The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
DR3 Done Right
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

When Republican pols are asked bad faith do-you-still-beat-your-wife racism questions, president Trump has given them the perfect response to flip the script: “Do you hate whites?” When blue checkmarks tweet horrible things about white people, the response should now be “hates whites”.

He could have hardly picked a better target than Sharpton, who is about the least sympathetic black man in America. He’s a multimillionaire tax-evading shakedown artist with a long history of saying negative things about Jews, the police–one of whom committed suicide after being falsely accused of a heinous crime by the reverend–and whites, and there are a lot of pictures of him with Trump floating around.

As Steve Sailer has long noted, it is difficult for people to recognize a concept if they lack the words to identify it. “White privilege” is a common phrase while “Jewish privilege” is almost unheard of even though the gaps between Jews and gentiles are similar in magnitude to the gaps between whites and blacks on several social measures. People have a concept to tie white success to, so they notice it. They don’t have a concept to tie Jewish success to, so they mostly don’t notice it.

The functional definition of “racism” in the US is antagonism from whites directed at non-whites. It isn’t much applied to non-whites, especially when their antagonisms are directed at whites. Now there is a phrase to cover a thing that more and more white people are sensing in their daily lives.

 
Hide 72 CommentsLeave a Comment
72 Comments to "DR3 Done Right"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Back in the day we were taught that contempt for an entire race of people was “prejudice”. Institutional prejudice was racism. By the old definition affirmative action is racism and Al Sharpton is prejudiced. Today however, racism refers to something inherent in all white people. Something that causes them to oppress non whites. White liberals are racist also. But they have the decency to hate themselves. To say someone is racist is to say they are white.

    I don’t want to call people who hate me for my skin color white. Prejudiced would be more accurate but it’s too polite. I prefer to call them assholes. It doesn’t matter to them what I call them. According to them everything I think, say or do is RACIST!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    To say someone is racist is to say they are white.

    Indeed.
  2. Since we can’t call out Black Privilige for what it is, let’s just call it Black les prises.

  3. Trump has given them the perfect response to flip the script: “Do you hate whites?”

    Okay. But Jesse Lee Peterson has been outdoing him for some time now. Whether he’s interviewing people in his man-on-the-street role or handling call-ins, Jesse regularly asks his fellow Blacks,

    Do you love White people?

    The evasiveness of their replies is hilarious!

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Whether he’s interviewing people in his man-on-the-street role or handling call-ins, Jesse regularly asks his fellow Blacks,

    “Do you love White people?”

    The evasiveness of their replies is hilarious!
     

    Is that the question that should be asked, though? Is it realistic, reasonable or even desirable to expect anyone to love an entire race of people? Aren't those who profess to have such blind, undiscriminating love merely indulging in an inherently sanctimonious form of virtue-signalling?

    I say that non-Whites should not be asked to love Whites or exposed for lack of same any more than the reverse should be done. (Besides, if you need to ask someone to love you...) Rather, let us stay focused on exposing the incredible amount and degree of contempt, disdain, animus and often outright hostility and malice that is increasingly fomented, promoted, expressed and manifested toward Whites (esp. non-cosmopolitan, heterosexual, male, non-Jewish, non-ethnomasochist Whites). Let us continuously expose and call-out the numerous instances of complicity and culpability in this area on the part of the State; the dominant media, tech, commercial and financial titans (or simply Woke Capital); and the dominant educational and cultural institutions.

    One suggestion I will make now is that charges of "White privilege" be met by confrontation with striking examples of White poverty, such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt. This, of course, in addition to publicizing and confronting opponents with specific, documented instances of crimes, injustices and acts of violence perpetrated against Whites.

  4. Al Sharpton is truly a piece of shit of a human being. I ran into him in an enclosed place (without cameras) one time at my workplace. I thought later that perhaps I should have just gone ahead and beat the crap out of him. I really liked the job though.

    We all have regrets in life … alas …

    What the heck is “DR3”?

    • Replies: @216
    Dems R Real Racist
    , @Cagey Beast
    What the heck is “DR3”?

    "Democrats aRe the Real Racists". It's meant to mock Paul Ryan types who accuse the Democrats of not being colourblind enough.
  5. @Achmed E. Newman
    Al Sharpton is truly a piece of shit of a human being. I ran into him in an enclosed place (without cameras) one time at my workplace. I thought later that perhaps I should have just gone ahead and beat the crap out of him. I really liked the job though.

    We all have regrets in life ... alas ...

    What the heck is "DR3"?

    Dems R Real Racist

  6. • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Likely a ploy to get reelected? I'm not sure about that.
  7. President Trump has been a bust in a lot of ways although I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.

    But his occasional willingness to completely reset the overton window is invaluable. The smart jews (which is most of them) must realize he’s done almost nothing they feared and lots of helpful things regarding Israel. But I don’t think their fear of him is entirely an act. It’s really unknowable at this point if he might cause a genuine preference cascade in relation to whites and the official narrative.

    Imagine Trump tweeting “it’s okay to be white” to take one example. Is it really so far fetched? But coming from the world’s biggest megaphone… it would have he potential to change everything overnight.

    They can knock down a wall, they can readmit deported brown people, they can appoint new supreme court justices. But they’ve been constructing the narrative for maybe a century now and Trump coming so close to shattering and sweeping it away… THAT could be a real setback for their interests. The narrative is the real weapon, the only weapon keeping the white masses yoked… and it’s so FRAGILE.

    I don’t know that Trump will ever take the last step, I don’t expect he will, but he’s shown the vulnerability.

    And… it’s anyway good for teh lulz.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Realist

    I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.
     
    If he is reelected he will be worse than ever.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Well put, thanks. He is turning out to be the transitional figure many thought he'd be. With a second term, maybe some real transformation occurs, but I doubt it.
    , @SFG
    Besides, the Dems will massively increase legal and illegal immigration if elected, not to mention pass reparations and work even harder to make it hard for white men to find or keep jobs.

    If defeated in 2020 they will have to back off a little. Look at the way they drape themselves in the flag after the losses of the 60s and 70s.
  8. @Achmed E. Newman
    Al Sharpton is truly a piece of shit of a human being. I ran into him in an enclosed place (without cameras) one time at my workplace. I thought later that perhaps I should have just gone ahead and beat the crap out of him. I really liked the job though.

    We all have regrets in life ... alas ...

    What the heck is "DR3"?

    What the heck is “DR3”?

    “Democrats aRe the Real Racists”. It’s meant to mock Paul Ryan types who accuse the Democrats of not being colourblind enough.

  9. @Anonymousse
    President Trump has been a bust in a lot of ways although I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.

    But his occasional willingness to completely reset the overton window is invaluable. The smart jews (which is most of them) must realize he’s done almost nothing they feared and lots of helpful things regarding Israel. But I don’t think their fear of him is entirely an act. It’s really unknowable at this point if he might cause a genuine preference cascade in relation to whites and the official narrative.

    Imagine Trump tweeting “it’s okay to be white” to take one example. Is it really so far fetched? But coming from the world’s biggest megaphone... it would have he potential to change everything overnight.

    They can knock down a wall, they can readmit deported brown people, they can appoint new supreme court justices. But they’ve been constructing the narrative for maybe a century now and Trump coming so close to shattering and sweeping it away... THAT could be a real setback for their interests. The narrative is the real weapon, the only weapon keeping the white masses yoked... and it’s so FRAGILE.

    I don’t know that Trump will ever take the last step, I don’t expect he will, but he’s shown the vulnerability.

    And... it’s anyway good for teh lulz.

    I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.

    If he is reelected he will be worse than ever.

    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
    Agreed, his real accomplishments?

    Oh, he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Then he tried to gift the Golan Heights to the Zionists. We are still in Syria killing for Zionism.

    Another four years of Jared-Ivanka? Who wants that? Have they spawned yet? What would/do the offspring of a soulless coupling look like?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Obama became significantly more of what his base wanted in his second term than he was in his first. Maybe Trump will do the same.
  10. Yes – repeatedly call them racists and fascists and let them sputter and try to explain that they are not.

    For too long the respectable right has been worried about how they look if they fight back, and made the argument they cannot stoop to the left’s level to win (a lot of the Weekly Standard crew fits this bill). That time is over – the Democrats will never stop lying and impugning the moral character of anyone they don’t like. It’s time to do the same, and on the same turf they fight on. The “socialist” label doesn’t really work, but in today’s society, calling someone racist or bigoted is the biggest weapon there is.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Feryl
    In the 80's, the American Right was taken over by Israel. Thus, the only thing the modern mainstream Right has been good for is defending Israel. That's it. Period.
  11. Racism generally speaking, is to prefer one’s own race above others. That’s it. It is this simple idea, that the left has managed to convince people not only on the left, but especially on the right, to believe is literally the worst possible thing that a human being can be. It’s reflected here by many in these very comments.

    Preferring to associate with one’s own kind. The horror.

    And this being a supposedly dissident community in itself and we are still talking about how to shame the other side with meaningless, made up terms like racism. Just call them racists too and we’ll march on toward political victory!

    It does not work. Look at the Dem from New Jersey who was found to have dressed in blackface back in highschool or college or whatever. He shrugged it off and refused to resign. Now nobody even cares anymore. The so called right might learn a thing or two from that story.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @L Woods
    I hardly hold the alt-right in high regard, but they couldn't ask for better advocates in some of the laughably pusillanimous detractors they have around here. "Gee, if minorities had to move (like we do all our lives these days anyway), my wife might have to get a tourist visa to see her boyfriend! No way! The alt-right is ruining things for us Good People!" Good lord.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    VA governor Northam is the exception that proves the general rule, and he'll make other whites suffer so he can obtain absolution without suffering himself.

    As for the racist charge from the right, it's never been tried in this way. We're not changing the culture in a week, and the culture we're in now is a victim culture. It's effective. Hell, it was a major reason Trump won--he constantly referred to how unfairly he was treated by everyone throughout the campaign. He still does it to great effect.
    , @dvorak

    Racism generally speaking, is to prefer one’s own race above others.
     
