knowledge of the parenting styles of different ethnicities. Here's what I'm seeing:

Asian parents are focused on fostering discipline and educational attainment, especially in the fields that require analytical thinking. They have long time preferences, zero patience for excuses, and generally don't believe in things like ADHD.

Middle Eastern (Muslim) parents are similar, but are very religious and might therefore limit the intellectual achievements of their children slightly by making them conform to Islam.

European parents: mostly lazy fucks who let ipads do their parenting for them. Not particularly interested in their child's (because they probably have only one kid) academic achievement, because it might detract from their own narcissism. They actively tell their children that there is nothing transcendent about reality, and that Christianity is for fools. They are neglectful (again, narcissism) and drug their kids with antidepressants and stimulants when they rightfully lash out.

With that being said, I'm sure I'll get lots of hate for asking this, but: Even as a white person myself, why should I be rooting for the success of a group that are complete failures and don't want to put in the effort to succeed?

Of course, there are also really good white parents. But they're the exception. On the other hand, really good Asian parents who care about their children are the norm.



I know someone who works with Asian kids. These kids are super academic, but they freak out when you take away the calculator, close the textbook, and ask them to deal with real world problems. Said real world problems including "fix supper from scratch." They just don't know what to do. They are very competent in their world, but that world tends to be pretty small and focused on academic achievement to the exclusion of basic resiliency and experience.

Now, yes, there are plenty of crap European parents, but there are also plenty of parents who are turning out 4-8 kids and throwing them in the backyard to figure things out for themselves. Based on what I'm hearing from others, I'm putting my money on those kids.

Blogger Gettimothy April 20, 2019 8:17 PM  

Nationalism is a virtue; It is the embrace of the reality created by God for the good of the human race at Babel.

To deny nationalism is to deny God's love for us and to bring harm to your brothers and sisters in Christ.

(that's the Christian angle)

If we restrict ourselves to the purely secular, the case is even stronger.

We want Nationalism because we want human's to flourish and be happy among their own.





Blogger John April 20, 2019 8:35 PM  

I started reading The Transformation of War. Chapter 1 is black comedy: apparently immigration is the only effective form of war between nuclear states.

Blogger Timmy3 April 20, 2019 8:48 PM  

Tessa was naked in Westworld. Not interesting.

Thor was great with Chris Helmsworth. It doesn’t need a black female lead.

Blogger The Depolrable Podunk Ken Ramsey April 20, 2019 9:15 PM  

Mystic On Main wrote:One the primary reasons so few people are willing to embrace the ethno-nationalist worldview is that the solutions offered by the ethno nationalists have absolutely no hope of succeeding, making their cause seem ridiculous and childish.

It's one thing to argue over who is an "American". It's another honest solutions.


Forget race, forget ethnicity, forget borders ... our betters cannot even defend matrimony nor even our genders. How is anything they have touted reasonable given this onslaught?

It's been a total surrender to nihilism all the way down.

Blogger nbfdmd April 20, 2019 9:58 PM  

@34: Good points, I'll address them.

I agree that I'm seeing the best and brightest immigrants. But their parenting is not very different from average white parenting 20 or 30 years ago. So I'm less impressed by the immigrants as I am dismayed by the natives. I can't get too specific, but trust me when I say: white parents are making mistakes that are only possible if they are extremely uninterested in the well-being of their children.

To your second point, in my neck of the woods, the statement is false. Arabs that I come in contact with seem to be more well educated than whites. Again, biased sample, and these don't include the recent wave of migrants of course. I'm aware of the inbreeding going on in the Middle East. All I'm saying is that the Arabs who came over a couple of decades ago are turning out to be better parents than average whites, at least for education and discipline.

Last point: I'm not sure who the second minority group you mentioned is, I guess Hispanics. We don't have a lot of those around here so I can't comment. As for blacks, they're a complete trainwreck and I didn't even think to add them to the comparison because who cares, they're out of the running in the "who will rule the world" game.

Blogger Dave Dave April 20, 2019 9:59 PM  

The importation or arrival of new demographics inherently makes the population more tribal. Diversity of race destroys diversity of mind.

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 20, 2019 10:08 PM  

I is not genetic purity that defines a nation but there had to be a substantial close kinship. A common culture allows for social interactions based on common assumptions. The closer a people are genetically the eadier to adopt those customs. If genetics is significant in intelligence and skills, why people do not see the link with a pregerence to customs is beyond me. Are there outliers that prefer anither culture? Of course and they can be adopted in small numbers for the benefit of the host society. And that in individual cases only.

Blogger Azimus April 20, 2019 10:47 PM  

18. Zaklog the Great April 20, 2019 3:04 PM
So tell me, how's the national unity looking these days?


About as good as English national unity, I'd say. They are not all Paki's, who choose to remain.

Blogger Azimus April 20, 2019 10:58 PM  

19. The Cooler April 20, 2019 3:10 PM

No, it isn't. The mode of thinking that sees the Problem of Nationalism as an ultimately infinite regress is something spergs are prone to. Spergs, people who have limited real-world experience with other human beings, or people who think in mathematical terms as regards humanity.


I assure you I'm not a Sperg. I am a plant manager for a plant of 500 people. I do deal w/Spergs pretty often though... perhaps I've picked up some of their habits. But seriously, implicit name calling is not a counter argument.

At the point the definition of "American" was "now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America," Actual Americans were still in charge of not only who gets granted citizenship, but which citizens were admitted into the nation. And yes, people of European but non-British descent were admitted, thus the conveyance of American-ness. This is how nationality works, has always worked and is the organic means by which nations evolve from within.

On this very blog, our gracious host has argued for many years that Americans and their posterity are solely Englishman and their direct descendants. I don't know if SDL has changed his thinking on this, or I misunderstood his original points. The definition you cite came from SDL linking Owen Benjamin's reading of some old dictionary whose year and pedigree I don't recall, but it was from within the last several weeks.

Actual Americans are no longer in charge of conveying American-ness; it is some-now-nebulous-everyone-and-no-one thing dictated from without by post-1965, technocratic, liberal consensus-spewing non-Americans who have commandeered the ship so as to run it aground.

I agree with everything you wrote there. In my original comment I cited "friendly genetics" to which I mean long time preferences, k-selection, that sort of stuff, AND education. Fathers used to tell their sons what it meant to be American. This has been delegated to the state, and the state has used its office to corrupt the youth. All the terrifying statistics about millenials and Gen Z are proof enough that genetics are guarantee of nothing.

Blogger M.S. April 20, 2019 11:41 PM  

Jeroth wrote:I was arguing with a civnat conservative who, within the context of a conversation on race, insisted different dog breeds don't vary in intelligence or propensities to certain behavior. I couldn't believe what I was dealing with. The guy was a moderately intelligent army engineer. I tried an extreme case to highlight the absurdity of this, and asked him if he truly believed a wild fox to be as intelligent as a pug. He accused me of moving goalposts, and suggested that the pug might be as intelligent if it were raised in the wild. He then demanded "scientific studies" proving the intelligence differences. I gave him one, and he said "the sample size was too small". It's like getting sucked into a black hole from which there is no escape.

I've tried using scientific studies to prove various points I'm making, THEY ALL RESPOND WITH "the sample size is too small", a.k.a. "I'm triggered by the results and I want to deny them somehow"

Blogger Azimus April 21, 2019 12:24 AM  

1. ZhukovG April 20, 2019 3:28 PM
@Azimus: Civic Nationalism is a 'Delusion of Choice'. No one, including you has to be one.


I Agree. I am a reluctant CivNat. But I don't see enough strength in genetic nationalism alone.

Nations are messy, because they are made of people and people are messy. But the example you have given does not cause any issue for Nationalism.

I don't disagree. My example only argues that genetic nationalism is an insufficient basis to call a group of people a nation. When I look at something like the Civil War, for 4 years the nation had two distinct political entities. They had no substantial genetic differences, but they divided and killed each other in such numbers that many millions of people still speak of the war bitterly. The Southern people, regardless of political bonds, are a different people from the North. Were they always? Perhaps. Then what makes them different? Not genetics. It MUST be ideas.

I am a member of a Nation and a member of a family. I love my family more, but I will not commit treason to benefit my family. However, should the Nation seek to harm my family, I will defend my family.

I feel the same way.

Blogger xevious2030 April 21, 2019 12:39 AM  

Most people don't do the revolutuon, most people are NPCs. That's how a healthy community works. A chunk of the comnenyers need to go back to the sociology sexual hirearchy. Who moves, who is moved? Bingo, that's your problem. And that's where you find your solution. Beta wave TV shows, psychology driven narration, even emotional investment takes a second seat. Operant conditioning is a bit harder, but generally speaking, the problem is always in leadership. It's in the Alphas and the Bravos, if those are passive, there is no revolution, not a natural one anyway.

What are two of the things alphabet soup agencies try to do? They infiltrate/run any white racial angle, and they instigate violence, to bring about jail and the news of jail, incarceration for the active, and providing a negative example for everyone else to avoid. What are the words everyone reflexively states they are not advocating? And if the do not, they go to jail. That is conditioning, and understandable reaction. But this is why 2033 looks the more realistic timeframe. Because no one is likely to fight until there is no choice, no matter what pill someone takes. So, the smart are ready, and they pave the way for the future that will emerge more to their work. And if it can be fixed sooner, without the BS, then there is that.

The Alphas and the Bravos would be a good start, they reset/reprogram the NPCs.

Blogger Azimus April 21, 2019 1:04 AM  

25. NO GOOGLES April 20, 2019 3:42 PM
What a silly objection. "No true Scotsman" is a pretty trivial thing to deal with.


I don't understand you, and I'm not sure if you understood me with a reference to "no true scotsman"

For example, color is on a spectrum - does that mean that "green" doesn't exist? Or do you know what green is when you see it even if a very technical exacting definition is something hard to agree on?

I submit you are comparing apples and oranges here. I think you are trying to argue that everyone agrees what green is even though there might be disagreement where yellow ends and green begins. But the visible light spectrum is a static known quantity. Human nations are not static, but dynamic. If you are arguing that they are static, you are making my point for me about the infinite fractal purity test.

For example, take Israel you cite. There are Israeli citizens that are Arabs, yes? But you would say, "everyone knows those aren't Israeli's". Why? Maybe I agree with you, but why aren't they Israelis? Is it because they are not genetically Israeli but Arab? So lets look at the genetic makeup of Israel. You have the Arabs - they're out. You have the Ethiopians - they're out. You have the Former Soviet Union Jews - 2/3 of all Israel's Jewish immigration came from there - are they in or out? What about their children? Out? Then who are the real Israelis? Infinite purity test fractal.

The idea that because there is some fuzziness on the exact boundaries of ethnicity that one has to dismiss ethnicity entirely is like saying Cindy Crawford was ugly because she has a mole.

No, I don't think you have to dismiss ethnicity entirely. Remember I said I was a reluctant CivNat - maybe I'm some kind of hybrid. I'm not arguing you dismiss it, I'm arguing a nation is more than the sum of its ethnicity/genetic nationality. Its a necessary piece of the pie, but not the whole pie.

Blogger D.J. April 21, 2019 1:19 AM  

Christ is Risen!

Blogger Azimus April 21, 2019 1:23 AM  

26. cheddarman April 20, 2019 3:42 PM
The population of any viable nation will have variability. The nation just can't be taking in outliers and trying to homogenize them into the population


This is nearer to my position. Thomas Sowell is an outlier for his ethnic group, but he is an American. He talks, acts, thinks, writes like an American. I was speaking of the concept of a tailwind in a prior post when someone blamed John Dewey for something. I said he was a tailwind for the progs and not the source and mastermind of all the nation's ills. In the same way, genetics are like a tailwind - ethnic IQ being one important part of that. He tried Marxism and didn't like it, which indicates he's probably k-selected also. Does he really belong in the same category as the residents of New Somalia in Minnesota? Is he less American than Jane Fonda, for example?

Blogger Azimus April 21, 2019 1:45 AM  

29. SciVo April 20, 2019 4:07 PM
1. A nation is a People. It is a cohesive genetic, linguistic, and cultural group. Neither "whites" nor "2 guys at a pub" are capable of being a nation, which should have been your first clue that your thinking was sloppy.

If you are as intelligent as you present yourself to be, and I have no reason to think you are not, you must realize that the regression from "whites" to "two guys in a pub" was intended to show the folly of defining a nation genetically from ridiculously broad to ridiculously narrow, and that the exercise was intended to show that a nation cannot be simply a matter of genetics. It was hardly my argument - its YOUR argument, ad absurdum.

2. Your second clue should have been that you are using the reasoning of the "anti" argument that human races don't exist; 2a. that is a very different proposition, and also 2b. you don't address the "pro" arguments at all, 2c. which are almost superfluous anyway since the "anti" argument is so easily disposed of.

This is entirely too vague for me to follow. I'm sorry. You seem to think I propose races don't exist. I assure you that is not the case.

You might as well claim that colors don't exist as that races don't exist; yet most humans with eyesight can see colors. This is because they exist as perceptual frames, and existence of a distinguishable category is not negated by a little subjective fuzziness at the boundaries.

At this point you are winning an argument with yourself, not disputing anything I've said. The visible light spectrum that produces color is static, and has always been static. Human genetic information is dynamic, so it is not comparable. If you think genetic nations are static, which it appears you do, you have to start cutting and cleaving away whole swaths of people back to some theoretical point of sufficient purity to say "this is the nation." Its too easy to hand-wave "fuzziness at the boundaries" and make some half-hearted metaphor. It is a real problem you have. You're the one with the one-dimensional nation. I propose two: genetic proclivity/suitability AND education (to put it simple terms).

3. Finally, it is illogical to conclude that just because you can't think of a good argument to support the existence of something you can see, like the color blue, you must disbelieve in it.

You are drawing conclusions on arguments I did not make.

In conclusion, you made a category error between nations and races, used a bad argument that doesn't even work for races either, and then drew a fallacious conclusion from an objectively incomplete examination of the question.

This conclusion is built on a complete a misunderstanding of my position, so I will let it pass without comment.

(For completeness, an example of a "pro" argument is that anthropologists can consistently determine the races of skeletons. But that should come as no surprise when you understand it as a perceptual frame; the question is ultimately philosophical.)

You will find no disagreement from me here.

Blogger mike April 21, 2019 1:59 AM  

It's not just about iq. By reducing the issue of race co-habitation to the idea of iq differences it's hard to convince anyone. Statistics can't prove causation on it's own. The problem is much wider its whether tribalism and nationalism is good or bad. Tribalism is the basic building block of self-government.Nationalism is it's grown up brother. The question is of natural science. In a given environment what's the best system of governance. The simple answer is the one that lasted the longest with minimal social cost. That would mean, the multi-state system is the best so far. It lasted for long time and if organized properly has minimum social cost. It supports self-governance and one can move to another country of preference if a country is a shithole. Now, there's a question of nation vs state. If nation has no state it's not really self-governed, therefore it's highly likely that it's best for a nation to have a state or it doesn't have a venue for its people to govern themselves. If a state exists it's a choice of how to govern it with a minimal social cost. To compare the costs and not forget about benefits we could use gdp per capita as a good proxy of benefits-cost however we should normalize for all natural advantages and disadvantages like, oil, freezing temperatures, hot temperatures etc. This should give us some idea of different self-government styles in general. For historical comparisons we also need to normalize the gdp from the historical standpoint. Just a brief look would give us the idea that Europe in the past and more recently US were the best systems of governance with minimal social issues and with longevity. Almost all top contenders will be countries with large majority where the majority doesn't feel threatened and minorities are mostly assimilated. As people can divide itself to ever smaller tribes just by difference of opinion or location, what's the most important is the physical differences that immediately allow to tell us from them. The next important is culture and traditions, that can bind and also divide groups. Finally comes the difference in opinions that can further divide any group. All of those factors can lead to war. Balkanization is a process of auto-correction that allows for self-governance and reduces diversty. Having one big multi racial and multi cultural hiper state will reduce freedom as people will not have so many choices to move and change governing style they want to live under. Moreover, the state of affairs will depend on the mix of the prevailing races/cultures and the government style. In general the more uneven the distribution the more stable the country will be. As for iq and race civ nats ignore it as there are dumb people of every race. Colorblindness is not an issue as long as there is accountability. The problem today is accountability if we had merit based systems and controls as in the past. Nobody would be talking about Colorblindness being bad. Therefore, the easy conclusion is that the leftards don't want a diverse nation they want no nation at all. Until we accept and understand that there's no way to stop them, only pause. And no there's no easy way to turn milti-cultural natiin into mono cultural other than stopping the inflow for few generations and enforcing the merit based laws for stability with full on colorblindness. Otherwise a multi cultural state can only balkanize into less multi cultural one.

Blogger Azimus April 21, 2019 2:17 AM  

32. tublecane April 20, 2019 4:21 PM
@Azimus- This is a trivial objection to nationalism, especially considering the problem is all the worse when you try to determine the dividing lines between Civic Nationalities.


While I wouldn't say it is trivial, I do agree that dividing lines on Civic Nationalities can be considerably more difficult. I suppose I would cite yesterdays Good Friday service as an example - 20 different "denominations" uniting under the basic uniting faith in Jesus Christ, His Sonship with God, His Payment for sins on Calvary, and His Gospel of Salvation as a result. There is a million points of disagreement on other matters of doctrine, but the fundamental beliefs align.

The same thing could be said for a CivNat nation: the Bill of Rights, Constitution are the fundamentals. Or rather - Logos is the fundamental, upon which the foundation of Bill of Rights and the Constitution are constructed... the day-to-day stuff like how to pay for the highways or which defense project to fund can be debated. But the "big ideas" line up.

I concede that genetics are a factor that effect compatibility - I said as much in my first comment - but it seems fairly plain that it is not THE ONLY factor. Hence, my de facto CivNat position.


Part of me sympathizes, because I think modern nations (not just nation-states) are too large .Or conceived to be too large. But your fractals are merely the fuzzy boundary problem, or the problem of the beard. When does stubble objectively become a beard? No one knows. Or cares.

The fuzzy boundary problem as you call it, is a question of who is in, and who is out. You might find it hard to believe, but that is a fairly important question to a lot of people. And no, I'm not talking about the "what about me" half-black half-Chinese people who want to know whats going to happen to them if the grid goes down. I'm talking about ordinary people who want to know who they can count on when things get hairy, and what are the rules for it. History is full of examples of convenient foederati who were flattered and praised into joining a cause by another group, then used up and tossed away when the main group had no more use for them. Certainly that is life, but it can also be a matter of life and death to know - am I in, or am I out?

Distinctions about nations are based on blood and soil and Culture and Tradition. Which are sticky things. But they do not always lead to "purity spirals."

Agreed. I'm only saying that it is not just blood that defines nation. In good times they don't lead to purity spirals. In bad times we get Edward IX's treatment of the Irish at Falkirk.

Blogger Azimus April 21, 2019 2:19 AM  

33. The Cooler April 20, 2019 4:25 PM
If I say someone is an American, they are an American -- i.e. if I have vouched for them. For example, Vox is an American.

When am I wrong? When a sufficient quality and/or quantity of actual Americans say I am.

That's how nationality works, folks. And is also, very generally speaking, the chrysalis through which new nations arise.


This is good.

Blogger Tyr April 21, 2019 2:24 AM  

I just tried to follow the link to the Z-man’s blog, but it has been suspended. No platform for wrong-think, I guess.

Blogger Robert Schecter April 21, 2019 2:24 AM  

Thezman.com appears to have been disappeared, i.e., "account suspended."

Blogger Azimus April 21, 2019 2:33 AM  

41. Avalanche April 20, 2019 4:45 PM
So, you believe there is no difference whatsoever between deadly ill and healthy? If there is no 100% clear-cut hard line between groups, you decide there are no groupings AT ALL? Can you not almost always, and almost always without fault, tell at a glance who is black and who is White? Do the extremely few you cannot immediately ID mean therefore there ARE no blacks or Whites!?


In short, no, I don't believe any of that. Nor did I say any of that.

So, after 400 years, the blacks are no more members of the United States "nation" than they were when they were unwillingly brought here? Guess they have unfriendly genetics -– or should they have been educated differently from the WHITE children who fit into the nation?

Maybe I shouldn't have said "friendly" genetics. My meaning was they had traits inherited genetically, like a higher IQ, higher self-sufficiency, higher risk tolerance, k-selection, so-forth, that would naturally dispose them to a nation that favors liberty, personal sovereignty, and personal responsibility.

Many blacks are not a part of the American nation, and are simply wards. You could say that in the time of slavery the aforementioned traits were bred out indirectly by killing off the troublesome and rebellious slaves, but moreso in the last 50 years when "Black America" became a thing, the complete lack of education among blacks generally has failed to instill in them the values of the American nation. For the most part American blacks have no nation at all, but men like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas are part of the American nation.

Blogger Birdman April 21, 2019 2:34 AM  

Nationalism is already genetic

Blogger Don't Call Me Len April 21, 2019 2:52 AM  

@24 - You're seeing in stereotypes. There is roughly the same percentage of Asian parents who are drunks, liars, compulsive gamblers (the Chinese love to gamble) and all other sorts of screw-ups, and all that focus on "academic achievement" results just as often in resentment, failure, and rampant cheating among their kids. To think otherwise is to indulge in the same sort of romanticizing that SWPLs who lived the great majority of their lives in 95% white situations do when they cheer immigration and negro worship because "Most of the white people I know are so boooorrring and awful!".

Blogger Sam April 21, 2019 3:38 AM  

@Azimus
"I Agree. I am a reluctant CivNat. But I don't see enough strength in genetic nationalism alone. "

Nationalism does not work as a political position (because leftists will immediately advocate universalism to show they are better then the proles and they win because people care about looking better then proles, not the destruction of civilization). What we are talking about is how it historically worked- people living with their kind, under traditions of their people with law and justice handed down from their own.

We advocate for it, not because it is a political solution, but because it is the only stable social arrangement.

"I don't disagree. My example only argues that genetic nationalism is an insufficient basis to call a group of people a nation. When I look at something like the Civil War, for 4 years the nation had two distinct political entities. They had no substantial genetic differences, but they divided and killed each other in such numbers that many millions of people still speak of the war bitterly. The Southern people, regardless of political bonds, are a different people from the North. Were they always? Perhaps. Then what makes them different? Not genetics. It MUST be ideas."

Southerners are genetically distinct from Northerners. They were recruited from different parts of England; notably the different sections supported different factions in the English Civil War.

Getting genetically different groups is incredibly easy; the relatively low level in Western Europe is due to a conscious choice on the part of the church to discourage cousin marriage (and define it as widely as possible) in order to break up the formation of clans and encourage the spread of Christian behavior. The behavior of hajnal whites is not normal and is not shared by the rest of mankind.

Blogger Mark Moncrieff April 21, 2019 4:46 AM  

It looks like the purge continues:

https://thezman.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi?p=17124

Thats the current link to this page!

Blogger Sam April 21, 2019 5:43 AM  

@Azimus
"For example, take Israel you cite. There are Israeli citizens that are Arabs, yes? But you would say, "everyone knows those aren't Israeli's". Why? Maybe I agree with you, but why aren't they Israelis? Is it because they are not genetically Israeli but Arab? So lets look at the genetic makeup of Israel. You have the Arabs - they're out. You have the Ethiopians - they're out. You have the Former Soviet Union Jews - 2/3 of all Israel's Jewish immigration came from there - are they in or out? What about their children? Out? Then who are the real Israelis? Infinite purity test fractal."

Arabs aren't Israeli's because Israel is a Jewish state. Since Jews have had a significant amount of 'totally not inbreeding' the distinction between Jews and other is very easy. Internally, the different groups of Jews recognize they are different groups of Jews (there are different chief rabbis for the different branches for example) while at the same time recognizing they are Jews.

The only hard part is intermarriage with outsiders; Israel cheats and uses 'who would be murdered for being a Jew' to answer that question.

"This is nearer to my position. Thomas Sowell is an outlier for his ethnic group, but he is an American. He talks, acts, thinks, writes like an American. I was speaking of the concept of a tailwind in a prior post when someone blamed John Dewey for something. I said he was a tailwind for the progs and not the source and mastermind of all the nation's ills. In the same way, genetics are like a tailwind - ethnic IQ being one important part of that. He tried Marxism and didn't like it, which indicates he's probably k-selected also. Does he really belong in the same category as the residents of New Somalia in Minnesota? Is he less American than Jane Fonda, for example? "

Sowell isn't part of the American tradition- he doesn't accept genetic differences. He is smart enough to know that leftism has been a disaster for American blacks, but this only makes him yesterday's liberal.

"While I wouldn't say it is trivial, I do agree that dividing lines on Civic Nationalities can be considerably more difficult. I suppose I would cite yesterdays Good Friday service as an example - 20 different "denominations" uniting under the basic uniting faith in Jesus Christ, His Sonship with God, His Payment for sins on Calvary, and His Gospel of Salvation as a result. There is a million points of disagreement on other matters of doctrine, but the fundamental beliefs align. "

Just because they say the same words doesn't mean they mean the same thing. I suspect the alignment is more of a matter of endorsing the state religion of leftism and replacing Christian parts with it so they seem similar.

"The same thing could be said for a CivNat nation: the Bill of Rights, Constitution are the fundamentals. Or rather - Logos is the fundamental, upon which the foundation of Bill of Rights and the Constitution are constructed... the day-to-day stuff like how to pay for the highways or which defense project to fund can be debated. But the "big ideas" line up. "

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until after Lincoln. So it wasn't people agreeing on a common idea- it was people agreeing not to interfere with each other.

"Agreed. I'm only saying that it is not just blood that defines nation. In good times they don't lead to purity spirals. In bad times we get Edward IX's treatment of the Irish at Falkirk. "

Falkirk isn't a purity spiral anymore then the Harrying of the North.

"Maybe I shouldn't have said "friendly" genetics. My meaning was they had traits inherited genetically, like a higher IQ, higher self-sufficiency, higher risk tolerance, k-selection, so-forth, that would naturally dispose them to a nation that favors liberty, personal sovereignty, and personal responsibility. "

Like the co-ethnicities of Austria-Hungry?

Blogger yellowleaf April 21, 2019 6:10 AM  

human rights for gentile whites!

Blogger The Cooler April 21, 2019 6:16 AM  

Azimus,

While cluttered as hell -- e.g. qualifying "nationalism" with "genetic" -- you've not argued anything that exits the orbit of nationalism proper. Indeed, the clutter you are attaching to your core arguments is creating the very strawmen that are leading you to infinite regressions and reductio ad absurdum that simply are not there, intrinsically.

Put simply: Blood is not the only thing; it is, however, the first thing. First things first and all else follows.

men like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas are part of the American nation

No. Insufficient genetic relatedness. Further, to punctuate things, Sowell's childhood encounters with white people were so limited that he did not know that blond was a hair color....

Sowell and Thomas can, however, be successfully argued to be ethnically American. There, I just fried your noodle.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 21, 2019 7:56 AM  

"Genetic nationalism is problematic because it is an infinitely fractal purity test"

So you're a civic familialist too then I take it? Why didn't you get into the back of a stranger's candy van then? What, that part of the fractal is legit but the rest isn't?

Blogger VD April 21, 2019 8:01 AM  

For the most part American blacks have no nation at all, but men like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas are part of the American nation.

Stop cucking. Your incoherent philosophy is precisely why the country is dissolving into civil war. There are good and smart men in every nation, but being good and smart does not make anyone part of your nation.

Thomas Sowell is a cuckservative who won't tell the truth if it means criticizing another cuckservative. I know that from personal experience. Don't lionize him.

Blogger Nobody of Consequence April 21, 2019 9:51 AM  

Public (government) schools. Brain-washing. The BIG lie. The Pledge of Allegiance. Schools have lied to students and done all they could to create a society that those in power desire, NOT the society the People want and the People, propelled by their own ignorance, failed to fight back. But then why would they? The vast majority of newer immigrants (1850s on) were the dregs of the world. Many of the people here are simply incapable of being taught anything except to do as they are told. Teachers, most of whom are as simple and uneducated as their students, become "the person of power" who said such and such so it must be true.

The Pledge - first version 1892 by Francis Bellamy - defrocked Baptist minister - avowed Christian socialist.

Purpose - destroy state sovereignty. Create all-powerful, Utopian central state. Return everyone to agrarian/tradesman roots. Destroy the evil Jews.

Lies in the Pledge: Not "one Nation" - USA ARE NOT and never have been a nation. References to nation and national removed 1787 Convention. All references in Constitution plural, even 13th "their" jurisdiction. Not a republic - more BS. USA ARE Union of 50 nations. Not indivisible - no prohibition on secession anywhere in the Constitution. Congress just before War of Aggression tried to add amendment banning secession. 10th amendment - all power NOT PROHIBITED retained by State and People respectively. Note: Etats Unis = EU = United States = European Union. By transferring allegiance from the state to the fed, the fed can exercise full power without being questioned. Claims of implied, inherent, plenary powers are lies. No powers go unwritten. Madison - federal powers "few and defined" - to be defined must be written. Until written power is not defined.

The BIG lie- the courts decide what the Constitution means. How can they have such power? Truth is they do not. That power was stolen. The courts, all of them, are inferior/subordinate to the Constitution. The Constitution is subordinate to the People THROUGH our States. We the People decide what OUR law for ALL parts of the federal government mean. They have no legitimate authority.

Those who have not figured this out are still brain-washed by the system. Those who recite the Pledge are lemmings, lost in a lie, believing they are the Patriots. This is why the "elites", though I cringe at the use of the term, have control and are destroying it all. Yet they too are blind. They too will go down the same path.

Who's the Boss, the Creator or the created?

As it goes for Christ, so too it goes for the Constitution and the government the Constitution creates.

God Bless those in America who still believe. Christ is Risen.

Blogger stevo April 21, 2019 10:05 AM  

Z man's blog is still there. I have been listening to his podcast lately. He has a knack for laying things out clearly and convincingly, also his voice is strangely soothing. Not sure why the animosity toward Vox, seems to me they could easily be allies, but I don't know the history.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 21, 2019 10:33 AM  

Damelon Brinn wrote:In the real world, everyone already knows who belongs and who doesn't; and if you don't know, you'll find out soon enough.

This is it in a nutshell. If you think you belong, and the people you think you belong with agree, you belong.

This can lead to something like civic nationalism, when outliers from other nations fit in and are accepted. We do need to remember that ``friend'' and ``part of our nation'' are different things, even if we treat them similarly.

Azimus wrote:The Southern people, regardless of political bonds, are a different people from the North. Were they always? Perhaps. Then what makes them different? Not genetics. It MUST be ideas.

You have assumed your conclusion, and are wrong. Culture is a racial construct. Different races make different cultures.

Azimus wrote:Thomas Sowell is an outlier for his ethnic group, but he is an American.

No. He's a nice guy, might make a good neighbor, but he's not one of us. I want him to stick around, but that doesn't make him an American.

Azimus wrote:He talks, acts, thinks, writes like an American.

None of that makes him an American. It does make him fit to live among us.

Blogger judgeholdem1848 April 21, 2019 11:13 AM  

SciVo wrote:
Theoretically, "all" we need to do is cause their national disloyalty to threaten their pictures of themselves as good people, and they would fix that right up.


Demonstrating the immorality of founding their politics upon lies is easy. But in my experience, most will find these demonstrations intolerable and will find a way to cut you off before their self conceptions are undermined. It's tempting to view this along the lines of reperfusion injury: Too quickly introducing truth and sound argument creates enough stress to act as poison. Perhaps a slower, gentler infusion of reality would be better tolerated.

But it seems more like the case of leading a horse to a desert spring from which he simply will not drink.

Mystic On Main wrote:One the primary reasons so few people are willing to embrace the ethno-nationalist worldview is that the solutions offered by the ethno nationalists have absolutely no hope of succeeding, making their cause seem ridiculous and childish.

It's one thing to argue over who is an "American". It's another honest solutions.


Examples resembling what we might imagine American white nationalism to look like abound. Traverse City, Michigan, is just one example as is Hillary Clinton's hometown of Chappaqua. With the reintroduction of freedom of association and the right metapolitical shifts, some of these preexisting examples could at least maintain their essential European character.

As for the issue of containing the seeds of their own destruction, isn't this just restating that systems tend towards disorder? Constant and efficient expenditure of energy in the suppression of disorderly forces — homeostasis — is required to maintain health. Obviously, this is easier accomplished under certain conditions than others, and outright impossible under some.

Some of these communities will succumb to disorder and die. But others may long survive.

Blogger Bartolo April 21, 2019 11:59 AM  

Quoting someone who insulted you because he makes a good point worth sharing is classy. It shows you care about fighting the good fight and are above petty grievances. Well done, Vox.

Blogger Jack Amok April 21, 2019 1:30 PM  

For the most part American blacks have no nation at all

Of course they have a nation - it's the American Black nation. Just look at Ferguson and Michael Brown. Guy is shoplifting, gets into a scuffle with the shopkeeper, is smoking dope and wandering down the street disrupting traffic, cop shows up and instead of de-escalating, he provokes a deadly confrontation.

White folk like me look at that and say Brown was creating a bunch of chaos, engaged in petty crime and disturbing the peace. And though I'm far from being a Badge Gang bootlicker, like most White Americans - especially Heritage ones - I believe that when the cops show up, it's a signal to chill out, de-escalate, and revisit things later on when everyone has had a chance to sober up and calm down. White folk mostly think Brown was to blame for the incident.

Black Americans overwhelmingly think Brown dindu nuffin. Even a majority of Blacks who can properly pronounce "didn't do anything" feel that Brown wasn't doing anything all that wrong, and it was heavy-handed policing that caused the problem.

Both sides are right. Each according to their genetic predispositions. Blacks are just more comfortable with a higher level of background chaos in their society. It makes sense given their tendencies to shorter time preference, enforcing rules tends to provoke confrontations just like Ferguson, so you put up with petty shoplifting and stoned guys blocking traffic.

White Americans want less chaos and, being capable of long-time preference thinking, like a system where disputes are settled later, when everyone's had a chance to calm down, sober up, and contemplate the long-term options available.

Ferguson is a problem because we ask two incompatible people to live with one set of rules.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella April 21, 2019 2:15 PM  

#59 Where on earth do you live that Hispanics are not a major invasion? I am guessing not North America? Arabs, but squalorous whites? Britain?

Which, I'd like to point out, is having wretched excesses of nutritional crippling, along the lines of the ones that weakened Japan and China about 100 years ago. Deliberately, it looks like.

Here, where I live, with a vibrant Hispanic invasion going on, whites have multiple children. Wealthier whites have more children than poorer whites. It's a form of wearing wealth, having more children, since these children are the ones who will succeed in life, rather than the heartbreaks that will go to jail. These children, each one, is six figure investment on the hoof.

As for Asians, the ones that come to America- Amy Chua, for instance- are Fujianese. A group that is very family- progress centered, but certainly not family social capital builders. They don't seem to play games together, emotionally bond, or do much beside labor. And, frankly, they aren't innovating here. They are just trying to join up. There isn't a Chinese-made American soil university, like any other self-respecting group of whites had made. Even the hippie New Agers have founded odd little schools. Notre Dame was built by Catholics. Secular types founded state universities. Chinese lobby to get into these schools made by others, but there isn't a 'Greater Sino Cali School.' So, no, I don't have to respect them as Americans, because they are not doing the most basic of American social maneuvers. Jews founded universities. They also crashed Ivies, but it's still possible to get into a Jewish-founded college.

And, yeah, Ipads and technology. I want my kids playing with technology so they can innovate the next wave of games, applications, books, stories, and more advanced anything. It's about like British children having small size boats they played with during Napoleon, or the bug collections in the age of the voyages of discovery. They needed the small practice for the big lifetime.

Blogger tublecane April 21, 2019 3:34 PM  

@86- Francis Bellamy was I believe cousin to Edward Bellamy, author of the utopian novel Looking Backwards. He inspired what was referred to as a Nationalist movement, with Nationalist Clubs all over the country and a Nationalist party. But this was nationalism in the sense that the Soviet Union "nationalized" industry. This Bellamy also was a socialist, out for centralized control of the U.S. economy at least.

Blogger tublecane April 21, 2019 3:47 PM  

@65- If you want to understand the difference between Yankee and Southron, try reading Albion's Seed or Cracker Culture.

Blogger tublecane April 21, 2019 3:59 PM  

@65- "genetic nationalism"

Nationalism has that "natal" root for a reason, you know.

I understand seeing genetics as an insufficient basis for nationality, because people confuse the base with the whole. Genetics needs culture, history, religion, etc. to make a nation out of itself.

However, culture is an infinitely less firm basis. You want to go from coughing up a gulp of water that went down the wrong pipe to drowning in a storm at sea.

Blogger Servant April 21, 2019 4:12 PM  

I remember accepting a hard truth. It was my first red pill i guess. My friend finished saying something, i knew it was true, and i got mad at him. I actually reacted in a hostile manner to a man saying something i knew to be true. "How can we get on with our lives and believe something like that?" I was resistant because i recognized that this true thing would make it harder for me to get on.

Ive come to recognize this reaction as conditioning. It's so insidious so prevalent i have a defensive reflex when it's challenged. I don't necessarily get mad at them for having this reaction. Shutting down, deflecting, they are hitting the panic button. Just sad really.

"The world is not as i thought it was" is not what they are rebelling against. "I know that's true, but I can't talk about it because my wife will leave me ill lose my job, I'll have to tell my daughter not to burn the coal, then people will hate me" and on and onand on. This happens until buffer error, the program resets to "muh constitution"

Blogger nbfdmd April 21, 2019 5:06 PM  

@92: If you think shoving an ipad into the hands of your kid to make them shut up will teach them about "technology", you're a moron.

Blogger Up from the pond April 21, 2019 6:10 PM  

The post-WW2 hegemony devoted itself to brainwashing all the proto-Nazis, meaning everyone who wasn't them, and they were serious about it, and they did a thorough job of it. Maybe the most thorough such job in history.

One aspect of their mission was inculcating in their targets' minds the fundamental conflation of opposition to the bankers, on the one hand, and millions of war deaths, on the other. Opposing the bankers is calling for genocide.

This lesson was ground into the soft heads of the Boomer generation, along with a lot of other awfulness, including aggressive hedonism ("sex drugs and rock 'n' roll"). To keep anything like what happened in Europe from happening again. "Rebellion" replacing rebellion. Demographic war in the name of peace.

Blogger Up from the pond April 21, 2019 6:29 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Ferguson is a problem because we ask two incompatible people to live with one set of rules.

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free," said Thomas Jefferson about blacks in America.

What public school teachers leave out in the post-WW2 era is the rest of that quote:

"Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

The author of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights wanted the blacks freed and deported, and replaced by free white laborers. Aside from a few insane abolitionists, most Americans agreed with this view.

(Source: Autobiography Draft Fragment, January 6 through July 27, from the Thomas Jefferson and William Short Correspondence, Transcribed and Edited by Gerard W. Gawalt, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Date of extract here quoted--Feb. 8, 1821.)

Blogger Servant April 21, 2019 6:44 PM  

Ferguson is not their best example. The new York city one where they killed a man selling looseys. That rule is ensuring the poor people who tend smoke stay paying the government actually regressive, actually oppressive tax. The man didn't want togo to jail for selling loosey's nor should he. Cigarette tax is disgusting, police authority (serve and protect and enforce overly burdensome tax codes) was misused, and his resisting was a desperate man pleading to be left alone over a bullshit law. Their response was muh authority and got a man killed. Over looseys.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella April 21, 2019 7:52 PM  

#92, I'm not talking about working at a foundry. I am talking about creating the very odd things that children already create with the technology they have at hand. The kids at the local high school have games built on snap-chat, ifunny and Instagram, among other apps, that no one else plays, because they invented the game themselves. 2,000 people play a game that they aren't the least bit interested in sharing with anyone else.

They also play games that get kids from more diverse environments landing on the evening news. Those are more public. Parents learn about those games.

Then there's the fight clubs. Eighth graders know enough about tech security to both get great photos of the fights, and then do the circle where one passes ones phone to the left, and then to the right, to check that the phone has been completely cleared of evidence. Do your children do that? They also called up a website for emergency care- head trauma concussion checklists. A note app for selling tickets. A note app for arranging the location. An app for arranging food and drinks- 13 year old boys figuring out Las Vegas amenities in three days, using tech. I heard about it much later. I was not only impressed enough to not yell, I told a friend who manages a factory. He said he'll want those kids resumes in 15 years because his own managers could not arrange something that well, in such short time.

I'm sure they won't, but I see the sentiment.

Ryan's Toy Reviews is morphing into a clean entertainment and education channel. My kid tries to eat seaweed snacks because of it.

It's not everything the kids do: they go fishing. They play sports. They play with their friends. They have schoolwork. They also play immensely complicated video games. They watch youtube videos to get better at these video games. One kid set up a channel to play through on a video game. One kid makes memes for his friends.

Blogger Up from the pond April 21, 2019 8:01 PM  

Azimus wrote:men like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas are part of the American nation.

No man is an island. You might focus on the individual, but the fact remains that any man is a package-deal that includes his children, siblings, cousins, nephews; and their children, siblings, cousins, nephews; and the family friends of all above.

As Steve Sailer likes to say, race is a very large extended family.

AFAIK, Trayvon's dad wasn't screwing up the neighborhood at all. Judging him as an individual, that is.

But the more "Trayvon's dads" you have in a neighborhood or area, the more hoodrats will visit or live there, no matter how they are reared or educated, because of regression to the mean. (Not regression to the worst; regression to the mean.) The reason "per capita" obtains is not Jim Crow, or a lack of sufficient anti-racist propaganda over the past half-century; etc.

Individualism is the unexamined assumption, the article of faith, of civ-nats. Fractal? How much more fractal can you get than individualism? Individualism is far more atomizing than nationalism could ever be. In its impetus and essence, nationalism is the *enemy* of infinite fractalization, while individualism is the *epitome* of it.

And what is more spergy than to propose *sheer abstraction* as the uniting factor of disparate tribes? The essence of sperging is to insist on conforming the real world to a merely notional or paper one--and the more notional, the better for the purposes of the sperg.

I think what must be rooted out is the lie that every man is an island, that we somehow aren't part of descent-based tribes. Individual nature and tribal nature harmonize when understood in their right relation to each other. Life as an individual is a hard thing to swing in someone else's country.

Blogger The Depolrable Podunk Ken Ramsey April 21, 2019 8:28 PM  

Black folks are aggressively defending their culture around where I live (the DC area). Just this past week two controversies erupted.

First, an outsized kerfuffle broke out in the Shaw neighborhood. This is a historically black neighborhood - Duke Ellington is from it. They burned it down after MLK was assassinated in '68, and it remained a large swath of blight until recent years, and now it's been undergoing gentrification big time. One of the newcomer hipsters complained about go-go music being blasted from a cell phone store night and day. This has been going on for 20+ years, since before the gentrification, and go-go is a native DC black musical form. Huge street protests erupted with black demanding the music to be turned back on, and hot warnings to everybody in Shaw to get with the program and assimilate. It was seen as an attack on the local black culture, with recriminations.

Secondly, Howard University is nearby and it's a historically black university. It also has open spaces and parks. Uproar began over the fact that white people were using these spaces, they were having picnics, walking their dogs, playing volleyball, etc. An effort is underway to boot the whites out, a shame campaign has begun.

You can defend your culture and even your turf in America, and they'll write favorable editorials for you in the paper, college professors will pop up holding teach-ins, TV reporters will show up interviewing street activists sympathetically, you name it. All that is happening all of the time around here.

But the trick is, you cannot be white.

Blogger JovianStorm April 21, 2019 8:49 PM  

Our SDL is a man of knowledge, not petty social squabbles. He'll take knowledge wherever it comes from and assimilate it.

Even broken clocks are right twice a day and VD has never thrown out valuable data/input because he didn't like someone.

Blogger Zwiebel April 22, 2019 4:39 AM  

@Azimus: Not that complex at all. Sure, East Frisians are very different from Bavarians. One is right lipped, the other is chatty. Even used to speak different languages as recently as 100 years ago.

Yet, there are enough communalities to form a common understanding, known as "German". Likewise, Germans are different from French, yet, it is possible to form a common understanding as "European". (NOT the same as the EU!) I can also form a common understanding with a Sri Lankan, known as "Christian".

It is like shared living: are you similar enough to live happily together? Then you can move in together. Does one of you want a spotless bathroom, and the other wants to use the shower as the urinal? Then it'll never work.

But there is a sweet spot of common understanding that enables a nation. And wildly foreign people will only very rarely fit into that sweet spot.

As a matter of fact, I'm wondering these days if the German nation wasn't better off splitting, too. Deutschland vs. Buntland. There's just no talking sense to these people...

Blogger Daniel April 22, 2019 6:21 AM  

Awesome stuff. Very interesting. How about blacks and hispanic?

Blogger Daniel April 22, 2019 6:48 AM  

Z man down?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 22, 2019 8:17 AM  

Daniel wrote:How about blacks and hispanic?

No, thank you, we're trying to cut back.

Blogger Azimus April 23, 2019 1:11 PM  

Just caught back up to all this today.

VD: I bow to the force majeure on matters of Thomas Sowell. I fully admit my position is incoherent, if for no other reason I have not tried to reason out my position. My point was more a critique of genetic nationalism than a comparison to my own position. Not that any of that matters, I concede the point.

For the others who have commented to me, I appreciate there is a painful truth of "what actually works in the real world" in your thinking. You've opened my mind to some realities and I thank you for it. The comment thread is probably dead at this point so I will move on with the rest of the ilk. I still think my critique of genetic nationalism is a valid one, and some in their comments have actually fallen into the "infinitely fractal purity test" I warned about. I'm convinced its a weakness of genetic nationalism. But I also see the weaknesses of CivNat, and history is the judge of which system is more viable.

Blogger The Cooler May 01, 2019 7:34 AM  

I still think my critique of genetic nationalism is a valid one

Because you are either pig-headed, stupid or a sperg. Or some permutation of all three. Nationalism is not an equation -- it is a formula.

There is no such thing as "genetic nationalism." You are inserting an unnecessary -- and redundant -- qualifier because you don't understand what nationalism is or how it works.

and some in their comments have actually fallen into the "infinitely fractal purity test"

You have, that's for sure. That happens when one tilts at windmills.

I'm convinced its a weakness of genetic nationalism.

You should indeed be convinced of the weakness of "genetic nationalism" since there is no such thing.

Toxic masculinity, social justice, round square... are these things?

No, and neither is "genetic nationalism."

First things first and all else follows: https://cdn.etymonline.com/chart/etymology-nation-2309p_l.jpg?t=1546031007000

Simple as that.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts