Convenient Answers to Stupid Thoughts, I

"Wealth inequality should not exist."

In order to reduce wealth inequality to a marginal scale, the range of characteristics a population exhibits would have to be reduced to a similar scale. Assuming that equality is even a worthwhile goal - I believe it is not - serious wealth inequality will persist so long as we have a population with an IQ range of 60-160. The difference in quality among individuals cannot be immediately rectified through legislation, and can only be gradually reduced via a bottom-up engineering approach - eugenic or dysgenic incentives. Or, if you are particularly amoral - liquidation of the population outside of your acceptable range.

Dysgenic incentives are easy: We have a practical model in late stage liberal democracies, where the lowest quality people are given vast incentives through subsidies to reproduce, which has created a bottom heavy society that struggles to accurately identify - much less solve - its own problems. The problem, of course, with engineering a low IQ but otherwise equal society is that without the brainpower to maintain the accouterments and technologies of modernity, we would live in a world similar to the one inhabited by the people of Somalia and Zimbabwe: Poor, dysfunctional, corrupt, fragile, violent and uncomfortable. You cannot send a man to the moon with Zimbabwean statecraft. You can't even farm.

Eugenic incentives are simple, but probably cannot be implemented. You can engineer the gradual reduction of the low through simple trades - cash or other goods for sterilization - but the middle to middle-high IQ population has a strange sense of empathy for the pathetic, and actively seek to stymie attempts to manage or otherwise gain control of the exploding population of low class people (with a notable exception being the fervent devotion to abortion rights, which is used by blacks and hispanics far more often per capita than the white, asian or jewish sub-nations of the late American republic).

The amoral path - liquidation - is only politically tenable under excruciatingly stressful political situations, which we have not [yet] reached. It is not worth considering beyond that, because by the point that we seriously debate such a thing, it is likely that the lights have already gone off and will not turn on again for many years. God help us if it reaches that point.

If there is a strategy to be had it lies in the curious sense of empathy the middle and middle-high exhibit towards the low. In truth, it is not a sense of real empathy but the presentation of empathy, which is an important point to note. Middle and middle-high tier individuals use fervent and public displays of empathy towards the low - which cost them nothing - to virtue signal to one another, which may simply be a mating strategy rather than a true political orientation. Others have noted, at length, that protest culture seems to be as much about shouting and waving flags as it is about meeting people of the opposite sex, and all the fun activities that follow. Most obviously, even the most dull dissident rightists have noticed that male feminism is a rather obviously disguised white-knight strategy, which usually results in awkward or horrifying sexual encounters (see: Louis C.K.).

All in all the idea that flagrant and public displays of empathy are really empathetic are, of course, laughable, but we run into a problem when we realize that public and flagrant displays of empathy for status are cost-free. Since the cost of the hyper-empathic worldview is subsidized by people who are not white liberals, they are forever insulated from the cost of what they are doing. A tautology, sure, but a point that is worth parsing out when we realize how we must approach this from a social aspect:

We must make this cost them something. But what? Obviously, directly inflicting cost vis-a-vis violence a-la Right Wing Death Squads is only funny on paper, but is exactly the sort of situation we are trying to avoid. We have already established that liquidation is unacceptable up until the point where there are no more choices - and at that point, God have mercy etc. Indirectly inflicting cost vis-a-vis exposing Leftists to the consequences of importing 3rd world people is better, but still practically untenable. A few Leftists may experience the reactionary version of "come-to-Jesus", but many times more will simply pack their things and move to safer neighborhoods where they will continue to signal and continue to export the consequences of their signalling on the natives, until they move again. A few conversions gained for territory lost is sub-optimum, especially considering that conventional white-millennial Leftism selects for lower quality white-millennials. We don't really need these people, we just need them out of the way. In fact, at the end of all things, we really don't want these people period. It seems we need not consider that aspect beyond said statement because given their hesitation to reproduce, over time they may simply vanish on their own.

The path that remains then, is to remove the gain they harvest from signalling. To do that, you have to attack their ego. Part of that, naturally, is ridicule, but it must be done from a position of strength. What a position of strength is should be obvious when you take a cursory look at your average college-educated white leftist, and understand how they want to be seen relative to how they actually are:

Become great, build strength, dwell in beauty.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Right Side of History

Cognitive dissonance is a term that suffers from the same affliction that plagues "begging the question" and "literally". This affliction, which appears to only have gotten worse, is the terrible social disease called using words and phrases incorrectly. In small doses, distorting terms can be tolerable, even humorous, as we live in a world where people exhibit a range of intelligence, from the smartest to the least. As such, we would be woefully mistaken to hold everyone to the same standard in that regard. Only a self-important asshole would attempt to correct an idiot's spoken grammar. And you'd have to be a bit of a cunt to expect your average Becky to explain quantum mechanics.

The acceleration of the distortion of words and meanings is probably due to the expanding ranks of the educated, who are exposed to a near lethal dose of the prestige philosophy of academia called postmodernism. Among other its other premises, postmodernism staunchly denies objectivity and truth, which opens the door to a whole host of ancillary social ills. "Fat is beautiful" is a quick example of one of postmodernism's delusional, inbred offspring. Agreeing that humans with male genitalia are woman if they declare that they are female is another example. Explicit postmodernists are, interestingly, rarer in academia than you might think, and practically nonexistent in the wild. This is probably at least partially due to the Millennial tendency to eschew permanent labels. It's probably mostly caused by the Millennial tendency to never actually read academic literature. Repeating stuff over and over again is easier (and just as profitable).

Nevertheless, despite the paucity of actual postmodernists, the philosophy itself is surprisingly widespread. Here, an epidemiologist would use the term "virulence". Whether or not a young scholar explicitly subscribes to postmodernism, he likely believes, or at least repeats until he convinces himself that he does believe, in the main tenants of postmodernism, which was transmitted to him by an adjunct professor who did very little reading himself, who was taught by a professor who, however disinterested he may have been in anything other than tenure, nonetheless assigned literature written by an ancient ideologue. The core of the philosophy and the prestige associated with it are what gets passed down, even if the original nuance was lost. Hence the tendency of academics to butcher words and phrases in favor of whatever is currently fashionable among the mob.

Which brings me back to cognitive dissonance.

People point to young earth creationists, for example, and laugh about how they must be afflicted with a bad case of cognitive dissonance whenever they look at dinosaur bones. I haven't bumped into a young earth creationist in a very long time, so I am skeptical of the threat that they supposedly pose for our new society, but we'll play along for the time being. Young earth creationists, unfortunately, do not suffer from the effects of cognitive dissonance when they see a fossil, or geological stratification, or radiometric dating techniques. This is because the young earth creationist does not hold two contradictory views with regards to the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct megafauna. However erroneous, the young earth creationist satisfactorily explains all evidence with some elaboration on 'because the Bible tells me so', and because the young earth creationist believes that the Bible does, indeed, tell him so, it is so. And God saw that it was good, etc. Stupid, perhaps, and it would not be unfair to say that this branch of low-church Protestantism has done far more to damage the Body of Christ than, say, the Crusades, but cognitive dissonance it is not.

Where might we find a fresh example of cognitive dissonance, then?

I recently read that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was retiring. In my post-workday lethargy, I happened across a number of salt-mining threads on the ol' Cambodian basket weaving forum. For those of you who do not know, salt-mining here means reveling in Progressive butthurt. I will probably giggle myself to sleep tonight. Maybe not as enthusiastically as the night of the election, but I will sleep soundly.

Progressives have many interesting and thoughtful ways of transmitting ideas and feelings to one another and the public, most of which revolve around the Harry Potter franchise, but because our interest here is to examine cognitive dissonance rather than chuckle at millennial-twitter asspain, suffice it to say that their exasperation at Trump's second Supreme Court nomination can be summarized thusly:

It wasn't supposed to happen this way; we were on the right side of history.

"The right side of history" is a nebulous term, at best, but in reality is a rhetorical trick based in the same sort of thinking of that one kid when you were young enough to play superheroes at the playground who decided that his superpower was to have all the superpowers.

Substantively, there isn't a whole lot behind the words of the phrase. Conservatives, being a near perfect foil for a reactionary like yours truly, ask their political opponents how you can logically conclude that you are on the correct side of history, when history has yet to happen? This, in typical conservative fashion, is nonsense. Thanks conservatives!

The right side of history doesn't mean anything, because people who declare they are on the right side of history are just repeating stuff. The more I have interacted with run-of-the-mill millennial progressives, the less sure I am that the person opposite me is actually thinking about anything. If philosophical zombies exist, this is the closest I've gotten to proving it. The best I've been able to tease out of these people when they use that phrase is basically the future is going to be better because there will be more stuff that I like. And you like said stuff because? Hold it right there, if you start telling me about how said stuff is moral, I'll call bull fucking shit right now. You're the most narcissistic, self-important people ever in every category, period, but I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief for this one category. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

It seems to me that the impetus for the liberal overreaction to Trump has less to do with anything Trump does, but rather because he is. Progressives must constantly contend with two contradictory statements: They are on the right side of history, while at the same time Trump is Hitler and he's going to send progressives to death camps. Oh, if only. It was never supposed to be this way, though. As people on our side of the fence like to gleefully repeat, they actually thought she was going to win. When we say that, of course, its always in reference to the elites and their behavior. The would-be elites, however, thought the same thing, but for different reasons. Imagine, if you will, being ripped to shreds by your political opponents for having repeatedly said something as stupid as "Nuh uh, I'm on the right side of history", only to be proven wrong by a boisterous, strawberry blonde comb-over with an orange glow - who by the way is busy stacking the courts with your political opponents while you reeee. Imagine how embarrassing it must be to be as stupid as Marie Harf, once your cover is blown and the whole world is laughing at your shocking ignorance masquerading as beneficent nuance. Imagine blindly following the advice of people who told you that it's in your best interests, even empowering, to spend your most fertile and attractive years as a desk jockey, only to shock yourself awake when you finally hit the wall you thought you critically analyzed out of existence, but now you're old, wrinkly, fat, an alcoholic, and alone. Imagine watching everything you hoped would give you power over your fellow man only because you craved the power and not because you deserved it come crashing to the ground, leaving you with nothing but the inescapable realization that you are incompetent, stupid, and worthless.

Now imagine that boot on their faces, forever.

Matthew 7:16

The topic of rural America, the hinterlands, is a topic I return to time and again, because I have chosen the path less traveled. Where old friends - and so old and dear they once were! - departed the safe and boring harbor of Suburbia for the fashionable lifestyle and associated accouterments of urban living, I chose the opposite. The countryside is where you will find me now.

On occasion, I happen across and old friend, or worse, a former friend, who discovers what I did. The horror! The horror! To associate with ruralites is a shame unto itself, but to become a ruralite? Apostasy! Heresy of the worst degree.

Don't you know those people vote against their own interests?

Yes. Yes indeed I do. I have been told many times, though from what I can gather, what you mean when you say that such and such people do not vote in their best interests is that you are aggrieved that they refused to submit to the political whims of the mob, the very same mob that allows you to willfully delude yourself into believing your power is more than what it actually is. You think because you say the right words that you have power. You have been deceived.

The mechanics of your self-deceit are irrelevant and boring as your grand political pronouncements. People have willingly, joyfully walked off cliffs believing they could fly countless other times, so forgive me for disagreeing with your grand internal narration, but you are not so special.

It is disconcerting, even alarming, though, that you have not taken an account of yourselves. Perhaps, were you to measure the quantity and quality of your own fruits, you would gain a greater understanding of why we came to hate you.

You place such grand importance on charity and altruism. "We must help such and such people!" you say among yourselves and nod in self-flattered agreement. And indeed, there are many people who are doing quite poorly in this little world of yours. But you need not travel far to see how poorly. It was so close to home! A metaphorical stones throw away, out beyond the corn fields. It's there, if only you would drive through instead of flying over. They closed down the factories, and one by one their eyes close too, under the weight of alcohol and methamphetamine and self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head. Where were you? Where was your altruism then? They were your neighbors! They are your kin! Instead of appearing with at least words of comfort, alms in the name of charity, a helping hand, what did you do? You spat on them. Called them names on every flickering screen from sea to shining sea. Reveled in their demise. You demanded sacrifice for the common good, the brotherhood of mankind - whatever the fuck that vapid, empty poetry means - and it cost you nothing! You took everything from them! And you ask more, still!

And when in fear and anger they cling to their guns - the only thing standing between you and them and the final rape of the hinterlands, you scheme and plot and wring your hands rage. How dare they defy you! Don't they know who you are?

Of course we know who you are. We know you by your fruits, because the rewards of this world - the dust blowing around in empty factories and the purposeless service industry jobs and the broken families and heroin addiction and suicide and death and agony - are rewards only because you rule when you have no right, when you are not able, and when you most of all are not worthy. How could you possibly be worthy when everything that could have gone wrong, has gone wrong?

Every single thing you people touch turns to shit. White people have gone to shit. Black people are shit. Men are wimpy shit, women are blue haired, shrill shit. Academia is shit, the economy is a pile of service oriented shit. Music? Shit. The military? Shit. Traditions? Shit. Science? Shit. Media, art, history, the humanities? Shit, shit and shit. Our nations prestige is shit, foreign relations are shit and the massive conglomerations that sold us out to pay off our political masters? Well what do we have here but more shit. But at least the food is great, amirite famalam?

Forgive me for being skeptical that one last time of allowing you to have your way, to dictate what shall be and shall not be will somehow result in anything other than shit. You chafe at our skepticism, our disobedience, our rebellion, because you already know that you are not worthy and our wrath grows daily and your power, such little that it exists beyond the delusions of grandeur you've concocted - oh your power is so tenuous. So fragile. Wearily, I will shoulder my rifle when the day comes to take up arms. The days of the White Leftist are drawing to a close, and it seems likely that there will be war, sooner or later. And my side? We may yet fall. Whatever limited advantages we have may fail us. This is fine, if I at least go down swinging when the time comes, then I will return to the Earth from whence I came with no less honor than the victorious who came before me. I know who I side with. But you? There is no way out for you, and you know it. No exit. No salvation. No redemption.

If we win - when we win - you already know your fate. Even now, as Heritage America is just beginning to stir, just beginning to dream of victory, you sweat out your ancient nightmares - the hinterlands have come! There is nowhere left to hide, and they come not to negotiate - but to kill. And they will. They will, before the end. They will seek vengeance. I hope they receive it. You flatter yourself by chiding them on how they have no hope of winning a war against the U.S. government. Who say's they're going to fight the Feds, or the Army? They aren't coming for the cops or for the marines. They're coming for you, idiot.

And when you win? If you win? You don't really win, because assuming the third world mercenaries you imported to do your dirty work for you actually fight instead of flee when the gibs machine dries up, you go against the wall all the same. You'd know this if you actually studied the communism you love to preach.

One way, or the other, we won't be seeing you in Valhalla.

How Not To Rule

I attended a long string of high school graduations this month. I cannot say I particularly enjoy graduation ceremonies. Even out there, beyond the corn fields bordering the urban sprawl, when the principal or superintendent recites the "I confer up on you... that you have faithfully executed your academic duties... that you have met the standards set by..." blah blah blah, I am reminded that the insidious tentacles of the Cathedral truly reach far and wide. Even out here. A man, disgruntled and sweating in the 95 degree heat commented on the quantity of teachers and how he now understood why his property taxes were so high. A few people around him chuckled. The pensions! Ah, the pensions.

---

If I were to say that conservatives were the sort of people who routinely fail to see the forest from the trees, that would be unduly charitable. To take the metaphor and extend it appropriately to describe your average Republican thinker (syndicated or otherwise), it's not just that they don't see the forest. They don't even see a tree, because they're too busy staring at a single leaf. Case in point, the curious tendency of our ruling class to sympathize, if not wholeheartedly subscribe to, the teachings of Karl Marx. Well, it may not be exactly fair to say that they subscribe to Karl Marx, because a cursory reading of the Communist Manifesto should alert the most unserious of students to the decidedly bourgeois nature of academic communists. Then again, most academic communists haven't actually read Marx.

Anyways, conservatives, when their political lethargy and cowardice are not otherwise inhibiting them, will sputter about how communism doesn't work and how communism killed one hundred million people and even, if they happen to be slightly more clever than the rest, will recite Rothbard's explanation on how communism necessitates managerialism, begetting a classed society, and returning communists to the rejected premise of a stratified society.

That's actually the point, dummkopf.

The whole point of the wholehearted subscription to communism isn't to bring about a better world. Perhaps somewhere in the back of their minds these sort of people believe that communism is, indeed, a more just system than whatever you want to call the system we're living under. But justice, true justice or otherwise, is a decidedly ancillary goal for these people. So ancillary in fact, that the rotten consequences of putting communists into power are basically as inconsequential as a bug colliding with a windshield. Why is that? Because goal numero uno is a goal sadly rooted in the solipsistic nature of our bourgeois friends: The acquisition of power, and all of it's benefits, minus the responsibility and obligations. Next thanksgiving when your obnoxious relatives screech about the Trumpenreich, remember not to marvel too hard at the thought of a world run by these sort of people being the sort of world where one hundred million people starve to death, purposefully or otherwise.

Of course, "total communism", a-la the rhetoric of stupid idiots such as this unfortunate young woman, the theory of, the implementation there of, and life under, are the leaf you don't want to get caught staring at, lest we find ourselves to have degenerated into conservatives. So help me God, may I never.

---

The distribution of power has been repeatedly fractured since the dissolution of the European monarchies. Each iteration of power smashing did not reduce the sum total power, as it were, but rather distributed it among a wider, more specific tier of people. To childishly simplify the idea of power distribution, first we had kings, then we had an aristocracy, followed by senators under republicanism, which eventually beget the individualized power of the mob. Each step down has been a disastrous lurch towards anarchy as the new power holders scrambled over one another to consolidate as much power as they could, before they died and the power evaporated as their corpses cooled to room temperature.

In the here and now, power has degenerated so much that the petty squabbling of self-interested parties is almost entirely comprised of the college educated, aspirational urbanite class. Once in a while, the mob contracts violently and vomits out a class of people to shave off a fraction of competitors for those tiny shards of power. Most obviously, since you are probably a dissident right-winger, the whole "white privilege" schtick was less about rectifying social ills and more about removing competition for power, resources, access, social networks, whatever. The Alt-Right mistakes the over-representation of Jews among the power grubbing nascent and real elite for an explicit conspiracy by our coin-clutching guests, rather than the implicit conspiracy of a group of people predisposed to grasp at social authority because they are, ahem, less-than-worthy by any classic metric of "who-should-rule vs. who-should-be-ruled". In a sane world, these sort of people would have been, how shall I say this politely? Put down?

Less obviously, the mob recently experienced - really, is still experiencing - a violent contraction vis-a-vis the #metoo movement. Hilariously, most of the expelled are prominent Jewish males in the media class, with a smattering of Black and White men as well. How exactly this coincides with the explicit conspiracy of Jewish power is, frankly, beyond my interest in attempting to explain. If you get stuck at "the Jews", you are unfortunately staring at that leaf again.

Consequent to the shattering power and the vicious scramble by newly enabled individuals to consolidate said power, the self-interested class of power seekers must constantly climb over one another for said power through the cancerous phenomenon called "virtue signalling". Because virtue signalling necessitates one-upsmanship, what is considered virtuous is subjected to an exponential curve. Forty years ago, 'virtuous' was not calling black people racial epithets. Twenty years ago, virtuous was having a black friend without noticing that your friend was black. Today, virtuous is ceding all moral authority to blacks - no matter how poorly behaved, no matter how ridiculous the circumstances. Again, to avoid leaf-gazing, I should strongly emphasize that mentioning blacks has nothing to do with blacks per-se, but has everything to do with the wildly degenerated condition of White people. Blacks don't do anything to us that we do not allow. Same for Jews, banks, globalists, Muslims, Mexican illegals, etc.

Several iterations of power shattering and the consequent scramble through virtue signalling is a highly degenerate selection pressure on would be leaders. We need not mince words here - the people who lead us are mostly awful. Whether they lead us from a seat in congress or from the media bully pulpit or from the red carpet, they are, almost without exception, awful. It isn't just that they themselves are often physically repugnant or hilariously deformed in some way - David Hogg's pathetic frame is a perfect example of what I mean by deformed - what's even worse is that they are bad at leading. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a subject matter where our ruling class actually made an improvement rather than made a problem worse.

Their ideas in and of themselves are utter garbage. Last post I joked about how these people effectively delude themselves into thinking that it is education that makes a person smart, rather than natural aptitude. They, of course, believe this entirely out of self-interest. They are educated, therefore they should rule! Probably an easier subject matter to illustrate what I'm getting at is the debate over the individual's right to own firearms. Forget, for a moment, that the vitriol aspirational urbanites spew at their gun-toting countrymen is entirely predicated on the (very well advised) fear that one day Cletus and Bubba and all their cousins and relations and neighbors might finally reach their breaking point with the snotty liberal douchebag shtick and lay waste to hipster neighborhoods (if only they would). The proposed mechanism behind gun controls is, at least on paper, hilarious. We'll just tell them to turn in their guns! Or, We'll get the cops or the army to go around and take their guns!

I really shouldn't have to explain to anyone why that's stupid. Besides the prospect of unarmed urbanites starting a war with people who own lots of guns, even more ammo, and who produce food, the idea that cops are going to be really enthusiastic about becoming a bullet sponge for some dipshit hipster's utopian wet dream is, well, only the sort of idea a demented ruling class could come up with.

Here's to hoping that they follow through.

High Score

Today, yet another young man came to school with a gun and opened fire on his classmates. At the time of this writing 10 are dead and 10 more are wounded. The young man is in custody, and preliminary evidence - by which I mean his confession, if I am reading this correctly - suggests that the young man in question wanted to commit suicide, but was too scared to take his own life. So he chose the darker path and, remarkably, went unrewarded in his quest for death by cop.

Somewhere out there, a great and screeching chorus of holier-than-thous are wailing and gnashing their teeth about guns. The fact that this young man used his father's shotgun and a revolver must be putting a slight damper on the frantic efforts to remove AR-15's from the hands of the red empire proletariat.

Never mind all that - being largely unwilling to dabble in conspiracies beyond idle amusement, I'm not going to prod too terribly far into the details of this latest, greatest iteration of the American youth in steep decline. Dimitrios Pagourtzis has the unhappy look of a social bottom feeder. The circumstances of his life probably are not all that different from the last mass shooter, or the one before that, and on and on and on. There really isn't anything more for anyone to say on the matter. We have reached an impasse - no further progress can be made in rectifying the ills that plague our civilization. Nothing that we do now, given the tools at our disposal and the people wielding said tools, will resolve the crisis of Western Civilization.

Supposing for a moment that the solution to gun violence were as simple as removing guns from the general public, we'd be at a dead end anyway. Confiscation would trigger a civil war, and for all the Left's bluster, I somehow doubt that the soft, squishy urbanite core of their demented army is really all that enthusiastic about going down to fight in the trenches. More likely than not, they expect Paco, Jamal and Ahmed to do the dirty work for them, and despite the vast over-representation of our minority castes among the population that commits random acts of violence, and despite the tendency of Muslims in particular to spontaneously combust, minorities are even more bluster prone than the White Left. Fred Reed once asked a jailed Vice Lord why he didn't direct his gang to wage war on whitey. His response? We'd get wiped out. Smart - maybe - although I don't have such a high opinion of most White people I interact with. And furthermore, confiscation is out of the question without even considering civil war. How, logistically speaking, do you plan on rounding up every gun? Who would volunteer for such a task? The police? The military? Unlikely, as survey after survey shows strong support for public firearms ownership by police officers and members of the armed forces. Doubtless, though, they are extremely flattered that the screeching-signalling caste has designs to have them go kicking down doors, and possibly catching a bullet, for the utopian vision dancing through the heads of Brahmin from sea to shining sea.

Of course, solving 'gun violence' isn't as simple as removing access to guns from the general public, and the people who screech about guns after a mass shooting are, frankly, severely retarded by their own need to virtue signal to one another. If they could simply virtue signal in their own containment area, no one would care that much. When I was in high school, the clique I despised the most were the theater nerds. For a host of reasons, every single one of them rubbed me the wrong way. They were annoying, pretentious, boorish, outspoken, overly dramatic, and had a wildly unwarranted sense of self-importance. However, I didn't go out of my way to pick on them because I seldom saw any of them. They had their area and I stayed away from it, and despite by general distaste for them, this formula of you stay over there and I'll stay over here worked out quite well.

This is not the case with the screeching-signalling caste. Unfortunately, at some point, they ended up in charge of the megaphone, and not only do they routinely beat the rest of us over the head with it, but they get to dictate policy too. To add salt to that wound, they engage in what Alexander McNabb called a "sickening pretense of non-power", where they pretend that they are the plucky little guy bravely going to bat for even smaller guys against the indomitable power of Fascist Reactionary badguys. Oh, if only.

Anyways, what is particularly awful about the screeching-signalling caste dictating policy is that their policies are awful: If we send people to college where they are taught to say smart things then we will have a smart population. Brilliant. Truly, staggeringly brilliant. Indeed I say, the sort of people who believe such a thing are the collective crown jewel of the evolutionary chain. We, the little people, are indeed blessed by the beneficence of our academic overlords! All hail the smart people who are smart because they were taught to be smart and let you know that they are indeed smart by saying smart things!

Of course, no one actually says if we send people to college where they are taught to say smart things then we will have a smart population, because if I caught you saying that specific phrase in my vicinity I would drop whatever my task at hand was to bullycide you into hanging yourself. But people ultimately say this when they speak loftily of the virtues of universal education, of the benefit to our population, and when they, wayward and deluded, screech in rage when you dare to challenge their policy pronouncements. To challenge what they say is to challenge the virtues of education, and should the virtue of education suffer a challenge then it suffers a crisis of legitimacy. And when education suffers a crisis of legitimacy, so then does the educated suffer, as his or her (or xir, as the case seems to be more and more) authority is undermined. And if their authority is undermined, then they can no longer maintain the public facade of enlightened, beneficent intelligence, and when no one around them pretends to believe that they are an enlightened, beneficent intelligence, then they must contend with the underlying reality that perhaps they aren't really all that smart, and perhaps they have long labored under the willful delusion that they have somehow bettered themselves by repeating - without challenging - the oh so smart things that oh so smart people taught them to say.

Then, when all is laid bare, the lies come to the fore and reality sets in: By fraudulent means, you have taken power, and what have you done with it? You ruled, poorly. By all rights, you are not worthy. But alas, worthy or no, they rule. This is their world, and they should be reminded at the very least that a world where young men increasingly descend into the fatalist release of an orgy of violence direct at their peers is a world built by the Left. It's theirs, to own and cherish, for what little it is ultimately worth. For today anyways. Tomorrow, or perhaps the next day, or the day after - it doesn't matter - eventually will bring a man to town with a sword in his right hand and a list in his left. What good our delusions of grandeur and self-importance are on that day I cannot say, other than probably not a whole lot.

Every time some kid lights up his classmates, I remember: We put the wrong people in charge.

Lamentations II: AKTCHUALLY

Some time after I began dating my girlfriend I began quietly divorcing myself from a number of friendships.

People come and people go, but unlike the connections that fade with time but otherwise remain pleasant memories, the people of whom I now think and write about have their memory forever tainted by the impetus for their ejection from my social life: They revealed themselves as zealous devotees of the progressive religion. In my professional and familial circles, and in the circle of those loose associates around which individual faces orbit more familiar ones, I am generally forgiving of theological, political, or philosophical diversity. I even maintain a small, but - as I consider it - elite cohort of friends who are decidedly leftist, yet unaffected by the bizarre, social iteration of rabies that is so ubiquitous among my generation. They remind me of a spaceship that uses a black hole's gravity well to perform a slingshot maneuver, as opposed to disappearing into the event horizon. These people, rare though they may be, are the sort of precious social connection you should hunt for, and in the finding, jealously guard a treasure that will serve as an excellent counterbalance to your own eccentricity: the human whetstone, the perfect foil.

Strange though it may seem for a reactionary to pause mid-thought to give praise to his opposite, I do it in juxtaposition of conventional Millennial ultracalvinism. I have become more and more reticent to refer to the political and philosophical proclivities of the passing era by their traditional markers. Perhaps it is simply an exercise in mindfulness as I remember friends who would traditionally be labeled "de la gauche", but are nonetheless the sort of men I would include in my roster were I tasked with the construction of a working model of civilization. But less on the personal side, eschewing the traditional labels of right and left, conservative and progressive, and even some popular colloquialisms like cultural Marxism, makes sense to me because most of these no longer make any taxonomic sense whatsoever. Some of them never made any sense at all. The nationalist vs. globalist divide makes much, much more sense, but even still I find that less precise than I would like. Moldbug is a far greater thinker than I, and so I bow to his ultracalvinism in deference to his rank above me. Furthermore, ultracalvinism is a good 'stealth' descriptor - the sort of word that can phase through social deflector shields long enough to make a fair point that an otherwise sensible person can actually grapple with, as opposed to rejecting out of hand because heresy. I dislike 'cultural Marxism' because it has the opposite effect. I found another excellent term at the Orthosphere blog the other day. Romantic rationalism. If you stare at it long enough, you may just see the shape of a stiletto wedged through some ribs.

But that's less here than there and I've gone all tangential. The reason my girlfriend is important to this essay is because it was through my girlfriend that I became intimately acquainted with provincial American culture. I admit that I am a suburbanite by birth. My parent's choice of home location was certainly a boon in my formative years, as my childhood was beyond happy, but in the suburbs you're always living on the outside of a city while looking forever in. Everything past you really is flyover country. It wasn't that I consciously harbored any ill will to the people beyond the corn field border, I just never thought of them much, and if I ever did - and I know I did - hear of scorn for hicks and hillbillies and rednecks and the like, I didn't think much of it. I knew zero of them, whatever your word for White ruralites may be.

That changed when I found my girlfriend. My introduction to her "hick-ish" family, to use her own words, was illuminating. And despite the cultural gravity well in my immediate vicinity begging me to throw myself in for the cheap social gains (and easy, albeit B or C grade, women), it was in the corn strewn wasteland beyond my hometown that I finally, finally learned to hate. And it wasn't them that I learned to hate. Getting to know the extremely large circle of small town people intimately bound through blood and friendship that eventually begot the woman I love was both beautiful beyond words and sad beyond reckoning. I have never felt such sympathy, and I owe that in no small part to the quality of the people I met, who, despite their material poverty, were endowed spiritually, communally, and otherwise beyond measure. Where the people I met are not what you would call 'educated' - whatever that means nowadays - they make up for it in handiness, craftsmanship, and earthiness. While I have fished for nearly a quarter century, I hadn't picked up a bow or a gun since - I shit you not - Jesus camp.

(My parents, being naive Catholics, sent me, also a naive Catholic, to an Evangelical summer camp. It didn't end well, but that's a story that was only interesting when I was an angry atheist.)

After a short period of the customary sizing-up of a foreign male romantically interested in his daughter, my girlfriend's dad took me under his wing and taught me everything he knew about firearms and bowhunting. He lent me his old bow, somewhat oversized since he is quite tall. Under his tutelage, I took my first deer this year. I am forever grateful to him for that, as I had no one to show me the ins and outs of the ancient art. Someday I will pass that knowledge on to my sons. And while people come in all sorts of flavors, the overall earthiness and communal orientation of the ruralites I encountered puts the spray-tanned, Escalade-driving soccer mom culture of suburbia to shame. I passed out candy maybe once ever 20 minutes this year at Halloween. My girlfriend's parents step out on their door at 4pm and don't step back inside until the procession of kids in costumes ends. And when you go out there, you see the telltale signs of the communal values so many people on the Dissident Right lament the lack of in more populated areas. Everyone knows their neighbors. Families still have large, extended gatherings. Pregnant women are abundant. Etc.

But don't take this uptalk for the idealized vision of a utopian fool. There is a tremendous amount of sadness out there. There's a lot of rust, a lot of poverty, a lot of alcoholism and drug addiction. I had a strange, chance encounter with a young friend of my girlfriend's sister who offhandedly made a comment about her stepfather who used to beat her regularly before her mom dumped him, and was somewhat taken aback by the nonchalant attitude. It wasn't what you would call justification, but it was a sort of shrug at a commonality. The jobs are dwindling, and the town my girlfriend comes from is getting by better than most thanks to a few remaining factories, but for years everyone's been on edge about who will close shop for the penny wages of East Asia next. When I talk to people about their lives out in the sticks, I get a lot of pessimism:

How long have you lived here?

My whole life.

Yeah? Do you like it?

Hell naw, man. It sucks out here.

Why don't you leave?

Everyone I know lives out here. We've always been out here. 

And there, right there, is where you get the gold shining behind layers of shuttered factories and rust. People I know from the suburbs pay lip service to not wanting to leave family and friends behind, but given the opportunity to go elsewhere, they cross country on the next flight out. People from where I've been spending my free time know there's better somewhere, and they won't go. That's some blood and soil shit right there, even if they don't know it's blood and soil, nor do they articulate it as you or I might. They just do, and their stoic resignation to their grim fate as the grand losers of globalism reminds me of that Oswald Spengler quote about the Roman soldier who died at his post in Pompeii.

And that's where the hate really sets in. You go out there and you see what I saw, and suddenly the vitriol piled on Heritage America from the coasts becomes intolerable. At first it was annoying, but then you see the rust and the closed factories and hear about the occasional suicide and your blood just boils. Moldbug once made a passing comment about how despite his decidedly brahmin upbringing, he found himself utterly horrified by the sheer and unjustified hate spewed forth from the coasts against middle Americans. I remember reading that when I first encountered UR, and like my previous disposition about the relationship between the city and the country, it went over my head. Now? Every encounter I have with an urbanite is likely to produce some frivolous yet vicious banality, a conversational trope used to juxtapose the backwards, awful, evil faceless hinterlander against the virtuous, enlightened, beneficent urbanite speaking to you.

You know, the sort of people who hate black people and vote against their economic interests.

There was a time where when I'd hear that sort of thing my eyes would roll into the back of my head and I'd sigh and silently here we go AGAIN to myself. I hear that now and I flash back to the first Christmas after I started dating my girlfriend. We'd been together for barely two months and these total strangers took me into their house, belatedly bought me inexpensive but utilitarian gifts, and lavished me with food and company and the sort of cheer you'd think they'd save for an old friend long thought lost who stumbled through the door. I remember her dad explaining to me, in his particular fashion, how to set up the sights on his old compound bow, where to aim. I remember the farmer who not only let us pass through his land but helped us search while we were tracking a wounded buck. I remembered the small but charming interactions I'd have with strangers in a small town. And I remembered every lamentation from some broke, broken middle aged schlub or old timer as they recalled the respectable prosperity lost to the maelstrom of globalism, and the people alcoholism floated down the drain.

Every time I stumble into one of those AKTCHUALLY conversations with some nu-male soyboy, I am reminded of my own peculiar 'wait a minute' moment. Life is a series of lights going off in your head across the perils of time and entropy, and like Moldbug's comment on his upbringing, this light had a herald some time prior but didn't make sense until I got my hands dirtied myself.

The Dissident Right, by virtue being unconstrained by conventional, suppressive morality, has produced a patchwork quilt of  explanatory narratives that seek to unravel the mystery of the decline of the West. Some of these are excellent - Anonymous Conservative's r/K selection and Moldbug's formalism for instance. Some are less so - the abyss-staring neuroticism of much of the Alt-Right no longer seems quite as edgy and funny to me as it did previously, as I see no resolution to any of our problems coming from that quarter.

That said, for good or ill I sometimes wonder if we're overthinking much of AKTCHUALLY culture. While what I read from the broad Dissident Right is vastly, vastly superior in quality over basic conservative, libertarian and progressive writers, I suspect that the petty motivations and virtue signalling and desperate desire for social affirmation make up 100% of the fuel that drives 99.9% of wastrel progressives. Sometimes I think we see forests and not trees, or the reverse, or however you want to frame it.

I constantly wonder what it is I am missing - I'm always missing something, somewhere.

And ironically, that is what drives me nuts about most people.

They don't.

A Very Small, Cautiously Distributed White Pill

From Thermidor Mag: A sobering but honest assessment of the organization of the Left and the Right, today.

If I were to give you a tl;dr of an essay I would otherwise strongly encourage the broad Dissident Right to read in full, it would be this: We have reached peak Kali Yuga, because the Right, which traditionally represents order, is wildly out-ordered by the Left, which traditionally represents chaos. Indeed, the sorry state of the Right across the West is something of a curiosity in the esoteric and the exoteric. How did things get so bad? Historians may some day write a book worth reading, but that day is not today and so we press on.

I do my best thinking at work, which is unfortunate because the nature of my trade does not spare me a lot of time to jot down thoughts. Business is busy, and something always requires my attention. In some respects this is fortunate, as I have never felt that what I do is corporate make-work. Perhaps this is because I am in a white collar position that deals with blue collar workers everyday - although this is a bit of an amusing stretch because my office dress code is casual and I wear a flannel and jeans every day. My entire working career up until I graduated, I was blue collar. Mostly labor, although I had a couple of neat specialist type jobs (calibration and quality assurance) while I worked my way through college. I can tell you definitively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the moment I stopped being a suburbanite miscreant and started to actually become something good was the moment I was forced to do hard labor for a paycheck. I had my "I'm not going to die this way" moment in a meat packing plant, after a coworker was grievously injured. I'll spare you the details, but while this man survived, he was missing a rather large chunk of his body. Large enough that I submitted my two weeks notice, moved home and enrolled at my local community college.

It sucked.

I was halfway to my Associate's when all my high school friends that went to college graduated. Most of them moved into the city (where most of them still reside), and a handful got married and started families. As far as metrics and measurements go, I was barely beyond square one. And it sucked. Oh it sucked. Community college, at least where I was, is a cheerless endeavor. Most of the students I encountered were the sort of late-teens/early-twenties kids who really just wanted to smoke pot and play guitar in mom's basement, but the 'rents forced them to make something of themselves. Maaannnn. Then there were the immigrants, who were usually earnest but either dumb, or spoke very poor English, so communication was... challenging. And lastly, about one student per class was a late thirties or forties something who belatedly was trying for a career change, or to improve themselves, or whatever. Those people, the middle aged American students, were like fucking gold, because when group projects were assigned they would always do their work. I sought those people out for every group project I possibly could, not because I am lazy (I'm not), but because I was tired of pulling weight for the potheads. And I would pull that weight, because at the end of the day that project had to be done and there are a lot of teachers that don't care if the pothead didn't do x y or z assigned task. It had to be done, so I would make sure that I had backup in case someone "forgot", or whatever.

Like I said, it sucked. And the entire time I'm working mediocre wage jobs - thankfully I haven't made minimum wage since high school, an anecdotal shiv between the ribs of the do gooders who ceaselessly remind us that minimum wage sucks and it's not enough and it's unjust and you should feel bad so abloo bloo bloo. And on top of that I would routinely go into the city to visit my friends who all had (seemingly) a lot of money and were living fast and large while I was at home plugging away at... community college. I was constantly reminded of what I fretted away by being an unserious student during college try one. The friendships strained, relationships gone, opportunities that never materialized.

And then I graduated from community college. Well, I never "graduated" like cap and gown. I finished my last test, handed it to the teacher with the smug assurance that it was mathematically impossible for me to fail the course given my average prior to the final, got in my car and I had the strangest sense of elation. I passed from one end of campus to the other on my way back to my house and I realized that I would never look at that community college as a student ever again. It was over.

Now the story doesn't end there because I went on to a state university, but that is a whole different struggle session - figuratively and otherwise. I didn't feel the same elation when I graduated because I had routine encounters with SJWs and I suddenly understood exactly how bad things were. I also learned to hate, and have nursed serious fantasies of ovening the Left, so with graduation came not elation, but relief that I would never see those wretched people ever again. And in any event it's immaterial relative to the Thermidor link.

But this is:

I thought a lot about being at square one, the paucity of the Right's organization, and where I was relative to where I ended up. I don't have any organizational advice off the top of my head, sans perhaps a cautious word against descending into the feral rage that peering too deep down the anti, sorry, counter-Semitic abyss seems to bring upon gazers. That advice has not been particularly well received when I have offered it to peers irl, so ignore it if you can't help but huff and puff about coin clutching civilizational saboteurs.

There are actually two takeaways I offer to you.

First, is the Dissident Right's status as having "no institutional base of operations to call its own, no patrons, no money, few friends, and many enemies", is as much of a boon as it is a disadvantage. I need not reiterate exactly how bad that is because I put the Thermidor link at the top of the page. But in a way it's good because it gives us the opportunity to build. "One pathology of our age is a childlike credulity in the magical efficacy of complaint. Don't complain, build." Having nothing while setting out to do a great thing (saving our civilization is no idle task, as you may have noticed) gives us an opportunity similar to finding a virgin, unspoiled, unclaimed continent teeming with space and biomass and mineral resources. We owe no debt to anyone, and we eat whatever we kill. Its ours, the pathway to salvation rests solely in our hands. No one is coming, the boomers are useless, and previous generations that actually had the balls to fight are long since dead. That's a tremendous amount of pressure, but with that comes a tremendous opportunity for glory. And in the vacuum left by the New Old Right we can build unimpeded if we have the vision, the cunning and the drive.

I dream of an immortal civilization, and the stars.

Second, there is a boon in that the Left is finally consuming itself in earnest. Where exactly the outpouring of sexual harassment accusations among prominent Leftists come from is a story for another day. What is important is that the long predicted fractures are finally bursting, and the Left can no longer suppress its desire to consume itself. It was inevitable. One of the great, inadvertent gifts the Left bequeathed upon us was driving sane and healthy white men away. This doesn't just help us separate the wheat from the chaff, it may also be that non-White Leftists no longer regard White men as threatening, and therefore have focused their attentions on other fronts, knowing that threat numero uno has been subdued... soydued. Sorry. But having noticed that White Prog men are overwhelmingly pajama boy knock offs, I can't help but suspect that Blacks and Mexicans, who are largely only exposed to White men who are pajama boy knock offs vis-a-vis the White urbanite cohort, regard White men as the sort of literal progressive equivalent of Satan. And I don't mean as how we conceive of the progressive religion as a warped version of Calvin's heresy. I mean that White men are slowly, but surely, in the minds of minorities being converted into a sort of omnipresent but immaterial satan to be invoked for bad things but never really materializing as the big bad colonizers that once conquered the planet using steel and sails and muskets. On a long enough timespan, were the minority coalition to hold itself together (suspend your disbelief for a moment), White men might devolve in the same way that devils devolved into imps and hobgoblins and other mischievous sprites. Of course the coalition won't hold together. It isn't. It never could. They're tearing themselves apart because they lost their unifying enemy - strong White people - and all that remains is the steady and sure degeneration of the remaining Left. That the smartest blacks and mestizos do not breed because we send them to schools on our dime where they are forced through the same crucible shredding the White population... its not going to end well for the populations that so desperately need quality individuals. That the weakest Whites are producing fewer and fewer children also bodes poorly for the minorities that remain, as one day they may run headlong into some very angry, heavily armed ruralites.

But that's not my problem. That the Left is pulling an ouroboros isn't either. It is said that the best time to strike is while the iron is hot, but it's also been said that you should never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. My hot hot take is that its the small steps that will get us places, the little things we have neglected, the small sacrifices that reap large dividends. No one else is thinking about building, they're too busy consuming.

Rape Culture

Yet more heads roll! Amusingly, the string of sexual crimes by Leftists now includes Harvey Weinstein's brother, Amazon's Roy Price, New Republic Editor Leon Wieseltier, director David O. Russel, director James Toback (now accused by 238 women), the proprietor of a prog videogame forum and bourgeois commie LARPer and Jacobin contributor Sam Kriss. We've come a long way from Harvey. I'd pause to say something about how I'm still not tired of winning, but I have more pressing questions.

First, why? The scale of the accusations since Weinstein was outed is almost mind boggling. Almost. It's no secret that male feminists have ulterior motives when they sign up for the equality struggle session. Every once in a while a low to mid tier male feminist with name recognition would be outed for some sort of sexual impropriety against the, erm, fairer sex. Anyone who somehow avoids the news, but attended college with millennials would harbor similar suspicions. Most men I met in college had very little sympathy for feminism, but all men who sympathized with feminism were lackluster examples of masculinity. There is a certain, delicious irony in hearing individuals who only barely resemble a man bitch about "toxic" masculinity. Chiefest among those accused of the crime of toxic masculinity were fraternities. If you ever have the opportunity to listen to some soymen bitch about Greek Life, hold off on interjecting and just listen. You will very quickly realize that the animosity SJWs hold towards the Greek system is not just based in resentment, but also ressentiment. I touched on this in my very first post:

Didn't get a bid from a fraternity or sorority? Resent that you don't get invited to their bangin ragers? No problemo famalam, just call them racist and the school will be right there, just like your stupid fucking helicopter parents, to put those above you on their knees in supplication, begging for mercy. That is power, but cheap and easy and wholly devoid of obligation, responsibility or the burden of care and foresight.

As I see it, the ressentiment soymen hold for fraternities is inseparable from their sexual frustration. At the end of my teens and into my earliest twenties, I was a frat boy. I jokingly told my non-Greek friends that a fraternity is more or less a glorified drinking club. Sure, to a large extent that is true. But fraternities also serve as easy access to women. Joining a fraternity is a status booster. I'm not as erudite as Roissy when it comes to explaining how the sexual market works, so bear with me. Women, being hypergamous, are particularly aware of where men rank on the social hierarchy - or at least how men present their rank, as there appears to be little difference in the female mind. This explains the efficacy of 'game'. Membership in a fraternity checks off a bunch of qualifiers that boost relative status: Trial by fire vis-a-vis pledging, popularity through the easy friendship of membership, access to resources through alcohol and parties, exclusivity through invitations to closed parties, etc. There are other benefits (primarily post-graduation networking), but that is relatively unimportant when you're trying to rail some thots. I certainly never boasted about how great a job I was going to have when I was flirting. And none of this is to say that all of my frat buddies slayed pussy non-stop. A fraternity will certainly get you through the door, and give you a higher initial status, but its up to you to close the deal. There were guys who brought home some strange every night, and there were a handful of guys who didn't even touch a woman. But that doesn't matter, because to an outsider all that is visible is the long line of women one-night-standed by a bunch of Chads. Hence, ressentiment. Amusingly, despite the incessant bitching from prog women about the Greek system, I have yet to meet a feminist who wasn't deeply flattered by the prospect of getting railed by a frat boy. The incongruity between what a woman says and what a woman does is a dead horse I don't need to beat.

Being shut out from the (perceived) access to pussy vis-a-vis fraternal organizations, men who still have a sex drive turn elsewhere. There are a whole bunch of strategies to getting laid in college, some good and some bad, but for some reason there is a very obvious, very loud and outspoken, and very wretched group of men who decided being a yes man white knight to a woman's worst impulses was the best. Really, for them, it was the path of least resistance. I normally would scoff, but evidently the thirsty are quenched every now and again. Sorta. Do yourself a solid - if you aren't the sort of person that reflexively flinches at cringe - and compare the woman's account of her unwanted encounter with Sam Kriss (below), and the secret recording of Harvey Weinstein attempting to seduce that model.

Fucking cringe.

I don't even need to lead you where I want to take you, the cringe is so very real. I could tell you a few stories about buddies (fraternal or otherwise) who failed spectacularly in seducing women while in my vicinity, but without a face or a name, the anecdote is more or less meaningless and hogging up space. Suffice it to say I've seen some godawful pickup attempts, but the rub is that I have never in my life seen anything in person that makes me cringe as hard as listening to Weinstein's pathetic pleading and demanding, or reading Sam Kriss's increasingly desperate attempts to get the girl in the above picture to come home with him. There is a certain sense of entitlement that you might see in the way both men attempt to ingratiate their sexual urges, and this sense, I think, is key to understanding the why here, and much more broadly, the why of why our ruling class is failing and consuming itself.

There are a lot of ways to distill the problem of the modern world and the crisis of Western Civilization. Brett Stevens refers to our pathology as both hubris and solipsism. I would add to that, because I generally agree with Stevens, by saying that most people want something for nothing, and as the eventual consequence of racking up physical, metaphysical and spiritual debt has yet to arrive, most people willfully delude themselves into thinking that the debtor will never actually collect his due. People like Harvey Weinstein, his brother, Sam Kriss, the idiot burning his Lefty vidya games forum to the ground, and male feminists generally are cut and dry examples of something for nothing. Pledging allegiance to the degrading nonsense of postmodernism requires no effort, and costs nothing (save for what Theodore Dalrymple said about the purpose of communist propaganda). Whatever effort steeled the Leftists of yore, the Anarchist terrorists, the Communist infiltrators and the Marxists of the Frankfurt School is worthless now, because their sons paid no price for their father's efforts. It is actually not surprising that the bourgeois fucktards who were handed the cultural controls of the greatest technomagic civilization of all time have gone and fucked up everything by trying to fuck everything. And it's even less a surprise that they had no grace doing so! They were untested! They paid no price, burned no calories. For Christ's sake, Sam Kriss is the scion of rich bourgeois urbanites, and contrary to his socialist creds he tried to puff himself up to his would be cumdumpster based on the astonishing wealth of his progenitors.

A long time ago Roissy (I believe, I actually don't want to dig through the CH archives to find this particular post) shed some light on the old "grass is always greener" adage. If I remember the chain correctly, George Clooney's manager envies the way that extremely attractive women will simply slip Clooney their numbers. This manager, no schlub himself, has a name that carries weight (being the manager of an A list celebrity tends to do this), and himself attracts many women, though not as many as Clooney. The managers friend who... maybe was in a band or something, envies the manager, but himself reels in a lot of women vis-a-vis being a musician, and the bartender envies the friend, who is in turn envied by so on and so forth, all the way down the line with men who do slightly worse, sexually, envying their betters. The story eventually ends with some guy who goes home to his Japanese love pillow envying his friend who has a female coworker he talks to regularly. I forget what the moral exactly was, but why I am bringing it up is that a man who harvests desirable anything without effort is a man untested.

We are all born virgins. In the seemingly ancillary story I hamfistedly related to you above, we all start at Japanese love pillow, and we all know the peak is George Clooney. Or maybe some other actor with better taste. Just roll with it, it's a lame metaphor anyways. I don't actually advocate hedonism or the PUA lifestyle, despite the sex metaphor you're about to be shoved into.

Leftists look at George Clooney and say my life would be so much better if I were him, and they either inherit the building blocks of staggering sexual prowess (fame, power, wealth, access) and fuck it up royally by never putting in the work, or they hover as male feminist allies/lesser betas, watching in anguish as their oneitis slowly morphs into a cumdumpster courtesy of a long line of Chads. Hence, ressentiment. Much to their surpise, the Left's shortcut to power only enfeebles them more (to borrow from PA again).

You never, ever, ever want to just look at the goal, because it isn't the goal that makes you better, it's the lessons and character and muscle you accrue along the way. We all want to be Emperor, but without the conquest... the top of the mountain is just a pretty view if you didn't climb up it yourself. 

---

There is fairly good reason to believe that the defenestration of Harvey Weinstein was simply the crack necessary to burst the dam. Given that the sexual impropriety among modern Leftists (and, according to Thermidore, the Leftists of yore) is fairly common, we should expect that there is a significant population of young women who have experienced anything ranging from mild discomfort to straight horror, who are more than willing to spill the beans given that being a sexual victim itself is a profitable way to harvest attention - the only currency that really matters to women.

Some have pointed to Bannon being the source, although I am fairly unconvinced. I am extremely unconvinced that there is anyone "directing" the outflow of victims from the shadows of our Leftist overlords, much as I would otherwise like to believe.

What is important is that this is tearing the Left apart. Complete madness.

Signs of the Kali Yuga I

Nazis watch out!

"Communism doesn't work" is a conservative banality. "Communism has never been tried" is a progressive banality. "Communism doesn't work but Marx was spot on in his criticism of Capitalism" is a substantially less banal observation. Despite being less banal than the others, this requires a little bit of unpacking along the same lines as my post about the proto-Indo-Europeans and Urheimat.

It isn't exactly that Marx was particularly prescient about Capitalism. Marx's prescience comes from his observation about the bourgeoisie.

I would encourage you to take an hour or so to re-read Marx's Communist Manifesto. I was never a Communist. I had a brief period - literally 10 weeks, or one semester at my first college - where I subscribed to what you might call "Socialism Lite". I reasoned that if everyone had their basic needs provided for them by the state, then the time they would have otherwise spent acquiring the necessities of existence could be reallocated towards higher level productivity. Imagine how much art we could create if no one had to work to eat. I worked out the flaw in that sort of thinking through the course of one class (much to the chagrin of my professor, whom I still regard as a vapid douche), and moved on. Ever since, academic or social encounters with anything influenced by Marx caused me much eye-rolling.

This wasn't exactly fair on my part, but it wasn't unprecedented. The number of self-described Communists that I met during my undergraduate who recognized Bakunin and Gramsci was exactly zero. With a handful of exceptions among well read and thoughtful friends who reside on the Left end of the political spectrum, I found college commies to be boring, unoriginal, and slightly more annoying than the handful of College Republicans I met.

On a whim, I bought Marx's Communist Manifesto for one dollar, and, reveling in the irony, spent one evening rereading it and taking notes. I gave Marx something better than the old college try by reading him as a reactionary, and had I not already rejected his solution as impossible, I may very well have been swept away from my longing for hierarchy and order and converted into a sort of Orwell-ish communist. By which I mean I would have looked upon the sum total of Leftism and despaired. The connections I made are disturbing, but not unprecedented. There is a particularly humorous exchange between Richard Spencer and some fat idiot where Spencer makes fun of the man's taste for being, as he called it, bourgeois.

The implementation (or attempt at implementation) of Communism is widely regarded as a failure. For those who do not see the raw kill count as evidence of Communism's impossibility, that Communism (or the attempt thereof) was always a revolution of intellectuals as opposed to the proletariat surely tips the scales towards Marx's designs as failed. The unfortunate history of Communism being relatively well known, there is little else to say in that regard. Where Marx curries some serious favor from people who otherwise regard Marx with the same enthusiasm you might hold for finding dog crap smashed in the treads of your boots is his thoughts on the bourgeoisie. You often hear this rephrased as "Communism doesn't work but Marx was correct in his criticism of Capitalism." If they've done their homework and aren't just repeating something they once heard, Capitalism refers to the behavior of the bourgeoisie. Most people leave out that seemingly small but extremely important detail.

Allow me to quote The Communist Manifesto liberally before we substantiate Marx's... correctness:

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.

All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

If you look at that the right way, from the right angle, you just might be able to stuff an SJW into Marx's list of crimes committed by the bourgeoisie. This is, of course, something of a stretch, but it certainly coincides with the now almost banal conservative observation that Marxists typically have nothing to do with the working class, and are almost always academics, aspirants of the academic-industrial complex, or white collar workers who have passed through the ivory tower. Still, isn't it the slightest bit peculiar that the Marxism, a colossal failure in implementation, is now championed by people who we could charitably accuse of being bourgeois? What a strange fate.

A Miscellaneous Note About Progressive Christianity and Progressive Islam

Not far from where I live is a Methodist church. There are lots of churches where I live, but I notice this one more than the others because the building is decidedly low-church protestant and there's an electric sign in the lawn that has read "hate has no home here" since the election of Donald Trump. Coincidentally, the parking lot is always devoid of life.

"Hate has no home here" is a popular lawn sign among the handful of signally dickheads who somehow manage to stomach the astounding ignorance of a vastly White, vastly conservative town enough to live among the lowly, regressive residents of the wrong side of history. There's also a few "love trumps hate" and "we're glad you're our neighbor" signs for those select few who want to display an extra level of fart-sniffing superiority.

And so their lines ended, with the hushed sound of an insufflated fart. 

The yard signs aren't particularly interesting, and for my purposes serve more as a ready-made, obvious warning that the residents of a particular property are prepared to lecture you about their moral superiority at the drop of a hat.

What is interesting is the church sign. The empty Methodist church is not the first church I've seen with a dildo-tier message on their signboard, but it is the most persistent.

Christians who take their religion seriously, or as seriously as the Kali Yuga can possibly allow, have a sort of odd sense that the aggregate body of Christ is rather... ill. Generally they don't have a good way of expressing this, and I suspect that the wild deformities of low church Protestantism, i.e. Biblical Literalism and Young Earth Creationism, are a socio-evolutionary strategy to escape the nigh-infinite gravity well of Christianities inbred offspring, Ultracalvinism. I also generally suspect that the astoundingly vicious turn that Islam has taken in the past decade or two has as much to do with America's wayward adventures in nation building as the it does with the sinister influence that Ultra Calvinism allegedly has inculcated among the Western university educated leaders of the various militant factions of Islam.

By socio-evolutionary strategy I don't mean that there is some earnest but otherwise inept board of low church Protestants who decided that the best way to combat the incursions of Ultracalvinism on their faith-territory is to slowly become weirder until the last surviving churches with any sort of congregation to speak of are indistinguishable from Common Filth's fans (although the end result is basically going to be the same). Rather, the incursions of Ultracalvinism infect a particular institution and ultimately drive out those who cannot be converted, much as colleges and universities have already done to conservative or right-leaning professors. The survivors are left to search for a new place of worship (or study) and as Ultracalvinism attacks by moving rightward on the classic political line, the institutions that remain unconverged tend to be... weirder.

This is a hypothesis, but mostly a narrative that I hope someone else might find useful. Needless to say it's going to require quite a bit more refining.

---

In any event, here's a further thought I wrote at an earlier date about the nature of Progressivism relative to Christianity and Islam. It has been gently abused to fit my above thoughts:

Christianity, rightly understood, is progressive according to Progressives. It comes as no surprise then that Progressives also believe Islam, rightly understood, to be a progressive religion. Anything that Islam does that isn't progressive therefore cannot be Islam. The vacuity of "Islam is a religion of peace" trope is a hill perfectly constructed for a conservative to die on: He gets lost in the details of Arab violence and forgets to see the narrative. X isn't X if it doesn't perfectly mirror Progressive Idealism. You may have your X, Y, and Z, but they are always and forever subservient to Progressive Idealism. Like the Roman practice of incorporating local Gods into the Imperial Cult, they will herd all things under the banner of "progress". There is a sick, suicidal trick to the whole affair in that  the mental gymnastics they force themselves through to accept such nonsense really only applies to themselves and the ruralite Whites they both loath and love to keep subjugated vis-a-vis the bourgeois narrative of Cultural Marxism. A small mound grows daily over Marx's tomb as he ceaselessly spins in the grave knowing that his theories were ultimately captured and repurposed as a "market" for the victorious bourgeoisie. His prescience, such that it did exist, could not save his work, and so corrupted they sink into a particular ironic failure, reduced to a petty social signalling device and a tool for capturing new markets - if we consider churches, religions and schools of philosophy as the 4th generation warfare equivalent to the material markets Marx was speaking of when he excoriated the bourgeoisie for their insatiable hunger for 'profits'.

Also worth considering is how the lie of egalitarianism fails in contention with third world devotees of the religion of the Prophet. There is no material reason to believe that the Pashtun tribalists we conquered in Afghanistan have a whole new appreciation for teaching their children to put condoms on bananas. Our attempts to do so, under the auspicious guidance of the "anointed" academics (as Thomas Sowell calls them), have probably done as much to enrage them as the occasional obliteration of weddings by Hellfire missiles. The shockwave echoes here and in Europe, and ultimately Progressive Idealism falls on its own sword. Christianity, for the most part, has succumbed to Progressive Idealism, but there is little reason to believe that Islam will submit as well. Their violence says as much, not that it seems to bother the sort of people who think you can simply deconstruct things into the category that makes the world look as you think it should, as opposed to how the world is.

And so we circle the drain.

The Great White Culture Change

I think we may be seeing the start of a trend: Jason Kessler's Credentials

Further commentary from VoxDay and Aurini.

---

Naturally there are those who have noticed Jason Kessler and Garon Archer's histories with the Occupy movement and sense that the Eye of Soros has cast its gaze upon the Alt-Right. I seem to have misplaced my magic sunglasses, so I'm seeing something a little different. Allow me to flatter myself and play Cassandra for a moment.

I don't know where exactly this comes from because I am not its original recipient. Take it for whatever it's worth to you, but for now I'm only going to quote a part of it and use it as a starting point. Honestly, this looks tongue in cheek, out of context or satirical, but I have no further comment on it's origination. Emphasis mine.

Prime Directive: Always Blame the Jews for Everything

As Hitler says in Mein Kampf, people will become confused and disheartened if they feel there are multiple enemies. As such, all enemies should be combined into one enemy, which is the Jews. This is pretty much objectively true anyway, but we want to leave out any and all nuance.

So no blaming Enlightenment though, pathological altruism, technology/urbanization, etc. - just blame Jews for everything.

This basically includes blaming Jews for the behavior of other non-Whites. Of course it should not be that they are innocent, but the message should always be that if we didn't have the Jews we could figure out how to deal with non-Whites very easily.

The same deal with women. Women should be attacked, but there should always be mention that if it wasn't for the Jews, they would be acting normally.

What should be completely avoided is the sometimes mentioned idea that "even if we got rid of the Jews we would still have all these other problems." The Jews should always be the beginning and the end of every problem, from poverty to poor family dynamics to war to the destruction of the rainforest....

The its the kikes! narrative is faulty because despite what humor can be derived from things like trolling the ever living fuck out of neoconservative shill Ben Shapiro, the blame the other function offers White Leftists an attractive, ready-made escape hatch when the economy of progressive morality implodes and the value of a signal collapses under the strain of minorities demanding White 'allies' dutifully stand in silent solidarity with non-Whites who openly conspire to eat all White people.

Why is this a problem? Doesn't the Alt-Right need more bodies? What's wrong with Leftist conversions? Glad you asked.

First, despite the humor vector, blaming the Jews is basically a knock-off version of the we wuz kangz until whitey showed up. As with Blacks, the idea that eliminating a particular oppressor, confiscating their property, or vacating their seats of authority will magically heal us of the evils that plague us is patent nonsense. Obviously for Blacks this is fairly easy to substantiate through the precipitous decline in Africa's quality of life after the end of the colonial era. For Whites, whom I generally (but not universally) have a higher opinion of than Blacks, allow me to offer a couple of lines of evidence that suggest that White people are declining in quality and coin-clutchers are the least of our concerns:

1. Average White IQ has declined by nearly one standard deviation since 1889
2. As a population approaches post-scarcity, aberrant behavior appears and propagates.
3. Several White (and non-White) civilizations have collapsed under similar circumstances to our own, without Jews.

It is far more accurate to say that we have succeeded so hard that we've begun to fail ourselves. The malfeasance of certain Jews, however enraging it may be, is more like rats feasting on a corpse than the knife that bled us dry. Poisoning (or ovening, as the case may be) the rats is not going to bring the corpse back from the dead.

People point to things like the Kalergi Plan as a counterweight to my three strongest points that the decline of White people is suicide and not murder. I will address the "conspiracy" angle momentarily, but before I get to that I must address another issue.

The second problem with Leftist conversions is that there is a risk that the tendencies of Leftism will transfer over even when garden variety Leftist philosophy and policies do not. A sizable portion of SJWs exhibit outward signs of their poor inner health. Excess fat, frumpy and weak physique, pastel hair dye, gaudy clothes, and bad tattoos are examples of aposematism, or warning coloration. While on a superficial level hipster chic has the purpose of signalling caste and attracting mates, the ubiquitous poor life choices, poor physical and mental health, and small minded pursuit of cheap social gains suggests to us that the aesthetic of Millennial progressives is an accidental socio-evolutionary step towards warning others that there is something seriously wrong with these sort of people.

Supposing that the outward signs of dysfunction even could be suppressed by the wholesale conversion of this particular caste of White people, does that likewise mean that the other excesses, particularly in temperament and disposition, can also be suppressed? My gut says no. My very first post on women and entryism generally pointed out that there is a certain suspicious tendency among Alt-lite and entry-level Alt-Right female e-celebrities that has all the signs and symptoms of classic attention seeking, only cleverly wrapped in the accouterments of the dissident right. I am generally predisposed against single females in and around the Alt-Right for this reason, although I'm willing to give some credit to partially mitigate this bias because being anything to the Right of a New York Times editorial carries substantial career risks vis-a-vis the Social Justice Inquisition. Still, these women need to hurry up and find husbands. That they seem to have a less than enthusiastic interest in effectively obliterating their share of the market by husbanding up suggests an element of faddishness influences their political alignment. Faddishness, in turn, suggests that there will be an incongruity between actions and words, and as the fad becomes more mainstream, numbers will swell.

Mass proliferation of a set of ideas among a group of people who are not selected for based off quality carries the risk of reducing the aggregate quality of the idea set. Case in point, conventional Progressive Idealism is suffering the entropic effects of egalitarianism to the point that "poop swastikas" are very serious business that the whole nation needs to be notified about and galvanized against. If you're looking for a handy line of evidence that suggests that the people in charge are not organized or particularly smart or driven by some sort of grand plan to genocide Whites, the incessant but badly contrived hate crime hoaxes are where you want to start. The clever and scheming men of the Frankfurt School are long since dead, and their heirs look less like this and more like this. Far from being the nigh-omnipotent ruling class that the most counter-Semitic members of the Alt-Right see, the true believers in the gospel of Progressive Idealism are more like a very small but very malevolent child attempting to play boss while swimming in his father's suit. They are wayward, evil certainly, but less than our worst suspicions suggest and simultaneously worse for us than the sort of evil the Alt-Right sees. The Left is increasingly peopled by low-caste Whites who are way out of their own league in terms of being an actual ruling class. They are crude and inept, however dangerous they are regardless, but they are only successful because a previous, higher-quality generation left them a network of institutions and resources to amplify their voices. They do little good with it, and are slowly pulling the trigger on their own obliteration as a philosophy.

Note that there are structural parallels between the Alt-Right's take on the JQ and the anti-White SJW Inquisition. Erasing the proper nouns and adjectives that make the two camp's arguments distinct, a simple formula emerges in the form of the oppressed and dispossessed struggling against their illegitimate overlords. Most the Alt-Right might wrinkle their noses at this and think that I'm channeling Sargon of Akkad's insufferable "above the fray" centrism. To that I say, no, I am not, but I am pointing out a coincidence of epistemology that at least one person prior to me suspected would serve as the impetus for the mass conversion of Leftists to the cause of pro-White racialism.

There is one crucial fact that we must not overlook, if we are to see the political situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some ‘ideology,’ i.e., propaganda-line, whether “Liberal” or “conservative.” The real fulcrum of power in our society is neither the votaries of an ideological sect nor the Jews, clear-sighted and shrewd as they are, but the intelligent members of our own race whose one principle is an unmitigated and ruthless egotism, an implacable determination to satisfy their own ambitions and lusts at whatever cost to their race, their nation, and even their own progeny. And with them we must reckon the bureaucrats, men who, however much or little they may think about the predictable consequences of the policies they carry out, are governed by a corporate determination to sink their probosces ever deeper into the body politic from which they draw their nourishment. Neither of these groups can be regarded as being “Liberal” or as having any other political attitude from conviction. The first are guarded by the lucidity of their minds, and the second by their collective interests, from adhesion to any ideology or other superstition.

Bureaucracies contain, of course, ambitious men who are climbing upward. One thinks of the bureaucrats who, shortly before the “Battle of the Bulge” in the last days of 1944, were openly distressed “lest a premature victory in Europe compromise our social gains at home,” meaning, of course, that they were afraid that peace might break out before they had climbed another rung on their way to real power. After the defeat of Japan, one of them, a major in the ever-growing battalions of chair-borne troops, too precious to be distressed by such nasty things as fighting battles, frankly lamented his hard luck: if only the war had lasted another three months, and a suitable number of Americans been killed, he would have been promoted to colonel and would also have a “command” that would have qualified him as the foremost expert in his field and thus assured his prosperity after the evil day on which he would have to face the hardships of peace. This attitude may not be admirable, but it is quite common and a political force of the first magnitude, which it would be childish to ignore. It is not, of course, peculiar to the United States. When the National Socialists came to power in Germany, they had many enthusiastic adherents of the same type, who, after the defeat of their nation, did not have to be tortured to become witnesses to the “evils of Nazism” and endorse any lie desired by the brutal conquerors. The attitude, furthermore, though especially prevalent in our demoralized age, is not peculiar to it. One thinks of the Popes who are reported to have told their intimates, “How much profit this fable of Christ has brought us!” And the same realistic appraisal of the main chance was doubtless present in many ecclesiastics who did not reach the top or did not have so much confidence in the discretion of their immediate associates.

Unmitigated egotism, which is necessarily a prime factor on all the higher levels of society in a “democracy,” is a political force with which one cannot cope directly; one can only attack the masks that are worn in public. It is, however, an obstacle that can be circumvented and one which could become an asset. The only strategic consideration here is represented by the truism, “nothing succeeds like success” — a crude statement, which you may find elaborated with elegance and sagacity in the Or culo manual of the great Jesuit, Baltasar Gracián. Our formidable enemies today will become our enthusiastic allies tomorrow, if it appears that we are likely to succeed. I speak, of course, only of members of our race, but the most competent and acute “Liberals,” who today declaim most eloquently about the “underprivileged” and “world peace,” could become tomorrow the most eloquent champions of the hierarchical principle (with which they secretly agree) and a guerre l’outrance against our enemies, if their calculations of the probable future were changed. And, as the Jews well know, the great humanitarian, whose soul shudders today at the very thought of insufficient veneration of the Jews, could become tomorrow grateful to the Jews only for the wonderful idea about gas chambers that was incorporated in the hoax about the “six million,” and he would probably find a real personal satisfaction in putting the idea into practice at last. As Gracián says, the prudent man will ascertain where power really lies, in order to use those who have it and to spurn those who have it not.

Revilo P. Oliver, 1981 

Backed into a corner by an ideology that promises to erase them, White Leftists have two options - do something drastic to claim oppressed status (such as sexual reassignment surgery), or join the Alt-Right. The fad of claiming to be transgender is actually an attempt by White kids to feebly clutch at oppressed status by literally making shit up. Demisexual, genderfluid, and other fashionable gender terms are not just simple nonsense, although at first glance the list of Tumblr genders appears that way. They're a social survival tool, as the cost of Whiteness is increasingly the ability to freely participate in the supposedly prestigious social circles of academia. The cost of Whiteness is imposed on goodthinkful Whites by minorities.

During my undergraduate, I had the grim opportunity to observe the behavior of a somewhat older black woman who bears a striking resemblance to the author of the piece I linked to on how White 'allies' must behave. Fortunately I never had class with this woman, but I would occasionally see her in my department's study lounge. A girl pulled a book off of the shelf to use in conjunction with whatever her small study group was working on, and some time later this woman came in looking for her book, which coincidentally was the exact same book that the first girl pulled off of the bookshelf in a common area. The next ten minutes were grimly amusing in the same sort of way that you might be amused by watching someone you find annoying take repeated punches to the face. The woman berated the study group with a particularly nasty series of passive-aggressive questions about why you would think that you have the right to touch a book in a common area of a public university. The girl who pulled the book off the shelf apologized profusely for touching a book left on a shelf in a common area of a public university, and satisfied that she had forced a handful of white kids to grovel for the crime of touching the book she left.

Do you remember what Tolkien said about Smaug's reaction to the theft of his cup? An no, I am not referencing the behavior of the Negress.

Goodthinkful and naive though these White students were, and likely still are, the look of servile embarrassment on their faces suggested to me something similar to the classic "this is not what I paid for". How many of these sort of rude and sudden left hooks to the dome will goodthinkful Whites take? The most common answer I get from Alt-Right fellows I've talked to in person is something akin to all the punches, which is puerile, vapid, reflexive, and frankly a little disappointing. This isn't to say that this sort of thing is without precedent, as Leftists are notorious for fleeing the (usually ethnic) destruction which their policies wreak upon their petty enclaves. But what if there's no where else to run?

My prediction, which I will reiterate until we are finally done rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, is that the closer Leftist institutions get to pushing out all Whites from circles of prestige, the greater the pressure to eject will build within the White Leftist caste. At first, a select few will bridge the gap between conventional Progressive Idealism and the Alt-Right. While I am not casting aspersions per se on Messrs. Kessler and Archer because I do not know them personally, and likely will never meet them face to face where I can draw conclusions for myself, it is none the less increasingly obvious to me that these two are among the first high-profile Leftist converts. It is also very likely true that the earlier converts will more readily assimilate into the organic Alt-Right host culture, but like subsequent generations of immigrants, the Leftist crossover will more and more taint Alt-Right culture in temperament, though probably not philosophically.

If that is true, it is likely that the "conspiracy" angle will ease an otherwise dubious and unlikely transition. Kalergi's prediction about race may be enraging and frightening to those among us who have woken to the precarious situation of our race, culture and nations, but I have yet to meet someone who has read, much less owns, Kalergi's book in any part other than as it is presented as a common image on a certain Cambodian basket-weaving forum. Considering that much of what is believed about the designs oven-dodging coin clutchers have in store for Huwyte people originates with images on 4chan and elsewhere, I reserve any serious judgement beyond my continued insistence that this shit is far less important than any of you really think. The classic quote from the David Rockefeller book being taken wildly out of context and selectively omitting the preceding and following paragraphs is further cause for my reservations about coin clutching cabals.

My reservations, however justified I think they may be, are irrelevant, and for the purposes of the Alt-Right none the less serve as a ready-made, cookie cutter framework recently converted Leftists can conveniently jam themselves into in order to ease the transition from one wing of politics to the other. A less studious conservative might huff and puff at the anti-White invective, and mumble to themselves (ineffectively as well) about how wildly disproportionate the response would be if the slew of anti-White people articles coming out of Salon, HuffPo, et. al. were directed at Jews. To this I say to our humble but unimaginative cuck, worry not! Someday they will. All you have to do is switch the adjectives, and boom! Target adjusted. And how easy these people may someday find it, to put the ovens myth to the test.

This, however, does not solve the problem of White people and quality.