    No, it's not a coherent concept like that. It's just a slur to tar anti-communists. The word was coined by Jewish Bolshevist, Trotsky.
  12. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:

    DR3 gets a lot of hate but it’s a great weapon.

    However, the best weapon in the world is useless if you have a limp wrist

    Virgin “but the democraaats were the party of slavery!”
    vs
    Chad “you hate White people”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Please make this meme!
  13. @Realist

    I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.
     
    If he is reelected he will be worse than ever.

    Agreed, his real accomplishments?

    Oh, he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Then he tried to gift the Golan Heights to the Zionists. We are still in Syria killing for Zionism.

    Another four years of Jared-Ivanka? Who wants that? Have they spawned yet? What would/do the offspring of a soulless coupling look like?

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Trump continues to shift the Overton Window with his words, while continuing to accelerate the decline with his (lack of) action. When you think of it like that, he's actually the best of both worlds.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    For what it's worth, they're above replacement and their kids are cute.

    Many people think Jews in the US becoming American nationalists is unthinkable, but if it's possible, this is what the transition is going to look like. Trump is much more popular among younger Jews than among older ones.
  14. @SaneClownPosse
    Agreed, his real accomplishments?

    Oh, he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Then he tried to gift the Golan Heights to the Zionists. We are still in Syria killing for Zionism.

    Another four years of Jared-Ivanka? Who wants that? Have they spawned yet? What would/do the offspring of a soulless coupling look like?

    Trump continues to shift the Overton Window with his words, while continuing to accelerate the decline with his (lack of) action. When you think of it like that, he’s actually the best of both worlds.

  15. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Racism generally speaking, is to prefer one's own race above others. That's it. It is this simple idea, that the left has managed to convince people not only on the left, but especially on the right, to believe is literally the worst possible thing that a human being can be. It's reflected here by many in these very comments.

    Preferring to associate with one's own kind. The horror.

    And this being a supposedly dissident community in itself and we are still talking about how to shame the other side with meaningless, made up terms like racism. Just call them racists too and we'll march on toward political victory!

    It does not work. Look at the Dem from New Jersey who was found to have dressed in blackface back in highschool or college or whatever. He shrugged it off and refused to resign. Now nobody even cares anymore. The so called right might learn a thing or two from that story.

    I hardly hold the alt-right in high regard, but they couldn’t ask for better advocates in some of the laughably pusillanimous detractors they have around here. “Gee, if minorities had to move (like we do all our lives these days anyway), my wife might have to get a tourist visa to see her boyfriend! No way! The alt-right is ruining things for us Good People!” Good lord.

  16. @Arclight
    Yes - repeatedly call them racists and fascists and let them sputter and try to explain that they are not.

    For too long the respectable right has been worried about how they look if they fight back, and made the argument they cannot stoop to the left's level to win (a lot of the Weekly Standard crew fits this bill). That time is over - the Democrats will never stop lying and impugning the moral character of anyone they don't like. It's time to do the same, and on the same turf they fight on. The "socialist" label doesn't really work, but in today's society, calling someone racist or bigoted is the biggest weapon there is.

    In the 80’s, the American Right was taken over by Israel. Thus, the only thing the modern mainstream Right has been good for is defending Israel. That’s it. Period.

  17. Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns.

    California is distancing itself from Washington just as sanctuary cities are doing. It’s the left that is pulling away from the union.

    California is acting as a sovereign interfering in American elections.

    The impetus for separation does not have to come from the right.

    Possession of marijuana is illegal in the United States but not in Colorado.
    President Trump is on the ballot in the United States but not in California.

    Nullification is secession by increments. The trend is clear in the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U.. The trend is toward decentralization of political power.

    I know this is off topic and I fear it may be incoherent. But I am confident it will be published. Thank you AE and Mr. Unz.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns.
     
    As if Trump had a chance of getting California's EVs anyway.

    It's an utterly toothless gesture, but one which makes Trump's case for MAGA for him.
    , @dfordoom

    California is distancing itself from Washington just as sanctuary cities are doing. It’s the left that is pulling away from the union.
     
    Is that what they're doing? It looks to me like they're simply trying to exert their power to delegitimise their opponents. They're trying to suggest that bad people like Trump should not be allowed to run for office, and that voters should not be permitted to vote for such candidates.

    And they're confident that they'll succeed.

    They're not going to be interested in secession unless they see a very serious threat of losing their power. And at this stage their power is increasing.
  18. it is difficult for people to recognize a concept if they lack the words to identify it.

    Agreed.

    Language that recognized “white” as just another racial/ethnic category which is entitled to equal treatment is a powerful tool to break the taboo against challenging the PoC grievance culture. Whinging about “Affirmative Action,” “Reverse Discrimination,” “Preferential Treatment,” are all lame evasions that miss the mark.

    “Anti-White Racism” seems to be the exact correct term for the usual disparaging of “white people” and “whiteness” in social media and MSM outlets like the NYT. That’s the term that will draw the moral equivalence out and trigger cognitive dissonance in the SJWs, who believe anti-white = anti-racist, by definition.

    The SJWs will squeal that “Only White People Can be Racist” — which then must be called out as proof of their “anti-white racism.” Which will trigger more cognitive dissonance. Rinse and repeat.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    "hates whites" needs to become a stock phrase in response to all of these bad faith virtue signals.
    , @WorkingClass
    The SJWs will squeal that “Only White People Can be Racist.

    Communist fragility.
  19. @WorkingClass
    Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns.

    California is distancing itself from Washington just as sanctuary cities are doing. It's the left that is pulling away from the union.

    California is acting as a sovereign interfering in American elections.

    The impetus for separation does not have to come from the right.

    Possession of marijuana is illegal in the United States but not in Colorado.
    President Trump is on the ballot in the United States but not in California.

    Nullification is secession by increments. The trend is clear in the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U.. The trend is toward decentralization of political power.

    I know this is off topic and I fear it may be incoherent. But I am confident it will be published. Thank you AE and Mr. Unz.

    Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns.

    As if Trump had a chance of getting California’s EVs anyway.

    It’s an utterly toothless gesture, but one which makes Trump’s case for MAGA for him.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    And it makes starker still the contempt the New Californians and their ruling classes have for the remnant of middle America that is still living in the state.
  20. @WorkingClass
    Back in the day we were taught that contempt for an entire race of people was "prejudice". Institutional prejudice was racism. By the old definition affirmative action is racism and Al Sharpton is prejudiced. Today however, racism refers to something inherent in all white people. Something that causes them to oppress non whites. White liberals are racist also. But they have the decency to hate themselves. To say someone is racist is to say they are white.

    I don't want to call people who hate me for my skin color white. Prejudiced would be more accurate but it's too polite. I prefer to call them assholes. It doesn't matter to them what I call them. According to them everything I think, say or do is RACIST!

    To say someone is racist is to say they are white.

    Indeed.

  21. @216
    https://twitter.com/PatrickCaseyUSA/status/1155795938805473281

    Senpai noticed me [email protected][email protected]!!!

    Likely a ploy to get reelected? I’m not sure about that.

    • Replies: @SFG
    He's a politician. Everything public is a ploy to get reelected.
  22. @Anonymousse
    President Trump has been a bust in a lot of ways although I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.

    But his occasional willingness to completely reset the overton window is invaluable. The smart jews (which is most of them) must realize he’s done almost nothing they feared and lots of helpful things regarding Israel. But I don’t think their fear of him is entirely an act. It’s really unknowable at this point if he might cause a genuine preference cascade in relation to whites and the official narrative.

    Imagine Trump tweeting “it’s okay to be white” to take one example. Is it really so far fetched? But coming from the world’s biggest megaphone... it would have he potential to change everything overnight.

    They can knock down a wall, they can readmit deported brown people, they can appoint new supreme court justices. But they’ve been constructing the narrative for maybe a century now and Trump coming so close to shattering and sweeping it away... THAT could be a real setback for their interests. The narrative is the real weapon, the only weapon keeping the white masses yoked... and it’s so FRAGILE.

    I don’t know that Trump will ever take the last step, I don’t expect he will, but he’s shown the vulnerability.

    And... it’s anyway good for teh lulz.

    Well put, thanks. He is turning out to be the transitional figure many thought he’d be. With a second term, maybe some real transformation occurs, but I doubt it.

  23. @Realist

    I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.
     
    If he is reelected he will be worse than ever.

    Obama became significantly more of what his base wanted in his second term than he was in his first. Maybe Trump will do the same.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Well, the Supreme Court just turned the tables 0n him . . . they called his bluff --- though i suspect they had no choice.

    Laugh.

    The president may use military budget to tackle building a border wall. We'll see.

  24. “Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns.”

    First this is a measure that is growing globally

    https://taxdisclosure.org/

    Second,

    I simply don’t buy that CA. can keep a presidential candidate off the books which is really at p;lay here.

    • Replies: @216
    Elections are constitutionally reserved to the states.

    So there is nothing that forbids a state from doing something as outrageous as giving the ballot to foreigners, which actually was done for part of this country's history.
  25. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Racism generally speaking, is to prefer one's own race above others. That's it. It is this simple idea, that the left has managed to convince people not only on the left, but especially on the right, to believe is literally the worst possible thing that a human being can be. It's reflected here by many in these very comments.

    Preferring to associate with one's own kind. The horror.

    And this being a supposedly dissident community in itself and we are still talking about how to shame the other side with meaningless, made up terms like racism. Just call them racists too and we'll march on toward political victory!

    It does not work. Look at the Dem from New Jersey who was found to have dressed in blackface back in highschool or college or whatever. He shrugged it off and refused to resign. Now nobody even cares anymore. The so called right might learn a thing or two from that story.

    VA governor Northam is the exception that proves the general rule, and he’ll make other whites suffer so he can obtain absolution without suffering himself.

    As for the racist charge from the right, it’s never been tried in this way. We’re not changing the culture in a week, and the culture we’re in now is a victim culture. It’s effective. Hell, it was a major reason Trump won–he constantly referred to how unfairly he was treated by everyone throughout the campaign. He still does it to great effect.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Northam isn't an exception. He is another example of the insulation leftist politicians enjoy when they are caught violating their own selective standards of decency.

    " it’s never been tried in this way... ...It’s effective. Hell, it was a major reason Trump won–he constantly referred to how unfairly he was treated by everyone throughout the campaign. He still does it to great effect."

    I don't see how we know it's effective if it's never been tried before. Trump's tweet was of his usual locate target, destroy target variety. Yes it caused his detractors to lose their minds as usual, but it was never meant to shift the paradigm. And his victory can be primarily tied to his courting the working class white population and projecting strength by refusing to ever apologize for his comments, not some reliance on victim strategy.
  26. @Anonymous
    DR3 gets a lot of hate but it's a great weapon.

    However, the best weapon in the world is useless if you have a limp wrist

    Virgin "but the democraaats were the party of slavery!"
    vs
    Chad "you hate White people"

    Please make this meme!

  27. @SaneClownPosse
    Agreed, his real accomplishments?

    Oh, he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Then he tried to gift the Golan Heights to the Zionists. We are still in Syria killing for Zionism.

    Another four years of Jared-Ivanka? Who wants that? Have they spawned yet? What would/do the offspring of a soulless coupling look like?

    For what it’s worth, they’re above replacement and their kids are cute.

    Many people think Jews in the US becoming American nationalists is unthinkable, but if it’s possible, this is what the transition is going to look like. Trump is much more popular among younger Jews than among older ones.

    • Replies: @216
    The Kushner family is part of the Chabad sect, which is somehwhat different than the average Jewish community. Jared's siblings are still openly leftist.
  28. @Hypnotoad666

    it is difficult for people to recognize a concept if they lack the words to identify it.
     
    Agreed.

    Language that recognized "white" as just another racial/ethnic category which is entitled to equal treatment is a powerful tool to break the taboo against challenging the PoC grievance culture. Whinging about "Affirmative Action," "Reverse Discrimination," "Preferential Treatment," are all lame evasions that miss the mark.

    "Anti-White Racism" seems to be the exact correct term for the usual disparaging of "white people" and "whiteness" in social media and MSM outlets like the NYT. That's the term that will draw the moral equivalence out and trigger cognitive dissonance in the SJWs, who believe anti-white = anti-racist, by definition.

    The SJWs will squeal that "Only White People Can be Racist" -- which then must be called out as proof of their "anti-white racism." Which will trigger more cognitive dissonance. Rinse and repeat.

    “hates whites” needs to become a stock phrase in response to all of these bad faith virtue signals.

    • Agree: Anonymousse
  29. @Audacious Epigone
    Obama became significantly more of what his base wanted in his second term than he was in his first. Maybe Trump will do the same.

    Well, the Supreme Court just turned the tables 0n him . . . they called his bluff — though i suspect they had no choice.

    Laugh.

    The president may use military budget to tackle building a border wall. We’ll see.

  30. @Mr. Rational

    Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns.
     
    As if Trump had a chance of getting California's EVs anyway.

    It's an utterly toothless gesture, but one which makes Trump's case for MAGA for him.

    And it makes starker still the contempt the New Californians and their ruling classes have for the remnant of middle America that is still living in the state.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  31. But the president could choose to ignore CA altogether as simply a waste of his time. That would be an interesting choice.

  32. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Racism generally speaking, is to prefer one's own race above others. That's it. It is this simple idea, that the left has managed to convince people not only on the left, but especially on the right, to believe is literally the worst possible thing that a human being can be. It's reflected here by many in these very comments.

    Preferring to associate with one's own kind. The horror.

    And this being a supposedly dissident community in itself and we are still talking about how to shame the other side with meaningless, made up terms like racism. Just call them racists too and we'll march on toward political victory!

    It does not work. Look at the Dem from New Jersey who was found to have dressed in blackface back in highschool or college or whatever. He shrugged it off and refused to resign. Now nobody even cares anymore. The so called right might learn a thing or two from that story.

    Racism generally speaking, is to prefer one’s own race above others.

    No, it’s not a coherent concept like that. It’s just a slur to tar anti-communists. The word was coined by Jewish Bolshevist, Trotsky.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    I pointed out that it is a made up word.
  33. “No, it’s not a coherent concept like that. It’s just a slur to tar anti-communists. The word was coined by Jewish Bolshevist, Trotsky.”

    The classic meaning of the term refers to ascribing power and denying others the same based on benign traits. Only in the last fifteen or so years has the term been used simply to identify “not liking some someone for the some innocuous sentiment about how they feel.

  34. @Audacious Epigone
    For what it's worth, they're above replacement and their kids are cute.

    Many people think Jews in the US becoming American nationalists is unthinkable, but if it's possible, this is what the transition is going to look like. Trump is much more popular among younger Jews than among older ones.

    The Kushner family is part of the Chabad sect, which is somehwhat different than the average Jewish community. Jared’s siblings are still openly leftist.

  35. Right, I’m not talking about the Kushners specifically, but Trump’s presidency. An American nationalist in the White House who supports Israeli nationalism but won’t go to war on Israel’s behalf. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I realize Trump is far from ideal here–he’s an American nationalist rhetorically, but pretty impotent executively; and while he hasn’t started any new wars on Israel’s behalf, that assertion may not be accurate in a month or a year.

    • Replies: @SFG
    The Iran thing kinda scares me. I mean, it's probably Bolton's fault not Trump's, but whoever's idea it was we'll be at war with a country that isn't a danger to us.
    , @Liberty Mike
    OT: Did you read the Z-man's column yesterday?

    It was entitled "Gladiator." The Z-man favorably compared Kris Kobach to Russell Crowe's character, Maximus, in Gladiator.

    One upshot: Z's characterization of Kobach as perhaps "the last true civic nationalist in politics."

    What do you think?
  36. @EliteCommInc.
    "Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns."


    First this is a measure that is growing globally

    https://taxdisclosure.org/


    Second,

    I simply don't buy that CA. can keep a presidential candidate off the books which is really at p;lay here.

    Elections are constitutionally reserved to the states.

    So there is nothing that forbids a state from doing something as outrageous as giving the ballot to foreigners, which actually was done for part of this country’s history.

  37. Did you ever wonder why Al Sharpton was given a soapbox and a forum and a fortune? Certainly you don’t think he “earned” them, whatever that means.

    When some person sudden rises up from the muck and you suddenly know all about him whether you want to or not–there is always a reason.

    In other words, somebody is backing him. I have a feeling it’s as simple as this: “He’s a divisive figure, so let’s help him divide so we can conquer.”

  38. @Audacious Epigone
    VA governor Northam is the exception that proves the general rule, and he'll make other whites suffer so he can obtain absolution without suffering himself.

    As for the racist charge from the right, it's never been tried in this way. We're not changing the culture in a week, and the culture we're in now is a victim culture. It's effective. Hell, it was a major reason Trump won--he constantly referred to how unfairly he was treated by everyone throughout the campaign. He still does it to great effect.

    Northam isn’t an exception. He is another example of the insulation leftist politicians enjoy when they are caught violating their own selective standards of decency.

    ” it’s never been tried in this way… …It’s effective. Hell, it was a major reason Trump won–he constantly referred to how unfairly he was treated by everyone throughout the campaign. He still does it to great effect.”

    I don’t see how we know it’s effective if it’s never been tried before. Trump’s tweet was of his usual locate target, destroy target variety. Yes it caused his detractors to lose their minds as usual, but it was never meant to shift the paradigm. And his victory can be primarily tied to his courting the working class white population and projecting strength by refusing to ever apologize for his comments, not some reliance on victim strategy.

    • Replies: @216
    The divisive Dem primary also lowered D turnout, and convinced some to go with Gary or Stein.

    Dems may not repeat that perfect storm of mistakes.

    I'll beat it like a dead horse, but Trump needs to tone it down emotionally; in order to win over Gary voters and the moderate women that voted Hillary on a "first wahmen" reason.
  39. @dvorak

    Racism generally speaking, is to prefer one’s own race above others.
     
    No, it's not a coherent concept like that. It's just a slur to tar anti-communists. The word was coined by Jewish Bolshevist, Trotsky.

    I pointed out that it is a made up word.

  40. 216 says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    Northam isn't an exception. He is another example of the insulation leftist politicians enjoy when they are caught violating their own selective standards of decency.

    " it’s never been tried in this way... ...It’s effective. Hell, it was a major reason Trump won–he constantly referred to how unfairly he was treated by everyone throughout the campaign. He still does it to great effect."

    I don't see how we know it's effective if it's never been tried before. Trump's tweet was of his usual locate target, destroy target variety. Yes it caused his detractors to lose their minds as usual, but it was never meant to shift the paradigm. And his victory can be primarily tied to his courting the working class white population and projecting strength by refusing to ever apologize for his comments, not some reliance on victim strategy.

    The divisive Dem primary also lowered D turnout, and convinced some to go with Gary or Stein.

    Dems may not repeat that perfect storm of mistakes.

    I’ll beat it like a dead horse, but Trump needs to tone it down emotionally; in order to win over Gary voters and the moderate women that voted Hillary on a “first wahmen” reason.

  41. “So there is nothing that forbids a state from doing something as outrageous as giving the ballot to foreigners, which actually was done for part of this country’s history.”

    Unless it is demonstrated that it is by intent and design to stifle the democratic process. I took a look at article II. In this case this establishes a policy by which states could selectively bar candidates from being on the ballot in their state. The intent of state sovereignty of the states regarding elections goes to the process by which its citizens vote. I am not sure that in the general election they can design processes that exceed a Constitutional mandate. The rules regarding candidacy qualification are spelled out in Article II. I am not convinced that the states have extra judicius powers. Other states have considered this and rejected it for good reason.

    I am pretty sure that the Constitution does not apply to foreigners. The Constitution is only applicable to US citizens.

    The problem with the practices in the south was that they were not practices that applied to everyone. Here while Bill 27 references all candidates, I think it is fairly clear that appearances are it was designed to entrap President Trump and as such would be unlawful.

    ——————————

  42. @WorkingClass
    Today I read that California has passed a law which bars Trump from the California ballot if he does not give up his tax returns.

    California is distancing itself from Washington just as sanctuary cities are doing. It's the left that is pulling away from the union.

    California is acting as a sovereign interfering in American elections.

    The impetus for separation does not have to come from the right.

    Possession of marijuana is illegal in the United States but not in Colorado.
    President Trump is on the ballot in the United States but not in California.

    Nullification is secession by increments. The trend is clear in the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U.. The trend is toward decentralization of political power.

    I know this is off topic and I fear it may be incoherent. But I am confident it will be published. Thank you AE and Mr. Unz.

    California is distancing itself from Washington just as sanctuary cities are doing. It’s the left that is pulling away from the union.

    Is that what they’re doing? It looks to me like they’re simply trying to exert their power to delegitimise their opponents. They’re trying to suggest that bad people like Trump should not be allowed to run for office, and that voters should not be permitted to vote for such candidates.

    And they’re confident that they’ll succeed.

    They’re not going to be interested in secession unless they see a very serious threat of losing their power. And at this stage their power is increasing.

  43. correction:

    The problem with the practices in the south was that they were not practices that applied to everyone. Here while Bill 27 references all candidates, I think it is fairly clear that by all appearances it was designed to entrap President Trump and as such would be unlawful.

  44. “They’re not going to be interested in secession unless they see a very serious threat of losing their power. And at this stage their power is increasing.”

    And it is being fueled and encouraged by immigrants (legal and not), educators, foreign states south of the border, hollywood, businesses (including agriculture) who have stakes with respect to inexpensive labor, and even by “law and order” christians, youth (who ave the most to lose) . . . the CA. legislature.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  45. @Hypnotoad666

    it is difficult for people to recognize a concept if they lack the words to identify it.
     
    Agreed.

    Language that recognized "white" as just another racial/ethnic category which is entitled to equal treatment is a powerful tool to break the taboo against challenging the PoC grievance culture. Whinging about "Affirmative Action," "Reverse Discrimination," "Preferential Treatment," are all lame evasions that miss the mark.

    "Anti-White Racism" seems to be the exact correct term for the usual disparaging of "white people" and "whiteness" in social media and MSM outlets like the NYT. That's the term that will draw the moral equivalence out and trigger cognitive dissonance in the SJWs, who believe anti-white = anti-racist, by definition.

    The SJWs will squeal that "Only White People Can be Racist" -- which then must be called out as proof of their "anti-white racism." Which will trigger more cognitive dissonance. Rinse and repeat.

    The SJWs will squeal that “Only White People Can be Racist.

    Communist fragility.

  46. @Audacious Epigone
    Likely a ploy to get reelected? I'm not sure about that.

    He’s a politician. Everything public is a ploy to get reelected.

  47. @Audacious Epigone
    Right, I'm not talking about the Kushners specifically, but Trump's presidency. An American nationalist in the White House who supports Israeli nationalism but won't go to war on Israel's behalf. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I realize Trump is far from ideal here--he's an American nationalist rhetorically, but pretty impotent executively; and while he hasn't started any new wars on Israel's behalf, that assertion may not be accurate in a month or a year.

    The Iran thing kinda scares me. I mean, it’s probably Bolton’s fault not Trump’s, but whoever’s idea it was we’ll be at war with a country that isn’t a danger to us.

  48. @Anonymousse
    President Trump has been a bust in a lot of ways although I’m going to (apologies to Jesse Jackson) keep hope alive, for a better second term.

    But his occasional willingness to completely reset the overton window is invaluable. The smart jews (which is most of them) must realize he’s done almost nothing they feared and lots of helpful things regarding Israel. But I don’t think their fear of him is entirely an act. It’s really unknowable at this point if he might cause a genuine preference cascade in relation to whites and the official narrative.

    Imagine Trump tweeting “it’s okay to be white” to take one example. Is it really so far fetched? But coming from the world’s biggest megaphone... it would have he potential to change everything overnight.

    They can knock down a wall, they can readmit deported brown people, they can appoint new supreme court justices. But they’ve been constructing the narrative for maybe a century now and Trump coming so close to shattering and sweeping it away... THAT could be a real setback for their interests. The narrative is the real weapon, the only weapon keeping the white masses yoked... and it’s so FRAGILE.

    I don’t know that Trump will ever take the last step, I don’t expect he will, but he’s shown the vulnerability.

    And... it’s anyway good for teh lulz.

    Besides, the Dems will massively increase legal and illegal immigration if elected, not to mention pass reparations and work even harder to make it hard for white men to find or keep jobs.

    If defeated in 2020 they will have to back off a little. Look at the way they drape themselves in the flag after the losses of the 60s and 70s.

  49. @Audacious Epigone
    Right, I'm not talking about the Kushners specifically, but Trump's presidency. An American nationalist in the White House who supports Israeli nationalism but won't go to war on Israel's behalf. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I realize Trump is far from ideal here--he's an American nationalist rhetorically, but pretty impotent executively; and while he hasn't started any new wars on Israel's behalf, that assertion may not be accurate in a month or a year.

    OT: Did you read the Z-man’s column yesterday?

    It was entitled “Gladiator.” The Z-man favorably compared Kris Kobach to Russell Crowe’s character, Maximus, in Gladiator.

    One upshot: Z’s characterization of Kobach as perhaps “the last true civic nationalist in politics.”

    What do you think?

  50. Ohhhhh and the

    “Dems will massively increase legal and illegal immigration”

    also fueled by libertarians and array of republicans and of course democrats.

  51. Obama, Dorsey, and Thiel are a child rapists. Pelosi $3 billion to help, Trump $4 billion. Schumer $2 billion…

    Inside this report one can find bribes in excess of $15 billion dollars total, 50 plus child rapes and killings, murder-for-hire plots, and dozens more RICO felonies. An excerpt from the report, which is linked below:

    At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill Murray, and the Porter’s. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: “The Illuminati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals.” Matthew Porter: “We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things.” At 232 Barack Obama says the following: “You people have to realize we are child rapists. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who we are.”

    https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf

    What started out as minor harassment, which led to landing at an apartment which was a “Truman Show” setup, to uncovering the filth and depravity of the “Illuminati”, of which members include high profile personalities, business magnates, and the highest ranking government offices in the United States including the Presidency, has now finally culminated into getting enough eyes on the story to ensure justice is served. Some of the high profile names include Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, George Soros, and Ed Koch to mention a few.

  52. @95Theses

    Trump has given them the perfect response to flip the script: “Do you hate whites?”
     
    Okay. But Jesse Lee Peterson has been outdoing him for some time now. Whether he's interviewing people in his man-on-the-street role or handling call-ins, Jesse regularly asks his fellow Blacks,

    "Do you love White people?"

    The evasiveness of their replies is hilarious!

    Whether he’s interviewing people in his man-on-the-street role or handling call-ins, Jesse regularly asks his fellow Blacks,

    “Do you love White people?”

    The evasiveness of their replies is hilarious!

    Is that the question that should be asked, though? Is it realistic, reasonable or even desirable to expect anyone to love an entire race of people? Aren’t those who profess to have such blind, undiscriminating love merely indulging in an inherently sanctimonious form of virtue-signalling?

    I say that non-Whites should not be asked to love Whites or exposed for lack of same any more than the reverse should be done. (Besides, if you need to ask someone to love you…) Rather, let us stay focused on exposing the incredible amount and degree of contempt, disdain, animus and often outright hostility and malice that is increasingly fomented, promoted, expressed and manifested toward Whites (esp. non-cosmopolitan, heterosexual, male, non-Jewish, non-ethnomasochist Whites). Let us continuously expose and call-out the numerous instances of complicity and culpability in this area on the part of the State; the dominant media, tech, commercial and financial titans (or simply Woke Capital); and the dominant educational and cultural institutions.

    One suggestion I will make now is that charges of “White privilege” be met by confrontation with striking examples of White poverty, such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt. This, of course, in addition to publicizing and confronting opponents with specific, documented instances of crimes, injustices and acts of violence perpetrated against Whites.

    • Replies: @216

    One suggestion I will make now is that charges of “White privilege” be met by confrontation with striking examples of White poverty, such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt.
     
    It's difficult to pin the blame on the left for that. Otoh, heroin deaths are rather high in New England, which the left could reasonably be blamed for.

    Focusing on poor whites also is a politics of victimhood, which is ill suited for the Right.

    I prefer to advocate a "politics of humility and responsibility", where we should consider it shameful that whites are underachieving vis-a-vis Asians, while demonstrating more anti-social behavior.
  53. @Dissident

    Whether he’s interviewing people in his man-on-the-street role or handling call-ins, Jesse regularly asks his fellow Blacks,

    “Do you love White people?”

    The evasiveness of their replies is hilarious!
     

    Is that the question that should be asked, though? Is it realistic, reasonable or even desirable to expect anyone to love an entire race of people? Aren't those who profess to have such blind, undiscriminating love merely indulging in an inherently sanctimonious form of virtue-signalling?

    I say that non-Whites should not be asked to love Whites or exposed for lack of same any more than the reverse should be done. (Besides, if you need to ask someone to love you...) Rather, let us stay focused on exposing the incredible amount and degree of contempt, disdain, animus and often outright hostility and malice that is increasingly fomented, promoted, expressed and manifested toward Whites (esp. non-cosmopolitan, heterosexual, male, non-Jewish, non-ethnomasochist Whites). Let us continuously expose and call-out the numerous instances of complicity and culpability in this area on the part of the State; the dominant media, tech, commercial and financial titans (or simply Woke Capital); and the dominant educational and cultural institutions.

    One suggestion I will make now is that charges of "White privilege" be met by confrontation with striking examples of White poverty, such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt. This, of course, in addition to publicizing and confronting opponents with specific, documented instances of crimes, injustices and acts of violence perpetrated against Whites.

    One suggestion I will make now is that charges of “White privilege” be met by confrontation with striking examples of White poverty, such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt.

    It’s difficult to pin the blame on the left for that. Otoh, heroin deaths are rather high in New England, which the left could reasonably be blamed for.

    Focusing on poor whites also is a politics of victimhood, which is ill suited for the Right.

    I prefer to advocate a “politics of humility and responsibility”, where we should consider it shameful that whites are underachieving vis-a-vis Asians, while demonstrating more anti-social behavior.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    It’s difficult to pin the blame on the left for that.
     
    My idea of responding to the "White Privilege" canard with examples of White poverty was not in order to assign blame for said poverty. Rather, I meant more responding along the lines of, "White privilege? Really? How about you go to White Appalachia, one of the poorest regions of the country, and try telling the people there about their 'White Privilege'...".

    That said, don't the same people who push the White Privilege narrative the most also champion continued mass immigration most zealously? Now, if my understanding is correct, by causing wages to decrease, and housing costs as well as the burden on public services to increase, said immigration has a detrimental economic effect upon all but an elite class of native-born citizens. (To say nothing of public safety and other concerns.) I would think, as well, that of those pushing the White Privilege narrative, a not-insignificant number have also been at least complicit in advancing trade policies that have harmed non-elite Whites. So I do think there are more than a few cases where those who are scolding Whites to "check their privilege" are among the very last people to be in any position to do so. And we can and should point-out the grotesque, if not downright obscene, spectacle of them doing so.

    Otoh, heroin deaths are rather high in New England, which the left could reasonably be blamed for.
     
    I cannot comment on that simply because I am ignorant of the topic. I quoted the sentence in order that it not appear that I was dismissing it.

    Focusing on poor whites also is a politics of victimhood, which is ill suited for the Right.
     
    I'm not sure about that. Certainly, pointing-to White poverty defensively, in direct response to attacks of 'White Privilege' seems very different from merely focusing on poor Whites absent such provocation.

    As to whether or not Whites or the Right should attempt to utilize, to their advantage, victimhood or grievance politics, that would appear to be an ongoing debate within said groups-- one closely related to some of the discussions in this very thread.

    I prefer to advocate a “politics of humility and responsibility”, where we should consider it shameful that whites are underachieving vis-a-vis Asians, while demonstrating more anti-social behavior.
     
    Do you mean as a means to motivate under-achieving and dysfunctional Whites to improve themselves?
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Right, and all those Ukrainians who starved to death during Stalin's collectivism should have merely advocated a policy of "humility and responsibility" and poof! their bellies would have been full.

    You are actively avoiding making the distinction between groups who are being targeted by hostile government for economic and social destruction, and groups who are awarded entitlements at a similar opposite scale of the former (who as a group, still exist in squalor).

    You are also ignoring the success of a deliberate education campaign to teach certain groups to hate themselves and that they are evil, from the moment they are born.

    You should drop the Kevin Williamson act.
  54. O/T

    Boomercon BTFO

    This is unironically great. Boomers are now unable to invoke Reagan without incurring the emotionally triggered mob known as Black Twitter.

    Reagan nostaliga has always overlooked his suicidal immigration policies, and his deindustrialization that lost the Midwest.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    I agree about Reagan worship.

    I agree that it will be most interesting to see how Conservatism, Inc. deals with this damning revelation concerning their canonized icon Ronald Wilson Reagan.

    I do not agree with insulting an entire generation, a senior one no less, as you have done with your various Boomer slurs.

    Hasn't impudence toward and denigration of one's elders always been a hallmark of the radical, violent Left?

    , @Feryl

    Reagan nostaliga has always overlooked his suicidal immigration policies, and his deindustrialization that lost the Midwest.
     
    It was during the "Stagflation" 70's* that many factories and mills were shuttered in the Northeast and Midwest. Corporate America began to rely more heavily on the American South, and yes, foreign nations, for goods production. This was, of course, noted by the affected areas, who generally weren't exactly thrilled. But we still made enough goods in every region of America that most Americans didn't feel as if we were really "losing" all that much.

    NAFTA in 1993 was the real death-blow. In the mid-late 90's, vast numbers of production facilities were shut down everywhere, even in the South. And the threat of domestic shuttering was enough to heavily clamp down on labor activism (these trends also occured in the UK; British union membership peaked in the early 80's, then drastically declined in the 90's).

    Immigration levels of the early 80's were mostly the same as they were in the late 70's. Then legal and esp. illegal immigration went up a lot from 1985-1988. But GHW Bush allowed over 1 million legal immigrants in the country during 1989, and did the same thing again in 1990. Of course illegal immigration also surged. Then they passed the 1990 immigration act, which resulted in the lowest levels of immigrant vetting since the days of the slave trade, was passed and pretty much signaled the end of the demographic stability that we generally had from the 1920's-1980's. The 1990 act also put it's stamp of approval on future immigrants being far more diverse than any previous wave. So I would put 1989-1993 as being the last straw for America; it's so bad that it actually makes the literal Reagan era (1981-1988) look pretty good.

    *The 70's was the "right turn" (libertarian) for America. People began looking for all kinds of reasons as to why they'd "given up" on "big" ideas and movements. The very term "progress" became derisively used by Silents and Boomers during the decade; "progress" gave us pollution, restless "minorities", and a culture of stolid technocrats urging us to trust their expertise. Unfortunately, all of this "critique" culture ended up degenerating into narcissism, since distrust of other people became an excuse to excessively withdraw inward, no matter how it hurt other people. That's why they called the 70's the "Me Decade".
  55. At least somewhat apropos, I wonder if anyone else here caught the following that I accidentally came across just now. A July 25th tweet from Donald J. Trump, Jr.:

    Tomorrow morning at 8:30 am NY time, my friend Ambassdor @richardgrenell will lead a panel discussion in Berlin on decriminalizing homosexuality in the 70+ countries that shamefully outlaw it. @usbotschaft will live tweet the discussion. Amazing work Ric!
    10.4K
    10:54 PM – Jul 25, 2019

    Some selected responses I copied:

    Stop imposing your values on cultures that don’t want it!

    What we voted for: the wall.
    What we got: gay buttsex in Botswana.

    I can’t wait until you enforce mandatory sodomy lessons to children in Botswana. Stunning and brave!

    Globalism *and* sodomy? Now that’s what I call #MAGA!

    I’m starting to get real tired of “winning”

    Should this come as any surprise? How many people recall the obscene spectacle that was Peter Thiel’s speech at the Republican National Convention that three years ago formally nominated now-President Trump? Rallying behind the “LGBTQ” banner-cry for ever-greater normalization of sexual degeneracy, buggering Sodomite* Thiel brazenly accused Conservatives and Republicans of starting needlessly divisive culture wars. Then, of course, there is the President’s own record of explicit, vocal support for “Gay rights” (and Pence’s record that is problematic as well.) (See also here and here.)

    *Note that I do not use the term Sodomite for anyone merely afflicted with deviant desires. Nor, even, would I necessarily go so far as to condemn with that admittedly pejorative Biblical term even one who may discretely act upon such desires.

    [MORE]
    In fact, I happen to harbor sympathy and even respect toward dissident homosexuals who, in defiance of typically tremendous pressures, exhibit the decency, good sense and courage to reject, eschew and even condemn the vile and dangerous practice of anal buggery and the culture of hyper-promiscuity and abject depravity that surrounds it.

    The most notable example of such fierce defiance that I am aware of would perhaps be Man2Man Alliance* (*GRAPHIC CONTENT) founder Bill Weintraub. A self-described “longtime gay activist” who is as emphatically pro-homoerotic as he is anti-buggery, Weintraub coined the term FROT for the non-penetrative, phallus-on-phallus act that he advocates not only as a far safer and hygienic alternative to buggery but also simply as the dignified, egalitarian, true form of male homosexual intercourse. Another site that is no less anti-buggery and pro-homoerotic (GRAPHICALLY so– you have been warned) than Weintraub’s and also promotes FROT is G0ys.org. Both sites explicitly welcome and even, to varying degrees, represent men whose erotic interests extend to women as well. (Standard disclaimer that citation =/= endorsement applies; I certainly have considerable differences with views advanced at both sites.)

    If homosexually-inclined males are unable or unwilling to either reorient themselves toward heterosexuality (ideal) or remain celibate (second-best), then a third-best option– one that would still be vastly better than buggery, both for themselves as well as the rest of society– would be for them to limit their sexual indulgences to nothing more extreme than the aforementioned FROT.

    Finally, I feel I would be remiss if I were to end this tangent on dissident homosexuals without mentioning the site that calls itself Gay Patriot. Although unfortunately not anti-buggery as the previous two sites I linked-to are, I have nonetheless found a number of posts and comments at GP expressing views that I found noteworthy and refreshing. In a July 1st post announcing his return after a long absence, site owner Bruce Carroll reports that he was de-platformed from Twitter “by a left-wing gay Millennial who was offended by my use of the word “Tranny.””. Lest anyone think that those who post on the site, which bills itself as The Internet home for American gay conservatives. are limited-to Muh Free Market lolbertarian types, I would point-to this thread, in which my interest was piqued by comments such as the following:

    Southern Man says

    May 8, 2018 at 9:45 pm – May 8, 2018

    Comment stolen from the Instapundit thread on this topic:

    Where on the list is Steve Sailer, Audacious Epigone, HBD Chick, the Derb, Paul Kersey, Heartiste, the Inductivist, Jared Taylor, and hundreds of others?

    Steve says

    May 10, 2018 at 1:42 pm – May 10, 2018

    The IDW is just a fake opposition to reign in the Overton Window. They are leftists who the only RIGHT issue they support is $8billion a year of taxpayers money to Israel
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/how-do-you-do.html#comment-form

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    "on decriminalizing homosexuality in the 70+ countries that shamefully outlaw it"
     
    It's outrageous that those countries think they have the right to make their own laws. Can nothing be done? Can't we bomb them into submission?
    , @Feryl
    Anyone who remember the 1950's, or even 1980's, has got to be gobsmacked that the Republican party has an establishment who advocates for "inclusive" policy on behalf of gays. As I've said before, the "conservative" establishment caved on the race question by 1970. They then caved on feminism by 1980. Then they caved on immigration by 1990 (post-1990 immigration has seen a big reduction in white and high skilled immigration as a % of the overall numbers).

    There is no "conservative" (traditional) party. Rather, the GOP stands for more tax cuts (but not reduced spending), more war, less environmental regulation, and more restriction of abortion.*

    The "Right" turn of the 1970's was a mirage. There was an intensified push to "get the government" out of most things, but any real interest in preserving traditional notions of behavior, and preserving overall stability of our identity and lives, was forgotten. In other words, we got libertarianism, not conservatism.

    *So yes, the GOP and Democrats are different from each other in some key ways. However, neither party wants the social and economic stability of the New Deal era back. Because it would be a repudiation of the hedonistic libertarian attitude that we've had for 50 years. Both parties are experimental, not traditional, which is abundantly clear given that much of the mainstream Right no longer even bothers to act like homosexuality is abnormal....Which it regularly did as recently as the 1990's.
  56. @Dissident
    At least somewhat apropos, I wonder if anyone else here caught the following that I accidentally came across just now. A July 25th tweet from Donald J. Trump, Jr.:

    https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1154525457909338112


    Tomorrow morning at 8:30 am NY time, my friend Ambassdor @richardgrenell will lead a panel discussion in Berlin on decriminalizing homosexuality in the 70+ countries that shamefully outlaw it. @usbotschaft will live tweet the discussion. Amazing work Ric!
    10.4K
    10:54 PM - Jul 25, 2019
     
    Some selected responses I copied:

    Stop imposing your values on cultures that don’t want it!
     

    What we voted for: the wall.
    What we got: gay buttsex in Botswana.
     

    I can't wait until you enforce mandatory sodomy lessons to children in Botswana. Stunning and brave!
     

    Globalism *and* sodomy? Now that's what I call #MAGA!
     

    I’m starting to get real tired of “winning”
     
    Should this come as any surprise? How many people recall the obscene spectacle that was Peter Thiel's speech at the Republican National Convention that three years ago formally nominated now-President Trump? Rallying behind the "LGBTQ" banner-cry for ever-greater normalization of sexual degeneracy, buggering Sodomite* Thiel brazenly accused Conservatives and Republicans of starting needlessly divisive culture wars. Then, of course, there is the President's own record of explicit, vocal support for "Gay rights" (and Pence's record that is problematic as well.) (See also here and here.)

    *Note that I do not use the term Sodomite for anyone merely afflicted with deviant desires. Nor, even, would I necessarily go so far as to condemn with that admittedly pejorative Biblical term even one who may discretely act upon such desires. In fact, I happen to harbor sympathy and even respect toward dissident homosexuals who, in defiance of typically tremendous pressures, exhibit the decency, good sense and courage to reject, eschew and even condemn the vile and dangerous practice of anal buggery and the culture of hyper-promiscuity and abject depravity that surrounds it.

    The most notable example of such fierce defiance that I am aware of would perhaps be Man2Man Alliance* (*GRAPHIC CONTENT) founder Bill Weintraub. A self-described "longtime gay activist" who is as emphatically pro-homoerotic as he is anti-buggery, Weintraub coined the term FROT for the non-penetrative, phallus-on-phallus act that he advocates not only as a far safer and hygienic alternative to buggery but also simply as the dignified, egalitarian, true form of male homosexual intercourse. Another site that is no less anti-buggery and pro-homoerotic (GRAPHICALLY so-- you have been warned) than Weintraub's and also promotes FROT is G0ys.org. Both sites explicitly welcome and even, to varying degrees, represent men whose erotic interests extend to women as well. (Standard disclaimer that citation =/= endorsement applies; I certainly have considerable differences with views advanced at both sites.)

    If homosexually-inclined males are unable or unwilling to either reorient themselves toward heterosexuality (ideal) or remain celibate (second-best), then a third-best option-- one that would still be vastly better than buggery, both for themselves as well as the rest of society-- would be for them to limit their sexual indulgences to nothing more extreme than the aforementioned FROT.

    Finally, I feel I would be remiss if I were to end this tangent on dissident homosexuals without mentioning the site that calls itself Gay Patriot. Although unfortunately not anti-buggery as the previous two sites I linked-to are, I have nonetheless found a number of posts and comments at GP expressing views that I found noteworthy and refreshing. In a July 1st post announcing his return after a long absence, site owner Bruce Carroll reports that he was de-platformed from Twitter "by a left-wing gay Millennial who was offended by my use of the word “Tranny.”". Lest anyone think that those who post on the site, which bills itself as The Internet home for American gay conservatives. are limited-to Muh Free Market lolbertarian types, I would point-to this thread, in which my interest was piqued by comments such as the following:


    Southern Man says

    May 8, 2018 at 9:45 pm - May 8, 2018

    Comment stolen from the Instapundit thread on this topic:

    Where on the list is Steve Sailer, Audacious Epigone, HBD Chick, the Derb, Paul Kersey, Heartiste, the Inductivist, Jared Taylor, and hundreds of others?
     


    Steve says

    May 10, 2018 at 1:42 pm - May 10, 2018

    The IDW is just a fake opposition to reign in the Overton Window. They are leftists who the only RIGHT issue they support is $8billion a year of taxpayers money to Israel
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/how-do-you-do.html#comment-form
     

    “on decriminalizing homosexuality in the 70+ countries that shamefully outlaw it”

    It’s outrageous that those countries think they have the right to make their own laws. Can nothing be done? Can’t we bomb them into submission?

    • Replies: @Dissident

    Can’t we bomb them into submission?
     
    Didn't you mean liberate and bestow the great gift of democracy upon them?
  57. @dfordoom

    "on decriminalizing homosexuality in the 70+ countries that shamefully outlaw it"
     
    It's outrageous that those countries think they have the right to make their own laws. Can nothing be done? Can't we bomb them into submission?

    Can’t we bomb them into submission?

    Didn’t you mean liberate and bestow the great gift of democracy upon them?

  58. @216

    One suggestion I will make now is that charges of “White privilege” be met by confrontation with striking examples of White poverty, such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt.
     
    It's difficult to pin the blame on the left for that. Otoh, heroin deaths are rather high in New England, which the left could reasonably be blamed for.

    Focusing on poor whites also is a politics of victimhood, which is ill suited for the Right.

    I prefer to advocate a "politics of humility and responsibility", where we should consider it shameful that whites are underachieving vis-a-vis Asians, while demonstrating more anti-social behavior.

    It’s difficult to pin the blame on the left for that.

    My idea of responding to the “White Privilege” canard with examples of White poverty was not in order to assign blame for said poverty. Rather, I meant more responding along the lines of, “White privilege? Really? How about you go to White Appalachia, one of the poorest regions of the country, and try telling the people there about their ‘White Privilege’…”.

    That said, don’t the same people who push the White Privilege narrative the most also champion continued mass immigration most zealously? Now, if my understanding is correct, by causing wages to decrease, and housing costs as well as the burden on public services to increase, said immigration has a detrimental economic effect upon all but an elite class of native-born citizens. (To say nothing of public safety and other concerns.) I would think, as well, that of those pushing the White Privilege narrative, a not-insignificant number have also been at least complicit in advancing trade policies that have harmed non-elite Whites. So I do think there are more than a few cases where those who are scolding Whites to “check their privilege” are among the very last people to be in any position to do so. And we can and should point-out the grotesque, if not downright obscene, spectacle of them doing so.

    Otoh, heroin deaths are rather high in New England, which the left could reasonably be blamed for.

    I cannot comment on that simply because I am ignorant of the topic. I quoted the sentence in order that it not appear that I was dismissing it.

    Focusing on poor whites also is a politics of victimhood, which is ill suited for the Right.

    I’m not sure about that. Certainly, pointing-to White poverty defensively, in direct response to attacks of ‘White Privilege’ seems very different from merely focusing on poor Whites absent such provocation.

    As to whether or not Whites or the Right should attempt to utilize, to their advantage, victimhood or grievance politics, that would appear to be an ongoing debate within said groups– one closely related to some of the discussions in this very thread.

    I prefer to advocate a “politics of humility and responsibility”, where we should consider it shameful that whites are underachieving vis-a-vis Asians, while demonstrating more anti-social behavior.

    Do you mean as a means to motivate under-achieving and dysfunctional Whites to improve themselves?

  59. @216
    O/T

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1156646995718737920

    Boomercon BTFO

    This is unironically great. Boomers are now unable to invoke Reagan without incurring the emotionally triggered mob known as Black Twitter.

    Reagan nostaliga has always overlooked his suicidal immigration policies, and his deindustrialization that lost the Midwest.

    I agree about Reagan worship.

    I agree that it will be most interesting to see how Conservatism, Inc. deals with this damning revelation concerning their canonized icon Ronald Wilson Reagan.

    I do not agree with insulting an entire generation, a senior one no less, as you have done with your various Boomer slurs.

    Hasn’t impudence toward and denigration of one’s elders always been a hallmark of the radical, violent Left?

  60. “I agree that it will be most interesting to see how Conservatism, Inc. deals with this damning revelation concerning their canonized icon Ronald Wilson Reagan.”

    I can tell you what this conservative thinks.

    That our presidents almost to a one have issues with how comprehend or deal the african american population. That because they were raised in a society that has for a good deal of its history treated blacks as a problem instead of a solution. Hence the repeated immigration expansion policies.

    Furthermore when the general population in CA. voted in a measure to prevent the advocates of same relational behavior from doing so among students. The governor of Ca. vetoed that measure. Hence, the the current state of affairs in which educators are able to interject themselves into family dynamics on this matter.

    And President Reagan has survived other issues: Beirut, Iran-Contra, Supply-side economics . . .

    He will always be credited for providing a needed positive view of the US and encouraging her citizens, and rightly or wrongly, ending the cold war. The beauty of acknowledging the mistakes of our leadership is that when the bumps arrive, they are far easier to smooth out and deal with. When we do that we don’t get caught flat footed defending practices, ideas and policies we know are probably unwise.

    By having a firm grasp of Pres. Trump’s failings and coming to grips with where we disagreed from the start — has made defending him a much easier task.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    our presidents almost to a one have issues with how comprehend or deal the african american population. That because they were raised in a society that has for a good deal of its history treated blacks as a problem instead of a solution.
     
    Blacks are treated like a problem because you ARE a problem.  You were a solution to the disease-resistance problem in Virginia colony in the early 17th century.  Then you brought the "peculiar instititution" to these shores yourselves (it was a suit by an African man, Anthony Johnson, which established chattel slavery in Virginia) and have never stopped being a problem to this day.
    , @Feryl
    "He will always be credited for providing a needed positive view of the US and encouraging her citizens, and rightly or wrongly, ending the cold war."

    Timing......So much is timing. The US was beginning it's civic free-fall in the 70's, and by the Carter era we were further humiliated by gas shortages, Operation Eagle Claw, the Iran hostage situation, NYC being in it's worst era ever, and record high murder and drug abuse rates. Then along comes Reagan....The hostages are freed. He survives an assassination by a matter of inches (something which, I'm not kidding, was seen as a sign that God was favoring America again according to some). Crime and drug abuse decline from 1981-1984. The early 80's recession ends in late 1983. After he's reelected, things are looking a little bleak again. The Crack War has begun. Iran-Contra. The Savings and Loan scandal. The late 1987 Wall Street dip. However, while this is going on the Cold War seems to be waning; whatever else was happening, at least we seemed to be moving away from the threat of MAD.

    In hindsight, a lot of these things either:

    1)Weren't really that great (e.g., the early 80's were only about 10% less violent and crime ridden than the late 70's)
    Or:
    2) Were conjured up by hocus pocus that really doesn't pan out in the long term (e.g., gutting taxes for the upper income bracket while not reducing spending....Not such a hot idea)
    Or:
    3) Would've probably happened no matter who was in office in the 80's (was Jimmy Carter going to launch nukes? Uh, no. Would the Savings and Loan scandal happened if Carter and then Mondale were in office? Probably. The oil glut of the early 80's helped us get past the energy troubles of the 70's, and this glut would've happened no matter who was president).

    Presidents of the 1970's were hit by an enormous tsunami of bad timing and over-all bad vibes. Nixon was the victim of the CIA and his own hubris. Ford had the worst economy since the Great Depression. Carter was blamed for the overall tawdry and disappointing nature of the decade, which seemed to be getting more and more shameful by the time he entered office. Most things were bound to get better in the 80's (which did happen to some degree), and whoever was in office during the 80's basically lucked out.

  61. @216

    One suggestion I will make now is that charges of “White privilege” be met by confrontation with striking examples of White poverty, such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt.
     
    It's difficult to pin the blame on the left for that. Otoh, heroin deaths are rather high in New England, which the left could reasonably be blamed for.

    Focusing on poor whites also is a politics of victimhood, which is ill suited for the Right.

    I prefer to advocate a "politics of humility and responsibility", where we should consider it shameful that whites are underachieving vis-a-vis Asians, while demonstrating more anti-social behavior.

    Right, and all those Ukrainians who starved to death during Stalin’s collectivism should have merely advocated a policy of “humility and responsibility” and poof! their bellies would have been full.

    You are actively avoiding making the distinction between groups who are being targeted by hostile government for economic and social destruction, and groups who are awarded entitlements at a similar opposite scale of the former (who as a group, still exist in squalor).

    You are also ignoring the success of a deliberate education campaign to teach certain groups to hate themselves and that they are evil, from the moment they are born.

    You should drop the Kevin Williamson act.

  62. @EliteCommInc.
    "I agree that it will be most interesting to see how Conservatism, Inc. deals with this damning revelation concerning their canonized icon Ronald Wilson Reagan."

    I can tell you what this conservative thinks.


    That our presidents almost to a one have issues with how comprehend or deal the african american population. That because they were raised in a society that has for a good deal of its history treated blacks as a problem instead of a solution. Hence the repeated immigration expansion policies.


    Furthermore when the general population in CA. voted in a measure to prevent the advocates of same relational behavior from doing so among students. The governor of Ca. vetoed that measure. Hence, the the current state of affairs in which educators are able to interject themselves into family dynamics on this matter.

    And President Reagan has survived other issues: Beirut, Iran-Contra, Supply-side economics . . .


    He will always be credited for providing a needed positive view of the US and encouraging her citizens, and rightly or wrongly, ending the cold war. The beauty of acknowledging the mistakes of our leadership is that when the bumps arrive, they are far easier to smooth out and deal with. When we do that we don't get caught flat footed defending practices, ideas and policies we know are probably unwise.

    By having a firm grasp of Pres. Trump's failings and coming to grips with where we disagreed from the start --- has made defending him a much easier task.

    our presidents almost to a one have issues with how comprehend or deal the african american population. That because they were raised in a society that has for a good deal of its history treated blacks as a problem instead of a solution.

    Blacks are treated like a problem because you ARE a problem.  You were a solution to the disease-resistance problem in Virginia colony in the early 17th century.  Then you brought the “peculiar instititution” to these shores yourselves (it was a suit by an African man, Anthony Johnson, which established chattel slavery in Virginia) and have never stopped being a problem to this day.

  63. “Didn’t you mean liberate and bestow the great gift of democracy upon them?”

    The reason that such behavior is outlawed is perfectly understandable. It’s a model of behavior that does not contribute anything to the community at large . And if you are a society that values maintaining itself, you are going to pushback against anything that would hint at the opposite.

    You see in objective reality the term flourishing means to bear fruit in tangible terms. For humans that means bearing children and as is very clear, not having children and intact families is creating some problems in the US.

    Now our constitution protects self expression. But make no mistake The traditional harrassment one got as a kid or young adult being unmanly served a very important right of passage — push to traditional relations has value.

  64. “Blacks are treated like a problem because you ARE a problem.”

    Who I am is inconsequential to the discussion.

    Here’s your contend: a black guy brought a slave to the US and that was wrong because — slavery is generally negative.

    I would contend that the first black slave arrived with the Pilgrims, but that aside for the moment.

    This business of slavery was bad, black guys are bad. And whites superior to blacks copy catted the black guy and blacks slavery ——

    So if I understand you correctly, the fact that whites brought slaves into the country is the black guys fault. Now I believe in the supernatural and the supranatural. But I don’t think I am aware of any supernatural powers of mind control that forced whites to follow the black guy into engaging black slavery —

    you are welcome to provide said evidence or analysis in support of your contend.

  65. “You were a solution to the disease-resistance problem in Virginia colony in the early 17th century.”

    My position is related to the data. Had the country simply either shipped the entire population out or upon admitting the fault of slavery in the first place as an ethical violation to our founding principles and ensured they were as all other members of the country were entitled. All the evidence indicates that they were eager and willing to be part of the fabric.

    And there would far fewer issues today. Import millions when there are already millions here ready and eager to work — just made no sense. I simply acknowledge that history and one’s skin color has no bearing on that — it is what it is. You could grey be as a ghost, makes no difference to me.

    Once a conservative understands the actual data of anything they are bound to respond to it as it is.

  66. correction:

    ” . . . as grey as a ghost”

    excuse me.

  67. @216
    O/T

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1156646995718737920

    Boomercon BTFO

    This is unironically great. Boomers are now unable to invoke Reagan without incurring the emotionally triggered mob known as Black Twitter.

    Reagan nostaliga has always overlooked his suicidal immigration policies, and his deindustrialization that lost the Midwest.

    Reagan nostaliga has always overlooked his suicidal immigration policies, and his deindustrialization that lost the Midwest.

    It was during the “Stagflation” 70’s* that many factories and mills were shuttered in the Northeast and Midwest. Corporate America began to rely more heavily on the American South, and yes, foreign nations, for goods production. This was, of course, noted by the affected areas, who generally weren’t exactly thrilled. But we still made enough goods in every region of America that most Americans didn’t feel as if we were really “losing” all that much.

    NAFTA in 1993 was the real death-blow. In the mid-late 90’s, vast numbers of production facilities were shut down everywhere, even in the South. And the threat of domestic shuttering was enough to heavily clamp down on labor activism (these trends also occured in the UK; British union membership peaked in the early 80’s, then drastically declined in the 90’s).

    Immigration levels of the early 80’s were mostly the same as they were in the late 70’s. Then legal and esp. illegal immigration went up a lot from 1985-1988. But GHW Bush allowed over 1 million legal immigrants in the country during 1989, and did the same thing again in 1990. Of course illegal immigration also surged. Then they passed the 1990 immigration act, which resulted in the lowest levels of immigrant vetting since the days of the slave trade, was passed and pretty much signaled the end of the demographic stability that we generally had from the 1920’s-1980’s. The 1990 act also put it’s stamp of approval on future immigrants being far more diverse than any previous wave. So I would put 1989-1993 as being the last straw for America; it’s so bad that it actually makes the literal Reagan era (1981-1988) look pretty good.

    *The 70’s was the “right turn” (libertarian) for America. People began looking for all kinds of reasons as to why they’d “given up” on “big” ideas and movements. The very term “progress” became derisively used by Silents and Boomers during the decade; “progress” gave us pollution, restless “minorities”, and a culture of stolid technocrats urging us to trust their expertise. Unfortunately, all of this “critique” culture ended up degenerating into narcissism, since distrust of other people became an excuse to excessively withdraw inward, no matter how it hurt other people. That’s why they called the 70’s the “Me Decade”.

  68. @Dissident
    At least somewhat apropos, I wonder if anyone else here caught the following that I accidentally came across just now. A July 25th tweet from Donald J. Trump, Jr.:

    https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1154525457909338112


    Tomorrow morning at 8:30 am NY time, my friend Ambassdor @richardgrenell will lead a panel discussion in Berlin on decriminalizing homosexuality in the 70+ countries that shamefully outlaw it. @usbotschaft will live tweet the discussion. Amazing work Ric!
    10.4K
    10:54 PM - Jul 25, 2019
     
    Some selected responses I copied:

    Stop imposing your values on cultures that don’t want it!
     

    What we voted for: the wall.
    What we got: gay buttsex in Botswana.
     

    I can't wait until you enforce mandatory sodomy lessons to children in Botswana. Stunning and brave!
     

    Globalism *and* sodomy? Now that's what I call #MAGA!
     

    I’m starting to get real tired of “winning”
     
    Should this come as any surprise? How many people recall the obscene spectacle that was Peter Thiel's speech at the Republican National Convention that three years ago formally nominated now-President Trump? Rallying behind the "LGBTQ" banner-cry for ever-greater normalization of sexual degeneracy, buggering Sodomite* Thiel brazenly accused Conservatives and Republicans of starting needlessly divisive culture wars. Then, of course, there is the President's own record of explicit, vocal support for "Gay rights" (and Pence's record that is problematic as well.) (See also here and here.)

    *Note that I do not use the term Sodomite for anyone merely afflicted with deviant desires. Nor, even, would I necessarily go so far as to condemn with that admittedly pejorative Biblical term even one who may discretely act upon such desires. In fact, I happen to harbor sympathy and even respect toward dissident homosexuals who, in defiance of typically tremendous pressures, exhibit the decency, good sense and courage to reject, eschew and even condemn the vile and dangerous practice of anal buggery and the culture of hyper-promiscuity and abject depravity that surrounds it.

    The most notable example of such fierce defiance that I am aware of would perhaps be Man2Man Alliance* (*GRAPHIC CONTENT) founder Bill Weintraub. A self-described "longtime gay activist" who is as emphatically pro-homoerotic as he is anti-buggery, Weintraub coined the term FROT for the non-penetrative, phallus-on-phallus act that he advocates not only as a far safer and hygienic alternative to buggery but also simply as the dignified, egalitarian, true form of male homosexual intercourse. Another site that is no less anti-buggery and pro-homoerotic (GRAPHICALLY so-- you have been warned) than Weintraub's and also promotes FROT is G0ys.org. Both sites explicitly welcome and even, to varying degrees, represent men whose erotic interests extend to women as well. (Standard disclaimer that citation =/= endorsement applies; I certainly have considerable differences with views advanced at both sites.)

    If homosexually-inclined males are unable or unwilling to either reorient themselves toward heterosexuality (ideal) or remain celibate (second-best), then a third-best option-- one that would still be vastly better than buggery, both for themselves as well as the rest of society-- would be for them to limit their sexual indulgences to nothing more extreme than the aforementioned FROT.

    Finally, I feel I would be remiss if I were to end this tangent on dissident homosexuals without mentioning the site that calls itself Gay Patriot. Although unfortunately not anti-buggery as the previous two sites I linked-to are, I have nonetheless found a number of posts and comments at GP expressing views that I found noteworthy and refreshing. In a July 1st post announcing his return after a long absence, site owner Bruce Carroll reports that he was de-platformed from Twitter "by a left-wing gay Millennial who was offended by my use of the word “Tranny.”". Lest anyone think that those who post on the site, which bills itself as The Internet home for American gay conservatives. are limited-to Muh Free Market lolbertarian types, I would point-to this thread, in which my interest was piqued by comments such as the following:


    Southern Man says

    May 8, 2018 at 9:45 pm - May 8, 2018

    Comment stolen from the Instapundit thread on this topic:

    Where on the list is Steve Sailer, Audacious Epigone, HBD Chick, the Derb, Paul Kersey, Heartiste, the Inductivist, Jared Taylor, and hundreds of others?
     


    Steve says

    May 10, 2018 at 1:42 pm - May 10, 2018

    The IDW is just a fake opposition to reign in the Overton Window. They are leftists who the only RIGHT issue they support is $8billion a year of taxpayers money to Israel
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/how-do-you-do.html#comment-form
     

    Anyone who remember the 1950’s, or even 1980’s, has got to be gobsmacked that the Republican party has an establishment who advocates for “inclusive” policy on behalf of gays. As I’ve said before, the “conservative” establishment caved on the race question by 1970. They then caved on feminism by 1980. Then they caved on immigration by 1990 (post-1990 immigration has seen a big reduction in white and high skilled immigration as a % of the overall numbers).

    There is no “conservative” (traditional) party. Rather, the GOP stands for more tax cuts (but not reduced spending), more war, less environmental regulation, and more restriction of abortion.*

    The “Right” turn of the 1970’s was a mirage. There was an intensified push to “get the government” out of most things, but any real interest in preserving traditional notions of behavior, and preserving overall stability of our identity and lives, was forgotten. In other words, we got libertarianism, not conservatism.

    *So yes, the GOP and Democrats are different from each other in some key ways. However, neither party wants the social and economic stability of the New Deal era back. Because it would be a repudiation of the hedonistic libertarian attitude that we’ve had for 50 years. Both parties are experimental, not traditional, which is abundantly clear given that much of the mainstream Right no longer even bothers to act like homosexuality is abnormal….Which it regularly did as recently as the 1990’s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    the GOP stands for more tax cuts (but not reduced spending), more war, less environmental regulation, and more restriction of abortion.
     
    Given that, as you say, they've caved on every other issue it's inevitable that they'll cave on abortion as well. Give it time and you'll see articles by conservatives on Conservative Arguments for Abortion.

    Supposedly conservative parties like the Republicans, the British Tories and the LNP in Australia are united by one thing - they have no actual principles.
  69. @EliteCommInc.
    "I agree that it will be most interesting to see how Conservatism, Inc. deals with this damning revelation concerning their canonized icon Ronald Wilson Reagan."

    I can tell you what this conservative thinks.


    That our presidents almost to a one have issues with how comprehend or deal the african american population. That because they were raised in a society that has for a good deal of its history treated blacks as a problem instead of a solution. Hence the repeated immigration expansion policies.


    Furthermore when the general population in CA. voted in a measure to prevent the advocates of same relational behavior from doing so among students. The governor of Ca. vetoed that measure. Hence, the the current state of affairs in which educators are able to interject themselves into family dynamics on this matter.

    And President Reagan has survived other issues: Beirut, Iran-Contra, Supply-side economics . . .


    He will always be credited for providing a needed positive view of the US and encouraging her citizens, and rightly or wrongly, ending the cold war. The beauty of acknowledging the mistakes of our leadership is that when the bumps arrive, they are far easier to smooth out and deal with. When we do that we don't get caught flat footed defending practices, ideas and policies we know are probably unwise.

    By having a firm grasp of Pres. Trump's failings and coming to grips with where we disagreed from the start --- has made defending him a much easier task.

    “He will always be credited for providing a needed positive view of the US and encouraging her citizens, and rightly or wrongly, ending the cold war.”

    Timing……So much is timing. The US was beginning it’s civic free-fall in the 70’s, and by the Carter era we were further humiliated by gas shortages, Operation Eagle Claw, the Iran hostage situation, NYC being in it’s worst era ever, and record high murder and drug abuse rates. Then along comes Reagan….The hostages are freed. He survives an assassination by a matter of inches (something which, I’m not kidding, was seen as a sign that God was favoring America again according to some). Crime and drug abuse decline from 1981-1984. The early 80’s recession ends in late 1983. After he’s reelected, things are looking a little bleak again. The Crack War has begun. Iran-Contra. The Savings and Loan scandal. The late 1987 Wall Street dip. However, while this is going on the Cold War seems to be waning; whatever else was happening, at least we seemed to be moving away from the threat of MAD.

    In hindsight, a lot of these things either:

    1)Weren’t really that great (e.g., the early 80’s were only about 10% less violent and crime ridden than the late 70’s)
    Or:
    2) Were conjured up by hocus pocus that really doesn’t pan out in the long term (e.g., gutting taxes for the upper income bracket while not reducing spending….Not such a hot idea)
    Or:
    3) Would’ve probably happened no matter who was in office in the 80’s (was Jimmy Carter going to launch nukes? Uh, no. Would the Savings and Loan scandal happened if Carter and then Mondale were in office? Probably. The oil glut of the early 80’s helped us get past the energy troubles of the 70’s, and this glut would’ve happened no matter who was president).

    Presidents of the 1970’s were hit by an enormous tsunami of bad timing and over-all bad vibes. Nixon was the victim of the CIA and his own hubris. Ford had the worst economy since the Great Depression. Carter was blamed for the overall tawdry and disappointing nature of the decade, which seemed to be getting more and more shameful by the time he entered office. Most things were bound to get better in the 80’s (which did happen to some degree), and whoever was in office during the 80’s basically lucked out.

  70. @Feryl
    Anyone who remember the 1950's, or even 1980's, has got to be gobsmacked that the Republican party has an establishment who advocates for "inclusive" policy on behalf of gays. As I've said before, the "conservative" establishment caved on the race question by 1970. They then caved on feminism by 1980. Then they caved on immigration by 1990 (post-1990 immigration has seen a big reduction in white and high skilled immigration as a % of the overall numbers).

    There is no "conservative" (traditional) party. Rather, the GOP stands for more tax cuts (but not reduced spending), more war, less environmental regulation, and more restriction of abortion.*

    The "Right" turn of the 1970's was a mirage. There was an intensified push to "get the government" out of most things, but any real interest in preserving traditional notions of behavior, and preserving overall stability of our identity and lives, was forgotten. In other words, we got libertarianism, not conservatism.

    *So yes, the GOP and Democrats are different from each other in some key ways. However, neither party wants the social and economic stability of the New Deal era back. Because it would be a repudiation of the hedonistic libertarian attitude that we've had for 50 years. Both parties are experimental, not traditional, which is abundantly clear given that much of the mainstream Right no longer even bothers to act like homosexuality is abnormal....Which it regularly did as recently as the 1990's.

    the GOP stands for more tax cuts (but not reduced spending), more war, less environmental regulation, and more restriction of abortion.

    Given that, as you say, they’ve caved on every other issue it’s inevitable that they’ll cave on abortion as well. Give it time and you’ll see articles by conservatives on Conservative Arguments for Abortion.

    Supposedly conservative parties like the Republicans, the British Tories and the LNP in Australia are united by one thing – they have no actual principles.

  71. “Timing……So much is timing.”

    You’ll get no argument from me.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS