RSS
If the UR commentariat thinks it’s a bridge too far, dfordoom suspects the prospects elsewhere are grim:
That is the problem that the dissident right, right-wing populism, white nationalism and other far right political movements face. Their views are not just unpopular among blacks and Asians and Jews – they’re unpopular even among white gentiles. Most white gentiles are rather repelled by the far right.
I’m a white gentile and I agree with a lot of the far right’s criticisms of modern society and I despise Wokeism and SJWism as much as any dissident rightist despises those ideologies. But those far right movements are just too extreme and too crazy and too misogynistic for me to be comfortable with them. And those far right movements seem to me to be too politically inept to have any chance of success. If they can’t win over anti-Establishment whites like myself I suspect they’re never going to win over more than a small minority of whites.
AaronB on how the elite uses the archetypal racist white prole in their morality play:
It is the elites that are playing divide and conquer. They are trying to get you to focus on race and not on social inequality.
What they want, is a poor White to be fighting a poor Black, and vice versa, to focus attention away from inequality itself. While they recommend racism for you, they are happy to unite across racial and ethnic lines themselves, and form a united bloc against you.
As long as you think having a White elite is the important thing, the elites feel much safer than if you question the privileges and power – or the very concept – of the elite itself.
But Aaron is Jewish, so his target audience is naturally going to be skeptical, to put it mildly. Writes he in response:
I am opposing all excessive elite privilege and power, whether its White, Jewish, Black, or Asian, in favor of greater fairness and justice for ordinary people. How is that an example of favoring Jewish interests?
Since Jews are a disproportionate number of the elite, shouldn’t my attack on the elite de facto not favor Jewish interests?
There are people, who for sentimental reasons would rather be exploited by someone of their own race than have a fair and just system for all – a sentiment unscrupulous elites will gladly encourage.
A century ago, Jews had the merit but not the power positions they disproportionately have today. Classism was a more effective avenue to the top for them than it is today.
Intelligent Dasein warns the 401(k) class that the financial security of its golden years may not be as secure as they believe:
I fear that they will never actually let you sell.
If the DOW starts dropping by thousands of points and no new multi-trillion dollar stimulus package suffices to stop the carnage, they will simply close the markets. Perhaps, instead of allowing you to pull all your money out, they will authorize you a small monthly distribution that they deem sufficient for you to survive upon. You will be forced to recapitalize the system with your investments.
“What, you expected to get your money back? I’m sorry, we cannot complete that transaction at this time. There is a national financial emergency underway. Goldman-Sachs appreciates your sacrifice at this critical juncture and looks forward to partnering with you in the future.”
I don’t think the TreasureFed has any intention of fighting inflation no matter what happens. It will sacrifice the dollar before it sacrifices the markets. But the idea that the affluence of white boomers will be plundered by the state in the name of various forms of X justice is one that should not be dismissed.
Channeling Nietzsche, nebulafox on how if you give a man a why he can bear almost any how:
Men need three things: a purpose, a mission, and the means to accomplish or at least embark on that mission. Give them that, and you’d be surprised how the worst loser you ever knew would be willing to crawl through fields of broken glass in pursuit of them. Take them away, learned helplessness ensues, which leads to depression. They need to be realistic: which a lot of men have trouble with. But they also have to be real, plausible missions worth busting your butt for: which society has trouble with.
Pressure to power, stress to strength.
With all respect to the estimable :
Either you dislike the dissident right, , or most white gentiles do. You’ll have to make up your mind, but meanwhile, you just can’t use each as as evidence for the other.
Most white gentiles that dislike the dissident right don’t know anything about the dissident right. Maybe when they learn more, what they learn will confirm their distaste, but the absurd lengths to which the dissident right’s foes have gone to keep white gentiles from learning more suggests the opposite, don’t you think?
Regarding misogyny: what do you mean? As far as I know, the word hardly has any content. It’s a bluff. I’m calling it.
Blacks and Asians and Jews are three entirely different, unrelated cases. Indeed, the Asian alone is a disparate collection of entirely different, unrelated cases; but in general I think that you’ve got this entirely backward. People aren’t offended ipso facto by the notion that other people promote their own interests. Quite the opposite.
But suppose that all those people were offended. They aren’t, but suppose that they were. So what? What would you have the dissident right do about it? Would you have them cease their dissent?
Nonsense. Name names. Say specifically what is extreme and what is crazy—because I’ll tell you what’s extreme and crazy: it’s this borderless craven fornicating feminized bureaucratized snitching overeating backstabbing hyperventilating slouching slovenly disloyal overstimulated homosexual therapeutic postmodern world we’ve created for ourselves.
And you know that, because no one in this comment column has explained it as well as you have done.
https://gab.com/Heartiste/posts/105744972550126290
My back-of-the-envelope calc is that is a 10× signal boost.
unfortunately i think many people who aren't sufficiently innoculated against leftist memes have this reflex reaction to any discussion of women that isn't fawning egalitarian nonsense (*especially* anything that talks about our weaknesses relative to men) where they just cry misogyny on general principles, without any concrete idea what they even mean. (this is a broad phenomenon -- in general, asking people to clarify *why* they're calling others specific names is not tolerated in Woke World; i've seen too many conversations along the lines of "excuse ME that man is a NAZI" "wait wtf seriously? what did he do" "HOW DARE YOU DEFEND A LITERAL NAZI YOU NAZI FILTH"). when you say things like, "society should stay patriarchal," "husbands should support their families and wives should take care of the home and children," etc, conservatives (of both genders and all cultures) tend to see that more as unremarkable common sense. but this qualifies as "violent regressive male-supremacist fascist misogyny" to some. the luxuries families used to dream of are now Oppression somehow.best summary of the modern world ive seen so far ^_^Replies: @dfordoom
What I believe most people would like is a return to sanity and moderation. I know that moderate is a dirty word in dissident right circles but most people are by nature moderates.
I don't think people want a different brand of craziness. I don't think they want misogyny. They'd like men and women to treat each other with respect. I don't think they want a race war. They don't want anti-white racism but they don't actually want anti-nonwhite racism either. They want a sane compromise on race. They don't want mass immigration but they don't want mass deportations. They don't want a war on Christianity but they don't want antisemitism either. They'd like to go back to the days when a person's religion was his own business.
They don't want Drag Queen Story Hour, men in frocks sharing locker rooms with girls or endless Gay Pride Marches but they don't want homosexuals persecuted either.
People don't want crazed conspiracy theories. Most people don't think the Illuminati or Satanists run the world. They don't want to be around people who believe that sort of stuff.
They want moderate economic policies. They don't want communism but they don't want mega-corporations running the world.
People want the grown-ups and the sane people in charge again.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
These are all crazy things and you'll find all of these views regularly expressed right here on Unz Review.
Social class was abandoned by the Frankfurt School.
Its all race based now. Also, the Babylonian Talmud promises “brown skinned slaves”.
Whites do not figure into the globalist delusions of World Slavery.
The neo-fuedal dying system is based on the outdated model of chattel slavery.
This was superseded by machines at the time of Fulton’s steam engine.
Nowadays, its just some stupid sexual fantasy disguised as a political system.
Globalism can never work in practice due to its outdated systems and false assumptions.
The dark skins cannot even feed themselves. They will not be able to carry any Zionists.
The destruction of these deluded fools is essential to your survival.
Its all about race. Social class is a red herring.
The economics is controlled by idiots printing funny money and expecting profits.
This kind of fake economy cannot last for long.
Hyperinflation and devaluation are at hand.
This Virus Crisis was designed to HIDE THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.
Easy to spot the trick here, trying to make it look like it is a class issue and not a race issue by pointing out the occasional jew that is against the elite. Even if these are sincere sentiments (which is never the case with jews), none of that takes away the fact that the jews are in fact the elite and this is the problem.
• Jews are not the problem.
• Incorrectly blaming them is a problem.
The 1% Elites need to fragment opposition. Don't be a cuck. Refuse to go along with Elite manipulation that is intended to keep them on top.
PEACE 😇
Most white gentiles that dislike the dissident right don't know anything about the dissident right. Maybe when they learn more, what they learn will confirm their distaste, but the absurd lengths to which the dissident right's foes have gone to keep white gentiles from learning more suggests the opposite, don't you think?
Regarding misogyny: what do you mean? As far as I know, the word hardly has any content. It's a bluff. I'm calling it.Blacks and Asians and Jews are three entirely different, unrelated cases. Indeed, the Asian alone is a disparate collection of entirely different, unrelated cases; but in general I think that you've got this entirely backward. People aren't offended ipso facto by the notion that other people promote their own interests. Quite the opposite.
But suppose that all those people were offended. They aren't, but suppose that they were. So what? What would you have the dissident right do about it? Would you have them cease their dissent?Nonsense. Name names. Say specifically what is extreme and what is crazy—because I'll tell you what's extreme and crazy: it's this borderless craven fornicating feminized bureaucratized snitching overeating backstabbing hyperventilating slouching slovenly disloyal overstimulated homosexual therapeutic postmodern world we've created for ourselves.
And you know that, because no one in this comment column has explained it as well as you have done.Replies: @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri, @winter, @dfordoom, @dfordoom
You are wasting key strokes. Dfordoom, for all his occasional lucidity, is a reflexive anti-American and anti-Christian bigot. He’s never going to give what he calls the “far right” (which is a ridiculous term for very large and disparate groups of people) a fair shake.
... one particular commenter. Not only didn't I listen; I rebuked you.
I was wrong.
The commenter in question (whom it is unnecessary to name) is not present, so now seemed like a good time to mention the matter.
It's not a matter of whether I'm willing to give them a fair shake. It's a matter of whether they have any chance of achieving their goals. My view is that they have consistently adopted positions that make it unlikely that they will ever gain any widespread popular support and very unlikely that they will ever gain any support at all among the elite (and as long as you have the entire elite united against you your chances of political success are exceedingly poor).
It's also my view that they have consistently chosen the wrong battles to fight. They have a remarkable capacity for choosing to fight the battles their enemies want them to fight, on grounds of their enemies' choosing and according to their enemies' rules.
The conclusion I've drawn is that they're not interested in winning. That they get some kind of emotional buzz out of being a persecuted minority.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen
I agree with Nebulafox often – I think he is knowledgeable and insightful. But here his youth betrays him. Yes, “mission-orientation” is an important aspect of masculinity, but it’s a young man’s game. It only provides a proximate satisfaction.
What men really need – what makes “a purpose, a mission, and the means” possible – is community, an organic community that shelters them, clothes them in a close bond of respect and affection, but also makes demands of sacrifices from them.
We are highly social creatures. When alienated, we die – if not our bodies, then certainly our minds.
Exercise is good and important, but it’s not enough, especially for men. I also recommend training in some form of combat sport – Judo, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Kali, or even Shotokan Karate or Tae Kwon Do. Some of these are far more practical and effective than others, but for physical and mental purposes, all suffice.
Training in combat sports is not a solitary exercise. It is by nature cooperative, partnership-oriented, a group activity that channels man’s competitive nature and need for physical expressions into something constructive (and destructive when necessary). When you train together, spar against each other, pressure each other physically and mentally, men become highly bonded and derive an enormous degree of espirit de corps (hence all the dueling/fencing clubs among rightist youths in Europe in the early part of the 20th Century). In the American context, it’s something that anyone who’s played small town high school football or wrestled as a part of a team intrinsically understand.
Combat sports training not only hones a man’s mind and body, it also creates a strong sense of belonging. And men need to belong.
I read that in my head with a lisp. Cray-zee.
Crazy nasty-ass right wingers don’t give a shit.
Give it time. When you have hyperinflation, poverty, squalor and violence all around, those crazy extreme right-wingers might look like the sanest alternative.
(Not that I cheer for any of that, but I think it might be inevitable – nothing good lasts forever, and I think we’ll see a crash of the establishment sooner or later)
There is far too much economic inequality in America today and the concentration of wealth at the top has become obscene. The fortunes of men like Bezos, Gates, the Walton family etc serve no rational purpose except to endow them with excessive personal power. Worse, we allow them to set up foundations that allow these fortunes to exist in perpetuity under their designees control.
I would impose a wealth tax on all fortunes in excess of one billion dollars and require any foundation to spend its endowment within 25 years of it creation. No more Carnegie or Ford foundations existing a century after they were founded. This would redistribute the wealth in an economically stimulative fashion instead of husbanding it over generations.
I just had that discussion this morning with a colleague who is convinced interest rates must rise in the face of rising inflation rates. Sure, that’s the theory (Fisher) in a world where “real” interest rates are bound by zero. We left that world years ago. In fact T-Fed has every incentive to keep real bond rates low or even negative while inflation rages.
You will own nothing, and you will be happy … or else!
Intelligent Dasein knows whereof he speaks. This commenter got out at the top in 2000 and he had to fight Fidelity tooth and nail to do it. With bigger accounts the obstruction was more intense, so forget that premium-customer shit. This was well before liquidity problems emerged. Also remember what Corzine’s MF global did to margin accounts in the subsequent crash. I eliminated all mine at the time – it would be ruinous to trust them now.
This is not market or financial advice. This is protecting yourself from corporate crime advice.
Damn peasants just don’t understand that new and better jobs will be created. Our papers say so!
What men really need - what makes "a purpose, a mission, and the means" possible - is community, an organic community that shelters them, clothes them in a close bond of respect and affection, but also makes demands of sacrifices from them.
We are highly social creatures. When alienated, we die - if not our bodies, then certainly our minds.Exercise is good and important, but it's not enough, especially for men. I also recommend training in some form of combat sport - Judo, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Kali, or even Shotokan Karate or Tae Kwon Do. Some of these are far more practical and effective than others, but for physical and mental purposes, all suffice.
Training in combat sports is not a solitary exercise. It is by nature cooperative, partnership-oriented, a group activity that channels man's competitive nature and need for physical expressions into something constructive (and destructive when necessary). When you train together, spar against each other, pressure each other physically and mentally, men become highly bonded and derive an enormous degree of espirit de corps (hence all the dueling/fencing clubs among rightist youths in Europe in the early part of the 20th Century). In the American context, it's something that anyone who's played small town high school football or wrestled as a part of a team intrinsically understand.
Combat sports training not only hones a man's mind and body, it also creates a strong sense of belonging. And men need to belong.Replies: @nebulafox
And one reason I welcome input from older commentators, or ones who have first hand knowledge of various topics that I don’t, is that they bring insights that I lack.
>We are highly social creatures. When alienated, we die – if not our bodies, then certainly our minds.
I’ve been almost totally isolated and alienated my whole life. Some of that is my fault, some of that isn’t, some of it is a mix. Irrespective of who is to blame, I bear mental scars, and often have to explicitly coach myself into normal behavior again. And I’m not a social butterfly by any stretch: quite the opposite, I’d be profoundly miserable if forced to socially interact constantly. Yet even I don’t respond well to this level of isolation.
It is what it is. Part of the rebuilding process involves both rejecting the subliminal narratives that you’ve been marinated while simultaneously understanding them, how they are used, how you subconsciously absorbed them. This includes the subtle usage of victimhood as moral legitimacy in 21st Century America. Nevertheless, everything I say in the present on this topic inevitably reflects this POV, which naturally revolves on getting off the ground and assuming that you are completely on your own. Modern America is producing more and more people in that position. You can’t assume the person has immediate access to anything beyond their own, atomized control.
That’s not good. No society should want to produce men like me, for its own sake.
(I have not forgotten your advice on combat sports: I’m going to try that again when I get the chance.)
In a crisis of alienation, the first tend to become good at being bad leaders. The second tend to become good at being bad followers.
Me, I have just enough habit of individualism to reject being any kind of follower, but (for better or worse) not a high enough opinion of myself to be any kind of leader. Is that alienation, or just the bad luck of being too self-aware at the wrong time and place for it?Replies: @tgordon
By the way, you tried some time ago to warn me about …
… one particular commenter. Not only didn’t I listen; I rebuked you.
I was wrong.
The commenter in question (whom it is unnecessary to name) is not present, so now seemed like a good time to mention the matter.
I sometimes criticize the right, but this guy’s use of the word “misogynist” persuades me to not take him seriously.
But having said that, if you regularly read comment threads here at UR you will encounter some extraordinary and irrational hostility towards women. I'm not sure how else to describe the outlook of some commenters here other than by describing it as misogynist. I can understand that you don't like that word because of the way feminists have used it. OK, fair enough, but the kind of hostility towards women that is quite common here is something that is going to strike normies as misogynistic.
How successful do you think the dissident right has been in attracting support from women? How successful do you think a political movement is going to be if it cannot attract support from women?
I'm no feminist but there are men who really do have an irrational hatred of women and you'll find a disturbing number of such men here.
But if you want to pretend that that's not going to be a problem then that's up to you. I've learnt that one of the chief characteristics of the far right is an unwillingness to accept unpleasant realities.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216
I use the term “far right” deliberately in this context (rather than referring to the dissident right) because I am referring to disparate groups. I was looking for a vague catch-all term to encompass a number of disparate groups. That was the best term I could come up with. If you can come up with a more satisfactory term I’m open to suggestions.
It’s not a matter of whether I’m willing to give them a fair shake. It’s a matter of whether they have any chance of achieving their goals. My view is that they have consistently adopted positions that make it unlikely that they will ever gain any widespread popular support and very unlikely that they will ever gain any support at all among the elite (and as long as you have the entire elite united against you your chances of political success are exceedingly poor).
It’s also my view that they have consistently chosen the wrong battles to fight. They have a remarkable capacity for choosing to fight the battles their enemies want them to fight, on grounds of their enemies’ choosing and according to their enemies’ rules.
The conclusion I’ve drawn is that they’re not interested in winning. That they get some kind of emotional buzz out of being a persecuted minority.
I believe that this is your truthful assessment of the situation, and you're right: no one does like a loser. However, I hardly know what to do with your assessment. Your premise assumes its own conclusion. The reasoning is circular.
Circular reasoning is not always bad, but it's not very persuasive to persons who aren't already standing in the circle.
Meanwhile, we've got a goal. We're going to continue to pursue it. Undoubtedly, successes and failures along the way will modify goals as events clarify what can be achieved and what cannot; but there can be no successes, no failures and no clarifications until the attempt is essayed.
Your recommended mode of attack misdirects its energy toward élite targets that have no names and threaten no one because they do not actually exist. Whatever you might think of our prospects, at least we've got real targets.
So I suppose that you'll just have to stand by and see what happens.
I don't know the statistics on political affiliation of Continental European media/academia, but I imagine while it is still lefty, its a lot less so than in the Anglosphere.
In 2016, we temporarily broke the gatekeeping, which the elites have spend mightily to restore.
We did it once, we can do it again, though not in the same method.
Opportunism will be required.
However, about the other half of your formulation:Popularity is not our goal. Our numbers are growing, anyway. To which positions do you refer?
If you refer to anti-Semitism, I don't know what to tell you. In the United States, the dissident right is already achieving its aims regarding Semitism, for the Semitic question is entering the national conversation. One gathers that you believe that normal people hate us for that, but this is an imaginary concern. Normal people who actually know any of us don't hate us any more than you do.
Because you're a normal person, too.
I was going to hit agree until I got to this last paragraph. This doesn't make a lot of sense. Some of them obviously get emotional satisfaction from maintaining their purity, but they really would like to "win". They just don't know how.Replies: @dfordoom
The term misogyny has been ridiculously over-used by feminists. In most cases they simply use the term to try to discredit anyone who dares to question feminist orthodoxy.
But having said that, if you regularly read comment threads here at UR you will encounter some extraordinary and irrational hostility towards women. I’m not sure how else to describe the outlook of some commenters here other than by describing it as misogynist. I can understand that you don’t like that word because of the way feminists have used it. OK, fair enough, but the kind of hostility towards women that is quite common here is something that is going to strike normies as misogynistic.
How successful do you think the dissident right has been in attracting support from women? How successful do you think a political movement is going to be if it cannot attract support from women?
I’m no feminist but there are men who really do have an irrational hatred of women and you’ll find a disturbing number of such men here.
But if you want to pretend that that’s not going to be a problem then that’s up to you. I’ve learnt that one of the chief characteristics of the far right is an unwillingness to accept unpleasant realities.
The dissident right marries women. It does not draw women toward politics.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @216, @The Alarmist
This is a class that is bereft of social capital, but with considerable free time. So you find many of them in places like this.
For younger men, many are the children of divorced parents; and one of the forerunners of our movements was the manosphere.
As most of the women in my peer SES bracket are feminists, I do feel resentment that its difficult to find a woman worth marrying. The feminists are on board with abortion, trans kids, discrimination against white/men.
And while the follwing is conjecture, I wonder about the physical stature of activists within our movements. We don't typically seem to have a "jock" background. In the "Tinder System", female selectiveness for physical stature, and particularly height; has arguably become unbalanced.
Even before the lockdown era, "male spaces" have been systemically undermined and been victims of anomie.
Our people have no cultural representation, they are relegated to remote corners of the Internet like this.
So I think we are entitled to be angry, even if its unoptical.Replies: @The Alarmist
It's not a matter of whether I'm willing to give them a fair shake. It's a matter of whether they have any chance of achieving their goals. My view is that they have consistently adopted positions that make it unlikely that they will ever gain any widespread popular support and very unlikely that they will ever gain any support at all among the elite (and as long as you have the entire elite united against you your chances of political success are exceedingly poor).
It's also my view that they have consistently chosen the wrong battles to fight. They have a remarkable capacity for choosing to fight the battles their enemies want them to fight, on grounds of their enemies' choosing and according to their enemies' rules.
The conclusion I've drawn is that they're not interested in winning. That they get some kind of emotional buzz out of being a persecuted minority.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen
Well, you’ve made it fairly clear that we’re losers in your view and, therefore, we’re going to lose, because losing is what losers do, and no one likes a loser.
I believe that this is your truthful assessment of the situation, and you’re right: no one does like a loser. However, I hardly know what to do with your assessment. Your premise assumes its own conclusion. The reasoning is circular.
Circular reasoning is not always bad, but it’s not very persuasive to persons who aren’t already standing in the circle.
Meanwhile, we’ve got a goal. We’re going to continue to pursue it. Undoubtedly, successes and failures along the way will modify goals as events clarify what can be achieved and what cannot; but there can be no successes, no failures and no clarifications until the attempt is essayed.
Your recommended mode of attack misdirects its energy toward élite targets that have no names and threaten no one because they do not actually exist. Whatever you might think of our prospects, at least we’ve got real targets.
So I suppose that you’ll just have to stand by and see what happens.
But having said that, if you regularly read comment threads here at UR you will encounter some extraordinary and irrational hostility towards women. I'm not sure how else to describe the outlook of some commenters here other than by describing it as misogynist. I can understand that you don't like that word because of the way feminists have used it. OK, fair enough, but the kind of hostility towards women that is quite common here is something that is going to strike normies as misogynistic.
How successful do you think the dissident right has been in attracting support from women? How successful do you think a political movement is going to be if it cannot attract support from women?
I'm no feminist but there are men who really do have an irrational hatred of women and you'll find a disturbing number of such men here.
But if you want to pretend that that's not going to be a problem then that's up to you. I've learnt that one of the chief characteristics of the far right is an unwillingness to accept unpleasant realities.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216
The present discussion suffers a teleological defect.
How can I convey the straightforward point that the dissident right does not intend to attract support from women?
The dissident right marries women. It does not draw women toward politics.
I'm not a member of the Dissident Right myself, I'm just a traditional throne-and-altar reactionary, but the same reasoning pertains.
There isn't much that the Dissident Right can or should attempt in the way of direct political action, especially in an age of electoral democracy. The only thing we should be doing is making our families and communities strong, trying to live rightly, and disengaging from the poz as much as possible.
In the meantime, we need to develop a body of work that can be published and referred to when opportunities do eventually arise. We need more writers.
Most younger unmarried dissident right men might be interested in marriage, but many of their female peers are not interested, or not interested in being a "tradwife".
Open endorsement of right-wing politics as a white male is one of the biggest turnoffs for peer-age women.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I love that appellation, 401(k) class. And the overlords can count on their support, if not loyalty, for now. They along with the government worker class (which includes the entire military brass and the security state). But without them to run interference against the proles it’s all over for the elite. Oh, I pray.
The dissident right marries women. It does not draw women toward politics.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @216, @The Alarmist
This is the point, really. It applies across the board.
I’m not a member of the Dissident Right myself, I’m just a traditional throne-and-altar reactionary, but the same reasoning pertains.
There isn’t much that the Dissident Right can or should attempt in the way of direct political action, especially in an age of electoral democracy. The only thing we should be doing is making our families and communities strong, trying to live rightly, and disengaging from the poz as much as possible.
In the meantime, we need to develop a body of work that can be published and referred to when opportunities do eventually arise. We need more writers.
I, too.
For those who do not reside in the United States: section 401(k) of the U.S. Internal Revenue code sets forth the terms of a popular type of employer-based retirement-savings program, heavily used by Americans whose incomes are (as I would guess) in the 70th to 90th percentiles. An American’s 401(k) money is typically invested in stocks. The Internal Revenue Code affords the profits (if any) favorable tax treatment. There are other details, but that is enough for non-U.S. readers to go on with.
The 401(k) class is the backbone of America. Perhaps 30 percent of the class are already half-loyal to the Deplorables. There are a lot of very stout folks in the 401(k) class: they just don’t want to hear certain awkward questions for now.
If the élites forfeit the subservience of the 401(k) class altogether, then the awkward questions will get heard—and then the élites will have hell to pay.
It's not a matter of whether I'm willing to give them a fair shake. It's a matter of whether they have any chance of achieving their goals. My view is that they have consistently adopted positions that make it unlikely that they will ever gain any widespread popular support and very unlikely that they will ever gain any support at all among the elite (and as long as you have the entire elite united against you your chances of political success are exceedingly poor).
It's also my view that they have consistently chosen the wrong battles to fight. They have a remarkable capacity for choosing to fight the battles their enemies want them to fight, on grounds of their enemies' choosing and according to their enemies' rules.
The conclusion I've drawn is that they're not interested in winning. That they get some kind of emotional buzz out of being a persecuted minority.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen
The primary reason that the far-right has no power in the Anglosphere, is because journolists and their funders don’t like the far-right. This is what I call the “Culture Industry”, along with academia.
I don’t know the statistics on political affiliation of Continental European media/academia, but I imagine while it is still lefty, its a lot less so than in the Anglosphere.
In 2016, we temporarily broke the gatekeeping, which the elites have spend mightily to restore.
We did it once, we can do it again, though not in the same method.
The dissident right marries women. It does not draw women toward politics.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @216, @The Alarmist
This is an aspirational concept.
Most younger unmarried dissident right men might be interested in marriage, but many of their female peers are not interested, or not interested in being a “tradwife”.
Open endorsement of right-wing politics as a white male is one of the biggest turnoffs for peer-age women.
First she falls for you, and then she adopts your politics. The sequence cannot be reversed, can it? Dissident right men understand this better than anybody, for they never expected women to think like men in the first place.
But I've been married 26 years and thus may be out of date.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
But having said that, if you regularly read comment threads here at UR you will encounter some extraordinary and irrational hostility towards women. I'm not sure how else to describe the outlook of some commenters here other than by describing it as misogynist. I can understand that you don't like that word because of the way feminists have used it. OK, fair enough, but the kind of hostility towards women that is quite common here is something that is going to strike normies as misogynistic.
How successful do you think the dissident right has been in attracting support from women? How successful do you think a political movement is going to be if it cannot attract support from women?
I'm no feminist but there are men who really do have an irrational hatred of women and you'll find a disturbing number of such men here.
But if you want to pretend that that's not going to be a problem then that's up to you. I've learnt that one of the chief characteristics of the far right is an unwillingness to accept unpleasant realities.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216
If you recall the IFS study, the highest endorsement of what they called “Alt Recht” positions, was found amongst divorced middle aged white men.
This is a class that is bereft of social capital, but with considerable free time. So you find many of them in places like this.
For younger men, many are the children of divorced parents; and one of the forerunners of our movements was the manosphere.
As most of the women in my peer SES bracket are feminists, I do feel resentment that its difficult to find a woman worth marrying. The feminists are on board with abortion, trans kids, discrimination against white/men.
And while the follwing is conjecture, I wonder about the physical stature of activists within our movements. We don’t typically seem to have a “jock” background. In the “Tinder System”, female selectiveness for physical stature, and particularly height; has arguably become unbalanced.
Even before the lockdown era, “male spaces” have been systemically undermined and been victims of anomie.
Our people have no cultural representation, they are relegated to remote corners of the Internet like this.
So I think we are entitled to be angry, even if its unoptical.
It's not a matter of whether I'm willing to give them a fair shake. It's a matter of whether they have any chance of achieving their goals. My view is that they have consistently adopted positions that make it unlikely that they will ever gain any widespread popular support and very unlikely that they will ever gain any support at all among the elite (and as long as you have the entire elite united against you your chances of political success are exceedingly poor).
It's also my view that they have consistently chosen the wrong battles to fight. They have a remarkable capacity for choosing to fight the battles their enemies want them to fight, on grounds of their enemies' choosing and according to their enemies' rules.
The conclusion I've drawn is that they're not interested in winning. That they get some kind of emotional buzz out of being a persecuted minority.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen
Elite support shall be needed. In the long term, there is little hope without it. You are very right about this. Moreover, the prospect of elite support for the dissident right is presently remote (which, of course, is precisely why we’re called dissident).
Opportunism will be required.
However, about the other half of your formulation:
Popularity is not our goal. Our numbers are growing, anyway. To which positions do you refer?
If you refer to anti-Semitism, I don’t know what to tell you. In the United States, the dissident right is already achieving its aims regarding Semitism, for the Semitic question is entering the national conversation. One gathers that you believe that normal people hate us for that, but this is an imaginary concern. Normal people who actually know any of us don’t hate us any more than you do.
Because you’re a normal person, too.
Most younger unmarried dissident right men might be interested in marriage, but many of their female peers are not interested, or not interested in being a "tradwife".
Open endorsement of right-wing politics as a white male is one of the biggest turnoffs for peer-age women.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I would not recommend approaching a woman with “Sieg heil!”
First she falls for you, and then she adopts your politics. The sequence cannot be reversed, can it? Dissident right men understand this better than anybody, for they never expected women to think like men in the first place.
But I’ve been married 26 years and thus may be out of date.
It's not a matter of whether I'm willing to give them a fair shake. It's a matter of whether they have any chance of achieving their goals. My view is that they have consistently adopted positions that make it unlikely that they will ever gain any widespread popular support and very unlikely that they will ever gain any support at all among the elite (and as long as you have the entire elite united against you your chances of political success are exceedingly poor).
It's also my view that they have consistently chosen the wrong battles to fight. They have a remarkable capacity for choosing to fight the battles their enemies want them to fight, on grounds of their enemies' choosing and according to their enemies' rules.
The conclusion I've drawn is that they're not interested in winning. That they get some kind of emotional buzz out of being a persecuted minority.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @216, @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen
The conclusion I’ve drawn is that they’re not interested in winning. That they get some kind of emotional buzz out of being a persecuted minority.
I was going to hit agree until I got to this last paragraph. This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Some of them obviously get emotional satisfaction from maintaining their purity, but they really would like to “win”. They just don’t know how.
It's also possible that they have a magical belief that glorious defeat will lead to final victory. The dissident right has a strong belief in magical thinking. After all, didn't Pickett's Charge pave the way for the final victory of the Confederacy? Oh, wait.
You may however be right. They might just have no idea how to go about winning.Replies: @iffen
The dissident right marries women. It does not draw women toward politics.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @216, @The Alarmist
Well said.
I shocked a young female colleague when she tried to elicit my views on women in the workplace by saying, “You can bear children, we can’t. It one reason why a real man will go to the ends of the earth to provide for the woman who cares for their children and makes them a home. You can choose to be a working female, or you can choose to be someone’s loved wife.”
As far as I know, she didn’t rat me out to HR, and we still do lunches from time to time, though when she said she looked at me as a role model, I had to quickly disabuse her of that notion and told her that I could be a mentor, but following my example might get her fired.
On a lighter note, I like what Rush Limbaugh occasionally says about the feminist movement, which is something to the effect of, “I love the feminist movement, particularly when I’m walking behind it.”
This is a class that is bereft of social capital, but with considerable free time. So you find many of them in places like this.
For younger men, many are the children of divorced parents; and one of the forerunners of our movements was the manosphere.
As most of the women in my peer SES bracket are feminists, I do feel resentment that its difficult to find a woman worth marrying. The feminists are on board with abortion, trans kids, discrimination against white/men.
And while the follwing is conjecture, I wonder about the physical stature of activists within our movements. We don't typically seem to have a "jock" background. In the "Tinder System", female selectiveness for physical stature, and particularly height; has arguably become unbalanced.
Even before the lockdown era, "male spaces" have been systemically undermined and been victims of anomie.
Our people have no cultural representation, they are relegated to remote corners of the Internet like this.
So I think we are entitled to be angry, even if its unoptical.Replies: @The Alarmist
Men still have the luxury of “marrying down” with little social penalty. It’s not so easy for the gals.
If you are a catch, the gals of your local church will quickly introduce you to a nice, single girl with values.
There is this sense that the racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism are somehow incidental to the main fight, which is against elite exploitation, bad economic policies, and a crazy Woke culture and anti-White racism.
But I think we must accept that for some people, things like elite exploitation are incidental and the heart of the fight is about restoring old racial and gender hierarchies.
I am trying not to view this moralistically but objectively. Rosie admitted she doesn’t much mind elite exploitation if it was done by Whites. I can understand her mindset if I make an effort. To her, each White is merely a cell in this larger organism known as the “White race”. So a White elite exploiting her, however pitilessly, is like the brain in the body using more energy than other parts. Its all a single unit, so there is no question of exploitation.
To people like Rosie, Intelligent Dasein, and V.K Ovelund, the point is to not live with Jews, Blacks, etc. Sure, they are also concerned about bad economic policies, the culture, etc, but the heart of their concern is racial hierarchy and gender hierarchy. To ask them to give this up is a complete misunderstanding of what their core interests are.
While this mindset is alien to me, I see no reason why we shouldn’t respect and allow people who want to to live this way to do so. If they can muster enough people to form a community, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to form racially pure communities.
While I would never set foot in it, I would even like to see Intelligent Dasein be allowed to recreate his archaic Catholic authoritarian patriarchy with racial purity – so long as everyone involved was entirely consenting.
However, it simply has no overlap with what my core interests are, and the core interests of the growing body of disaffected people who are beginning to question the system from many different races.
I’m not much concerned about ID, Ovelund, and Rosie types succeeding in imposing their vision on the mainstream – ID himself realizes they can only sit and watch from the sidelines and try and form their own communities. Going forward, there will be even less relevant. 7 years on, Unz has barely any relevance to the culture.
Its easy to say they are sidelining themselves from coming changes, but the fact is they have no real choice but to stick with what really matters to them.
In certain periods of European history, there was a proliferation of sects and religious cults, and all sorts of semi independent communes were formed. I see no reason why this should not happen again as the mainstream culture loses its ability to unite everyone under a single banner.
The world is big. America is big.
Of course it's a recipe for extreme political marginalisation.
The fight against elite exploitation, bad economic policies, and a crazy Woke culture and anti-White racism does have some chance of gaining widespread support and might even have a very small chance of attracting some very limited elite support. There's at least a slight prospect of success.
Trying to recreate the racial and sex hierarchies of the Victorian Age or even the 1950s obviously has no prospect at all of success but if that's what some people passionately believe in trying to do there's probably no way to persuade them that it's futile.
Just as there was no way of persuading Bobby Lee that Pickett's Charge was a bad idea. It was what he wanted to do.Replies: @AaronB
Men still have the luxury of “marrying down” with little social penalty.
At the risk of rousing Rosie up from her lily pad, you are sort of referring to hypergamy, and rather ignoring the actual marriage market of the current year.
If you are a catch, the gals of your local church will quickly introduce you to a nice, single girl with values.
Lol, sure, dude. How many years has it been since you were single in a church? 15? 20? 30?
More likely a single man in the typical US church will be introduced to a “wonderful, wonderful” single mother who now is complete “with values”. Sometimes that can work out, but many times it does not.
You make a good point. There’s a big difference between the guys who are convinced that they’re just fine and the rest of the world is crazy, and those of us who know that we’re messed up but recognize the crazy world that we’re a part and product of.
In a crisis of alienation, the first tend to become good at being bad leaders. The second tend to become good at being bad followers.
Me, I have just enough habit of individualism to reject being any kind of follower, but (for better or worse) not a high enough opinion of myself to be any kind of leader. Is that alienation, or just the bad luck of being too self-aware at the wrong time and place for it?
Your question is appropriate for any thinking guy in an atomized society. I'm presented with the similar doubts. It seems to me that alienation and isolation combined with too much introspection can lead to a self reinforcing feedback loop and attendant neurosis. Digital reality feeds this. I get a lot of food for thought here at UR, sometimes more than is healthy. The best advice that I can give myself is to remain curious, sceptical and self aware without sacrificing my sanity on the alter of self doubt and digital echoes. Exercise and walking help me clear my head.Replies: @anon
There are over 5 million Jews in the United States. While they may be over represented in the 1% Elite class, there is no way that the tiny number of Elite Jews represent the bulk of the Jewish population.
• Jews are not the problem.
• Incorrectly blaming them is a problem.
The 1% Elites need to fragment opposition. Don’t be a cuck. Refuse to go along with Elite manipulation that is intended to keep them on top.
PEACE 😇
In a crisis of alienation, the first tend to become good at being bad leaders. The second tend to become good at being bad followers.
Me, I have just enough habit of individualism to reject being any kind of follower, but (for better or worse) not a high enough opinion of myself to be any kind of leader. Is that alienation, or just the bad luck of being too self-aware at the wrong time and place for it?Replies: @tgordon
Solipsist,
Your question is appropriate for any thinking guy in an atomized society. I’m presented with the similar doubts. It seems to me that alienation and isolation combined with too much introspection can lead to a self reinforcing feedback loop and attendant neurosis. Digital reality feeds this. I get a lot of food for thought here at UR, sometimes more than is healthy. The best advice that I can give myself is to remain curious, sceptical and self aware without sacrificing my sanity on the alter of self doubt and digital echoes. Exercise and walking help me clear my head.
There's a name for that. It is called "rumination". People who overthink things tend to do that, and it isn't good. Ask me how I know this.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Rumination_(psychology)
Exercise and walking help me clear my head.
Good plan.Replies: @Sollipsist
Your question is appropriate for any thinking guy in an atomized society. I'm presented with the similar doubts. It seems to me that alienation and isolation combined with too much introspection can lead to a self reinforcing feedback loop and attendant neurosis. Digital reality feeds this. I get a lot of food for thought here at UR, sometimes more than is healthy. The best advice that I can give myself is to remain curious, sceptical and self aware without sacrificing my sanity on the alter of self doubt and digital echoes. Exercise and walking help me clear my head.Replies: @anon
It seems to me that alienation and isolation combined with too much introspection can lead to a self reinforcing feedback loop and attendant neurosis.
There’s a name for that. It is called “rumination”. People who overthink things tend to do that, and it isn’t good. Ask me how I know this.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Rumination_(psychology)
Exercise and walking help me clear my head.
Good plan.
Jews are the problem. No point in ignoring this reality.
Optics count for nothing. Nazis are just normal White people.
The Jews won’t leave US alone, not the other way round.
Its a question of seeing the enemy and making it FEAR US.
Do not try to befriend this pitiful alien parasite.
Look and learn from Trump.
He is philosemitic in the extreme. He has been a great boon for Zionism.
However,just being White and America First has made them despise him.
Do not follow his example. Learn from his mistake.
The Jew is the enemy. Now and forever. It cannot COEXIST with anyone peacefully.
Some years ago I read Lionel Shriver’s “The Mandibles” and could barely make it through, the picture she painted of a future economically depressed America was so horrifying and possibly real.
I think Intelligent Dasein is onto something. There is no question that when things get desperate economically, the political class will shiv the commoners to prop up their corporate partners, since it leaves the political/economic alliance stronger in the end.
Most white gentiles that dislike the dissident right don't know anything about the dissident right. Maybe when they learn more, what they learn will confirm their distaste, but the absurd lengths to which the dissident right's foes have gone to keep white gentiles from learning more suggests the opposite, don't you think?
Regarding misogyny: what do you mean? As far as I know, the word hardly has any content. It's a bluff. I'm calling it.Blacks and Asians and Jews are three entirely different, unrelated cases. Indeed, the Asian alone is a disparate collection of entirely different, unrelated cases; but in general I think that you've got this entirely backward. People aren't offended ipso facto by the notion that other people promote their own interests. Quite the opposite.
But suppose that all those people were offended. They aren't, but suppose that they were. So what? What would you have the dissident right do about it? Would you have them cease their dissent?Nonsense. Name names. Say specifically what is extreme and what is crazy—because I'll tell you what's extreme and crazy: it's this borderless craven fornicating feminized bureaucratized snitching overeating backstabbing hyperventilating slouching slovenly disloyal overstimulated homosexual therapeutic postmodern world we've created for ourselves.
And you know that, because no one in this comment column has explained it as well as you have done.Replies: @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri, @winter, @dfordoom, @dfordoom
Congrats V.K., your comment was featured on Gab by the inestimable Heartiste.
https://gab.com/Heartiste/posts/105744972550126290
My back-of-the-envelope calc is that is a 10× signal boost.
But I think we must accept that for some people, things like elite exploitation are incidental and the heart of the fight is about restoring old racial and gender hierarchies.
I am trying not to view this moralistically but objectively. Rosie admitted she doesn't much mind elite exploitation if it was done by Whites. I can understand her mindset if I make an effort. To her, each White is merely a cell in this larger organism known as the "White race". So a White elite exploiting her, however pitilessly, is like the brain in the body using more energy than other parts. Its all a single unit, so there is no question of exploitation.
To people like Rosie, Intelligent Dasein, and V.K Ovelund, the point is to not live with Jews, Blacks, etc. Sure, they are also concerned about bad economic policies, the culture, etc, but the heart of their concern is racial hierarchy and gender hierarchy. To ask them to give this up is a complete misunderstanding of what their core interests are.
While this mindset is alien to me, I see no reason why we shouldn't respect and allow people who want to to live this way to do so. If they can muster enough people to form a community, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to form racially pure communities.
While I would never set foot in it, I would even like to see Intelligent Dasein be allowed to recreate his archaic Catholic authoritarian patriarchy with racial purity - so long as everyone involved was entirely consenting.
However, it simply has no overlap with what my core interests are, and the core interests of the growing body of disaffected people who are beginning to question the system from many different races.
I'm not much concerned about ID, Ovelund, and Rosie types succeeding in imposing their vision on the mainstream - ID himself realizes they can only sit and watch from the sidelines and try and form their own communities. Going forward, there will be even less relevant. 7 years on, Unz has barely any relevance to the culture.
Its easy to say they are sidelining themselves from coming changes, but the fact is they have no real choice but to stick with what really matters to them.
In certain periods of European history, there was a proliferation of sects and religious cults, and all sorts of semi independent communes were formed. I see no reason why this should not happen again as the mainstream culture loses its ability to unite everyone under a single banner.
The world is big. America is big.Replies: @RSDB, @dfordoom
Most white gentiles that dislike the dissident right don't know anything about the dissident right. Maybe when they learn more, what they learn will confirm their distaste, but the absurd lengths to which the dissident right's foes have gone to keep white gentiles from learning more suggests the opposite, don't you think?
Regarding misogyny: what do you mean? As far as I know, the word hardly has any content. It's a bluff. I'm calling it.Blacks and Asians and Jews are three entirely different, unrelated cases. Indeed, the Asian alone is a disparate collection of entirely different, unrelated cases; but in general I think that you've got this entirely backward. People aren't offended ipso facto by the notion that other people promote their own interests. Quite the opposite.
But suppose that all those people were offended. They aren't, but suppose that they were. So what? What would you have the dissident right do about it? Would you have them cease their dissent?Nonsense. Name names. Say specifically what is extreme and what is crazy—because I'll tell you what's extreme and crazy: it's this borderless craven fornicating feminized bureaucratized snitching overeating backstabbing hyperventilating slouching slovenly disloyal overstimulated homosexual therapeutic postmodern world we've created for ourselves.
And you know that, because no one in this comment column has explained it as well as you have done.Replies: @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri, @winter, @dfordoom, @dfordoom
yeah the “misogyny” thing bugged me too. i mostly like what i’ve seen of dfordoom’s commentary but this one made no sense. misogyny (if degrading femininity, obliterating the institution of marriage, and immiserating women by brainwashing us with crazy-making lies about our own nature isn’t “misogyny,” i don’t know what is) was a huge part of the reason i woke up to what poison the crazy sjw radicals were selling, and men on the right — at least the ones i’ve encountered — have really quite consistently shown appreciation and care for women and a will to protect us (from real threats, rather than phantasmal “racist sexist homophobic neonazis” the left wants us to live in perpetual terror of), which contrasts very sharply with the Intersectional Feminist® brigade. and that makes me feel a lot more comfortable and safe around conservatives, far right or otherwise, than any other group. i mean, sure, if you really look, you can find a tiny number of weirdos clinging to the lunatic fringe of the mens’ rights movement like roosh valizdayeh publicly fantasizing about raping feminists or whatever he’s up to these days, but i’ve never felt at any risk of them being taken seriously by the MRA crowd or anyone else.
unfortunately i think many people who aren’t sufficiently innoculated against leftist memes have this reflex reaction to any discussion of women that isn’t fawning egalitarian nonsense (*especially* anything that talks about our weaknesses relative to men) where they just cry misogyny on general principles, without any concrete idea what they even mean. (this is a broad phenomenon — in general, asking people to clarify *why* they’re calling others specific names is not tolerated in Woke World; i’ve seen too many conversations along the lines of “excuse ME that man is a NAZI” “wait wtf seriously? what did he do” “HOW DARE YOU DEFEND A LITERAL NAZI YOU NAZI FILTH”). when you say things like, “society should stay patriarchal,” “husbands should support their families and wives should take care of the home and children,” etc, conservatives (of both genders and all cultures) tend to see that more as unremarkable common sense. but this qualifies as “violent regressive male-supremacist fascist misogyny” to some. the luxuries families used to dream of are now Oppression somehow.
best summary of the modern world ive seen so far ^_^
And the fact is that those women-hating men in the dissident right have done the dissident right a huge amount of harm. And the dissident right does have a major problem when it comes to gaining support from women.
You're just having a knee-jerk reaction to the word misogyny.
The reality is that there are people in the dissident right who hold some crazy and extreme views. Some of those views are every bit as crazy and extreme as the crazy and extreme views of Wokeists and SJWs. I think people are sick of crazy extreme stuff. They'd like to see sanity restored.
You have to decide if you want a serious political movement or if you're just LARPing. If you're just LARPing then by all means encourage the crazies and the extremists and the conspiracy theorists.
You have a point … it’s been a few decades.
There's a name for that. It is called "rumination". People who overthink things tend to do that, and it isn't good. Ask me how I know this.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Rumination_(psychology)
Exercise and walking help me clear my head.
Good plan.Replies: @Sollipsist
There’s a LOT of people like us. In other times, the question would be “how do we get together and turn our numbers into positive change?” But I’ve become so pessimistic that I no longer even see a precedent for positive change. Only survival and coping, at best. We’ve individually and collectively thought ourselves into a corner with no good way out.
unfortunately i think many people who aren't sufficiently innoculated against leftist memes have this reflex reaction to any discussion of women that isn't fawning egalitarian nonsense (*especially* anything that talks about our weaknesses relative to men) where they just cry misogyny on general principles, without any concrete idea what they even mean. (this is a broad phenomenon -- in general, asking people to clarify *why* they're calling others specific names is not tolerated in Woke World; i've seen too many conversations along the lines of "excuse ME that man is a NAZI" "wait wtf seriously? what did he do" "HOW DARE YOU DEFEND A LITERAL NAZI YOU NAZI FILTH"). when you say things like, "society should stay patriarchal," "husbands should support their families and wives should take care of the home and children," etc, conservatives (of both genders and all cultures) tend to see that more as unremarkable common sense. but this qualifies as "violent regressive male-supremacist fascist misogyny" to some. the luxuries families used to dream of are now Oppression somehow.best summary of the modern world ive seen so far ^_^Replies: @dfordoom
Oh come on. You can be opposed to feminist nonsense (as I am) without going to the opposite extreme of hating women. Unfortunately there are some men in the dissident right who do go to that opposite extreme. And they’re inclined to blame women for their own failures. I have no problem with blaming women when women do bad or stupid things but not everything is the fault of women.
And the fact is that those women-hating men in the dissident right have done the dissident right a huge amount of harm. And the dissident right does have a major problem when it comes to gaining support from women.
You’re just having a knee-jerk reaction to the word misogyny.
The reality is that there are people in the dissident right who hold some crazy and extreme views. Some of those views are every bit as crazy and extreme as the crazy and extreme views of Wokeists and SJWs. I think people are sick of crazy extreme stuff. They’d like to see sanity restored.
You have to decide if you want a serious political movement or if you’re just LARPing. If you’re just LARPing then by all means encourage the crazies and the extremists and the conspiracy theorists.
Most white gentiles that dislike the dissident right don't know anything about the dissident right. Maybe when they learn more, what they learn will confirm their distaste, but the absurd lengths to which the dissident right's foes have gone to keep white gentiles from learning more suggests the opposite, don't you think?
Regarding misogyny: what do you mean? As far as I know, the word hardly has any content. It's a bluff. I'm calling it.Blacks and Asians and Jews are three entirely different, unrelated cases. Indeed, the Asian alone is a disparate collection of entirely different, unrelated cases; but in general I think that you've got this entirely backward. People aren't offended ipso facto by the notion that other people promote their own interests. Quite the opposite.
But suppose that all those people were offended. They aren't, but suppose that they were. So what? What would you have the dissident right do about it? Would you have them cease their dissent?Nonsense. Name names. Say specifically what is extreme and what is crazy—because I'll tell you what's extreme and crazy: it's this borderless craven fornicating feminized bureaucratized snitching overeating backstabbing hyperventilating slouching slovenly disloyal overstimulated homosexual therapeutic postmodern world we've created for ourselves.
And you know that, because no one in this comment column has explained it as well as you have done.Replies: @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri, @winter, @dfordoom, @dfordoom
I agree wholeheartedly.
What I believe most people would like is a return to sanity and moderation. I know that moderate is a dirty word in dissident right circles but most people are by nature moderates.
I don’t think people want a different brand of craziness. I don’t think they want misogyny. They’d like men and women to treat each other with respect. I don’t think they want a race war. They don’t want anti-white racism but they don’t actually want anti-nonwhite racism either. They want a sane compromise on race. They don’t want mass immigration but they don’t want mass deportations. They don’t want a war on Christianity but they don’t want antisemitism either. They’d like to go back to the days when a person’s religion was his own business.
They don’t want Drag Queen Story Hour, men in frocks sharing locker rooms with girls or endless Gay Pride Marches but they don’t want homosexuals persecuted either.
People don’t want crazed conspiracy theories. Most people don’t think the Illuminati or Satanists run the world. They don’t want to be around people who believe that sort of stuff.
They want moderate economic policies. They don’t want communism but they don’t want mega-corporations running the world.
People want the grown-ups and the sane people in charge again.
The reality is that there are people in the elementary-school faculty / congregational church council / bird-watching club / county-fair organizing committee / team of roofers that put a new roof on my house last week who hold some crazy and extreme views. (I have learned this debate technique from you, thanks.)Maybe. It might make the discussion more tangible if you named a high-profile name or two; but if you're just talking about some random fellow who hasn't been lucky with women, I cannot see the point.I realize that you would like us to denounce various persons that lean our way. That won't happen. However, the correct pejorative for our attitude in the matter is neither “extreme” nor “crazy,” but “intransigent”—though I would prefer “kind,” “decent,” “loyal,” “calm,” “tolerant,” or even (dare I say) “moderate.”Half those things, like QAnon, have nothing to do with us. The list is confused.I am not sure what you are reacting to, but it isn't us.Perhaps I should step aside to let some other person, unknown to me, carry my side of this debate, because the debate seems to be targeted (except maybe in the imagination) at someone other than me and my comrades. If dissident right is merely to be a synonym for “counter-Semitic right-of-center persons of whom @dfordoom disapproves,” then am unsure what useful purpose the appellation would serve.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Most white gentiles that dislike the dissident right don't know anything about the dissident right. Maybe when they learn more, what they learn will confirm their distaste, but the absurd lengths to which the dissident right's foes have gone to keep white gentiles from learning more suggests the opposite, don't you think?
Regarding misogyny: what do you mean? As far as I know, the word hardly has any content. It's a bluff. I'm calling it.Blacks and Asians and Jews are three entirely different, unrelated cases. Indeed, the Asian alone is a disparate collection of entirely different, unrelated cases; but in general I think that you've got this entirely backward. People aren't offended ipso facto by the notion that other people promote their own interests. Quite the opposite.
But suppose that all those people were offended. They aren't, but suppose that they were. So what? What would you have the dissident right do about it? Would you have them cease their dissent?Nonsense. Name names. Say specifically what is extreme and what is crazy—because I'll tell you what's extreme and crazy: it's this borderless craven fornicating feminized bureaucratized snitching overeating backstabbing hyperventilating slouching slovenly disloyal overstimulated homosexual therapeutic postmodern world we've created for ourselves.
And you know that, because no one in this comment column has explained it as well as you have done.Replies: @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri, @winter, @dfordoom, @dfordoom
Pizzagate is crazy. QAnon is crazy. Seeing Satanist conspiracies everywhere is crazy. Blanket hostility towards women is crazy. Wanting millions of people deported is crazy and extreme. Defending Hitler is crazy (sorry, but it is crazy). Storming the Capitol was crazy. Wanting a race war is crazy. Wanting civil war is crazy. Believing that those in power will allow the establishment of a whites-only ethnostate is crazy. Wanting laws against fornication and wanting those laws enforced is crazy.
These are all crazy things and you’ll find all of these views regularly expressed right here on Unz Review.
I was going to hit agree until I got to this last paragraph. This doesn't make a lot of sense. Some of them obviously get emotional satisfaction from maintaining their purity, but they really would like to "win". They just don't know how.Replies: @dfordoom
I think you’re underestimating the glamour of the Lost Cause. And the glamour of Glorious Defeat. Think Pickett’s Charge. The last stand of the Old Guard at Waterloo. The Spartans at Thermopylae.
It’s also possible that they have a magical belief that glorious defeat will lead to final victory. The dissident right has a strong belief in magical thinking. After all, didn’t Pickett’s Charge pave the way for the final victory of the Confederacy? Oh, wait.
You may however be right. They might just have no idea how to go about winning.
But I think we must accept that for some people, things like elite exploitation are incidental and the heart of the fight is about restoring old racial and gender hierarchies.
I am trying not to view this moralistically but objectively. Rosie admitted she doesn't much mind elite exploitation if it was done by Whites. I can understand her mindset if I make an effort. To her, each White is merely a cell in this larger organism known as the "White race". So a White elite exploiting her, however pitilessly, is like the brain in the body using more energy than other parts. Its all a single unit, so there is no question of exploitation.
To people like Rosie, Intelligent Dasein, and V.K Ovelund, the point is to not live with Jews, Blacks, etc. Sure, they are also concerned about bad economic policies, the culture, etc, but the heart of their concern is racial hierarchy and gender hierarchy. To ask them to give this up is a complete misunderstanding of what their core interests are.
While this mindset is alien to me, I see no reason why we shouldn't respect and allow people who want to to live this way to do so. If they can muster enough people to form a community, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to form racially pure communities.
While I would never set foot in it, I would even like to see Intelligent Dasein be allowed to recreate his archaic Catholic authoritarian patriarchy with racial purity - so long as everyone involved was entirely consenting.
However, it simply has no overlap with what my core interests are, and the core interests of the growing body of disaffected people who are beginning to question the system from many different races.
I'm not much concerned about ID, Ovelund, and Rosie types succeeding in imposing their vision on the mainstream - ID himself realizes they can only sit and watch from the sidelines and try and form their own communities. Going forward, there will be even less relevant. 7 years on, Unz has barely any relevance to the culture.
Its easy to say they are sidelining themselves from coming changes, but the fact is they have no real choice but to stick with what really matters to them.
In certain periods of European history, there was a proliferation of sects and religious cults, and all sorts of semi independent communes were formed. I see no reason why this should not happen again as the mainstream culture loses its ability to unite everyone under a single banner.
The world is big. America is big.Replies: @RSDB, @dfordoom
I think you’re onto something there.
Of course it’s a recipe for extreme political marginalisation.
The fight against elite exploitation, bad economic policies, and a crazy Woke culture and anti-White racism does have some chance of gaining widespread support and might even have a very small chance of attracting some very limited elite support. There’s at least a slight prospect of success.
Trying to recreate the racial and sex hierarchies of the Victorian Age or even the 1950s obviously has no prospect at all of success but if that’s what some people passionately believe in trying to do there’s probably no way to persuade them that it’s futile.
Just as there was no way of persuading Bobby Lee that Pickett’s Charge was a bad idea. It was what he wanted to do.
I agree. But I think its not so much that they can't be persuaded its futile, as that is their hearts desire. All the other stuff - economy, culture, etc, are incidental to them.
Their primary desire is for a racial hierarchy with them on top.
However, I dont think it matters much. People like Rosie, Intelligent Dasein, Oveland, are unhappy without really understanding why. The anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny are just attempts to deal with their unhappiness by finding other people to blame.
Their particular solution merely means they won't be playing a serious role in changing the culture. But other people will, and they will benefit all the same.
Rosie's White kids will be uplifted by changes brought about by people belonging to races she hates. She just won't be a part of the change - she will even hinder it.
Yes, the racists and the anti-Semites will indeed make the change harder to achieve - the racists are pawns in the hands of the elite, who stoke their prejudices. That is obvious. But that will not work forever.
Eventually people of good will of all races will join together and create a movement that will successfully overcome the elite attempt to stoke racial division and create real economic and cultural change.
Its remarkable- and I was thinking about it today- that the old dream of genuine racial equality is dead. Everyone today argues for some form of racial privilege. No one dares to support actual racial equality anymore or racial harmony and amity. Across the board, everyone supports some form of racial division.
Its like the old dream has died, by tacit, unspoken, implied consensus.
What that means is, idealism has died, and selfishness has replaced it by tacit consent. But movements that challenge the status quo are driven by idealism of some kind - a vision of a better common future, not mere divisiveness and selfishness.
These "little visions" of racial divisiveness will eventually be successfully challenged by a "big vision" of a common better future. Big visions are always what work against petty small visions.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom
What I believe most people would like is a return to sanity and moderation. I know that moderate is a dirty word in dissident right circles but most people are by nature moderates.
I don't think people want a different brand of craziness. I don't think they want misogyny. They'd like men and women to treat each other with respect. I don't think they want a race war. They don't want anti-white racism but they don't actually want anti-nonwhite racism either. They want a sane compromise on race. They don't want mass immigration but they don't want mass deportations. They don't want a war on Christianity but they don't want antisemitism either. They'd like to go back to the days when a person's religion was his own business.
They don't want Drag Queen Story Hour, men in frocks sharing locker rooms with girls or endless Gay Pride Marches but they don't want homosexuals persecuted either.
People don't want crazed conspiracy theories. Most people don't think the Illuminati or Satanists run the world. They don't want to be around people who believe that sort of stuff.
They want moderate economic policies. They don't want communism but they don't want mega-corporations running the world.
People want the grown-ups and the sane people in charge again.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Then you know a thing that is not so.
Most of the goals you list are in fact the consensus goals of the American dissident right.
The reality is that there are people in the elementary-school faculty / congregational church council / bird-watching club / county-fair organizing committee / team of roofers that put a new roof on my house last week who hold some crazy and extreme views. (I have learned this debate technique from you, thanks.)
Maybe. It might make the discussion more tangible if you named a high-profile name or two; but if you’re just talking about some random fellow who hasn’t been lucky with women, I cannot see the point.
I realize that you would like us to denounce various persons that lean our way. That won’t happen. However, the correct pejorative for our attitude in the matter is neither “extreme” nor “crazy,” but “intransigent”—though I would prefer “kind,” “decent,” “loyal,” “calm,” “tolerant,” or even (dare I say) “moderate.”
Half those things, like QAnon, have nothing to do with us. The list is confused.
I am not sure what you are reacting to, but it isn’t us.
Perhaps I should step aside to let some other person, unknown to me, carry my side of this debate, because the debate seems to be targeted (except maybe in the imagination) at someone other than me and my comrades. If dissident right is merely to be a synonym for “counter-Semitic right-of-center persons of whom disapproves,” then am unsure what useful purpose the appellation would serve.
The reality is that there are people in the elementary-school faculty / congregational church council / bird-watching club / county-fair organizing committee / team of roofers that put a new roof on my house last week who hold some crazy and extreme views. (I have learned this debate technique from you, thanks.)Maybe. It might make the discussion more tangible if you named a high-profile name or two; but if you're just talking about some random fellow who hasn't been lucky with women, I cannot see the point.I realize that you would like us to denounce various persons that lean our way. That won't happen. However, the correct pejorative for our attitude in the matter is neither “extreme” nor “crazy,” but “intransigent”—though I would prefer “kind,” “decent,” “loyal,” “calm,” “tolerant,” or even (dare I say) “moderate.”Half those things, like QAnon, have nothing to do with us. The list is confused.I am not sure what you are reacting to, but it isn't us.Perhaps I should step aside to let some other person, unknown to me, carry my side of this debate, because the debate seems to be targeted (except maybe in the imagination) at someone other than me and my comrades. If dissident right is merely to be a synonym for “counter-Semitic right-of-center persons of whom @dfordoom disapproves,” then am unsure what useful purpose the appellation would serve.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Oh, I see what the problem is, . You think that the people that stormed the Capitol were dissident right.
Well, they weren’t. Those were MAGA Deplorables.
The dissident right were the crowd at Charlottesville three years earlier. Different crowd. Not much overlap.
Except for the inner party of the dissident right (and a few astute Unz-type readers), no distinction is made between or among such groups, events and political activities.
You may not care what the 99% believe, but you can't ignore that fact.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom
Triple-posting is poor style. Pardon, but I have inadvertently skipped a key point: the crowd that stormed the Capitol was pro-Israel as far as I know. So it can’t have been we, can it? (I know men who were at Charlottesville. I am unacquainted with a soul who went to Washington, D.C., January 6.)
Your persistence in following U.S. politics is remarkable, , but if I started saying things about the National Party of Australia or about the relationship between, say, Fraser Anning and Tony Abbott, I would undoubtedly get practically everything wrong. Not only would I get the facts wrong, but more importantly, I would miss the context—as you did with the Confederate statues.
Regarding the United States, I suppose that you’ll have to decide which American you find credible. If not me, then I hope that you can find someone else to help you to sort it out.
I take doom’s perspective to be the same as mine.
Except for the inner party of the dissident right (and a few astute Unz-type readers), no distinction is made between or among such groups, events and political activities.
You may not care what the 99% believe, but you can’t ignore that fact.
Just as most people did not distinguish between the countless Marxist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and Maoist splinter groups that proliferated in the 60s - they were all just commies. If you were a Maoist there was no point in saying, "Hey don't blame us for the craziness of those Trotskyists."
This is why I'm sceptical of the chances of any dissident or populist movement that identifies itself explicitly as right-wing - the far right has some major image problems.
Especially given that a lot of the positions taken by many on the far right are not actually very right-wing anyway. There's nothing actually right-wing about being opposed to open borders or being a social conservative or thinking that the Swamp should be drained or being appalled by political correctness and Wokeism. I manage to hold all those positions while being happily left-of-centre.
It might be advantageous for those who are (as AaronB put it) mostly concerned with opposing elite exploitation, bad economic policies, a crazy Woke culture and anti-White racism not to identify themselves as being explicitly right-wing.Yep. You may not care about bad optics but bad optics is something that has an effect on the 99%. In politics you just can't ignore the optics.Replies: @A123
It's also possible that they have a magical belief that glorious defeat will lead to final victory. The dissident right has a strong belief in magical thinking. After all, didn't Pickett's Charge pave the way for the final victory of the Confederacy? Oh, wait.
You may however be right. They might just have no idea how to go about winning.Replies: @iffen
Pickett’s Charge pave the way for the final victory of the Confederacy?
Well, just because a musket and bayonet charge against a fortified position defended by adequate numbers of troops armed with repeating rifles failed is no reason to think that the dissident right will fail. On second thought …
In any case, it took them well over 150 years to tear down the statues, so V. K. and others can play for time.
Except for the inner party of the dissident right (and a few astute Unz-type readers), no distinction is made between or among such groups, events and political activities.
You may not care what the 99% believe, but you can't ignore that fact.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom
It is not 99%, of course. Relevant facts are known to you, for example.
No, but mendacious, media-driven misconceptions are manifold, mate. We can only do what we do. Falling silent would not cure the misconceptions. Eventually, some persons, like you, will figure it out.
I stand corrected.
98.9%
This is wrong.
If the dissident right kept their anti-Semitism, overt racism and xenophobia to themselves, they wouldn't drag down the anti-immigrationists, the anti-Woke, the anti-PC and the anti-being white is racist people with them.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Except for the inner party of the dissident right (and a few astute Unz-type readers), no distinction is made between or among such groups, events and political activities.
You may not care what the 99% believe, but you can't ignore that fact.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom
Yep. The media and the average person don’t differentiate between the actions of the Judean People’s Front and the actions of the People’s Front of Judea. As far as the media and the normies are concerned there’s just the far right.
Just as most people did not distinguish between the countless Marxist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and Maoist splinter groups that proliferated in the 60s – they were all just commies. If you were a Maoist there was no point in saying, “Hey don’t blame us for the craziness of those Trotskyists.”
This is why I’m sceptical of the chances of any dissident or populist movement that identifies itself explicitly as right-wing – the far right has some major image problems.
Especially given that a lot of the positions taken by many on the far right are not actually very right-wing anyway. There’s nothing actually right-wing about being opposed to open borders or being a social conservative or thinking that the Swamp should be drained or being appalled by political correctness and Wokeism. I manage to hold all those positions while being happily left-of-centre.
It might be advantageous for those who are (as AaronB put it) mostly concerned with opposing elite exploitation, bad economic policies, a crazy Woke culture and anti-White racism not to identify themselves as being explicitly right-wing.
Yep. You may not care about bad optics but bad optics is something that has an effect on the 99%. In politics you just can’t ignore the optics.
It is not 99%, of course. Relevant facts are known to you, for example.
I stand corrected.
98.9%
Falling silent would not cure the misconceptions.
This is wrong.
If the dissident right kept their anti-Semitism, overt racism and xenophobia to themselves, they wouldn’t drag down the anti-immigrationists, the anti-Woke, the anti-PC and the anti-being white is racist people with them.
Just as most people did not distinguish between the countless Marxist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and Maoist splinter groups that proliferated in the 60s - they were all just commies. If you were a Maoist there was no point in saying, "Hey don't blame us for the craziness of those Trotskyists."
This is why I'm sceptical of the chances of any dissident or populist movement that identifies itself explicitly as right-wing - the far right has some major image problems.
Especially given that a lot of the positions taken by many on the far right are not actually very right-wing anyway. There's nothing actually right-wing about being opposed to open borders or being a social conservative or thinking that the Swamp should be drained or being appalled by political correctness and Wokeism. I manage to hold all those positions while being happily left-of-centre.
It might be advantageous for those who are (as AaronB put it) mostly concerned with opposing elite exploitation, bad economic policies, a crazy Woke culture and anti-White racism not to identify themselves as being explicitly right-wing.Yep. You may not care about bad optics but bad optics is something that has an effect on the 99%. In politics you just can't ignore the optics.Replies: @A123
Indeed. Trump’s Populist (or Christian Populist) “visionary” change in the political spectrum cannot be readily smeared as dissident right or far right. It embraces some values that are traditionally left. Placing U.S. Workers first is very Left. Ending service to international MegaCorporations is also Left.
Trump’s vision, now adopted by the Main Street GOP, has killed the very idea of a Left-Right spectrum for discussing U.S. politics. Now comes the battle to prevent the Elite Muslim Media (a.k.a. Fake Stream Media), led by The IslamoSoros, from mischaracterizing this movement. The last thing the sexually deviant Muslim Elites want is to lose the power they obtain from a Left-Right spectrum split that divides Christian opposition to their Jihadi goals.
PEACE 😇
Of course it's a recipe for extreme political marginalisation.
The fight against elite exploitation, bad economic policies, and a crazy Woke culture and anti-White racism does have some chance of gaining widespread support and might even have a very small chance of attracting some very limited elite support. There's at least a slight prospect of success.
Trying to recreate the racial and sex hierarchies of the Victorian Age or even the 1950s obviously has no prospect at all of success but if that's what some people passionately believe in trying to do there's probably no way to persuade them that it's futile.
Just as there was no way of persuading Bobby Lee that Pickett's Charge was a bad idea. It was what he wanted to do.Replies: @AaronB
.
I agree. But I think its not so much that they can’t be persuaded its futile, as that is their hearts desire. All the other stuff – economy, culture, etc, are incidental to them.
Their primary desire is for a racial hierarchy with them on top.
However, I dont think it matters much. People like Rosie, Intelligent Dasein, Oveland, are unhappy without really understanding why. The anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny are just attempts to deal with their unhappiness by finding other people to blame.
Their particular solution merely means they won’t be playing a serious role in changing the culture. But other people will, and they will benefit all the same.
Rosie’s White kids will be uplifted by changes brought about by people belonging to races she hates. She just won’t be a part of the change – she will even hinder it.
Yes, the racists and the anti-Semites will indeed make the change harder to achieve – the racists are pawns in the hands of the elite, who stoke their prejudices. That is obvious. But that will not work forever.
Eventually people of good will of all races will join together and create a movement that will successfully overcome the elite attempt to stoke racial division and create real economic and cultural change.
Its remarkable- and I was thinking about it today- that the old dream of genuine racial equality is dead. Everyone today argues for some form of racial privilege. No one dares to support actual racial equality anymore or racial harmony and amity. Across the board, everyone supports some form of racial division.
Its like the old dream has died, by tacit, unspoken, implied consensus.
What that means is, idealism has died, and selfishness has replaced it by tacit consent. But movements that challenge the status quo are driven by idealism of some kind – a vision of a better common future, not mere divisiveness and selfishness.
These “little visions” of racial divisiveness will eventually be successfully challenged by a “big vision” of a common better future. Big visions are always what work against petty small visions.
The difficulty is that the reasons they're getting shafted are complex so it's also understandable that they look for somebody to blame.
What's weird is the number of people (and I'm not suggesting that the three commenters you mention fall into this category) who prefer complicated conspiracy theories as explanations for their troubles.Replies: @iffen
This is wrong.
If the dissident right kept their anti-Semitism, overt racism and xenophobia to themselves, they wouldn't drag down the anti-immigrationists, the anti-Woke, the anti-PC and the anti-being white is racist people with them.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
The debate has been fun and, undoubtedly, we’ll tee it up again next week; but at this point it’s starting to go in circles. I’ll take the blame.
You and profoundly disagree with me regarding the utility of optics. As long as our treacherous foes control the media, good optics on the media’s terms is impossible for us, so to pursue such optics is fairly pointless in my view; yet your view differs.
Your conflation of the dissident right with MAGA is hard to take seriously, since you yourself know the difference, and have articulated the difference, quite well.
To you, a point of principle and a point of practicality militate against anti-Semitism. We’ve been over this, so I won’t say more, but here is how it is going to go: my comrades and I are going to do what we do; the media-controlled optics will be what they will be; we’ll win over a few more good men every month as we always win over; and we’ll all see what happens.
You won’t be joining us, but that’s all right. Enjoy the view from the sideline.
The Anti-White narrative is ramping up under Stupid Joe.
I expect more normies are going to see this as an existential threat.
They are going all out at pandering to blacks, and that should tear at their “coalition”.
You cannot keep Mexicans and blacks together without there being blowback.
Optics is not a thing. The Anti-White narrative never allows any White advocacy.
The system must be destroyed and the Jews must be censored from all media.
This may not seem doable right now, but the time is coming.
Its inevitable. A tiny and insignificant minority cannot rule.
White Nationalism and Fascism are the Future.
It is now inevitable. They will push and push until they are wiped out.
The enemy can never stop themselves. Over 100 countries have expelled them.
Over and over again. They NEVER learn. This is our advantage. We adapt.
I expect more normies are going to see this as an existential threat.
They are going all out at pandering to blacks, and that should tear at their "coalition".
You cannot keep Mexicans and blacks together without there being blowback.
Optics is not a thing. The Anti-White narrative never allows any White advocacy.
The system must be destroyed and the Jews must be censored from all media.
This may not seem doable right now, but the time is coming.
Its inevitable. A tiny and insignificant minority cannot rule.
White Nationalism and Fascism are the Future.
It is now inevitable. They will push and push until they are wiped out.
The enemy can never stop themselves. Over 100 countries have expelled them.
Over and over again. They NEVER learn. This is our advantage. We adapt.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
We’ll see.
I suspect that you have a point, but since I am not Mexican, it’s not up to me.
Unlike many dissident rightists, I am pro-Mexican, because the Mexicans seem willing to deal on reasonable terms, because I tend to like them, and because we need the allies we can get. Mexicans + Cubans + Mormons is a good combination: whatever differences one might have with any of those three, those are the good allies we can get; and together, the three add up to a large number of votes.
And for once the Democrats have missed the point, though they’re usually the smart ones. There is a bit more native talent and raw human capital among the Mexicans than the Democrats seem able to notice.
Of course a tiny number of people in these groups become apostate, Elite predators. In that way they closely resemble American Jews. Many are useful allies for traditional values, while a few like the J-Street and B'Teselem Elite apostates are reprehensible.
PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Venezuelans are also highly desirable as an ally. Much like Cubans they are natural & committed Anti-Communists.
Of course a tiny number of people in these groups become apostate, Elite predators. In that way they closely resemble American Jews. Many are useful allies for traditional values, while a few like the J-Street and B’Teselem Elite apostates are reprehensible.
PEACE 😇
Of course a tiny number of people in these groups become apostate, Elite predators. In that way they closely resemble American Jews. Many are useful allies for traditional values, while a few like the J-Street and B'Teselem Elite apostates are reprehensible.
PEACE 😇Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I do not know enough Venezuelans to judge. I’ll take your word.
I agree. But I think its not so much that they can't be persuaded its futile, as that is their hearts desire. All the other stuff - economy, culture, etc, are incidental to them.
Their primary desire is for a racial hierarchy with them on top.
However, I dont think it matters much. People like Rosie, Intelligent Dasein, Oveland, are unhappy without really understanding why. The anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny are just attempts to deal with their unhappiness by finding other people to blame.
Their particular solution merely means they won't be playing a serious role in changing the culture. But other people will, and they will benefit all the same.
Rosie's White kids will be uplifted by changes brought about by people belonging to races she hates. She just won't be a part of the change - she will even hinder it.
Yes, the racists and the anti-Semites will indeed make the change harder to achieve - the racists are pawns in the hands of the elite, who stoke their prejudices. That is obvious. But that will not work forever.
Eventually people of good will of all races will join together and create a movement that will successfully overcome the elite attempt to stoke racial division and create real economic and cultural change.
Its remarkable- and I was thinking about it today- that the old dream of genuine racial equality is dead. Everyone today argues for some form of racial privilege. No one dares to support actual racial equality anymore or racial harmony and amity. Across the board, everyone supports some form of racial division.
Its like the old dream has died, by tacit, unspoken, implied consensus.
What that means is, idealism has died, and selfishness has replaced it by tacit consent. But movements that challenge the status quo are driven by idealism of some kind - a vision of a better common future, not mere divisiveness and selfishness.
These "little visions" of racial divisiveness will eventually be successfully challenged by a "big vision" of a common better future. Big visions are always what work against petty small visions.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom
Your people, like Emmanuel Celler, just peddled it. They peddled it because it was bad for my people. They never bought in.
You know, I’ve read Leviticus 16, but at least Aaron didn’t try to psychoanalyze the goat.
Psychoanalyze yourself next time.
It was an inevitable result of the Enlightenment and the emergence of liberalism as the dominant ideology of the West. It was an inevitable result of the belief that hierarchies needed to be destroyed. You can see the emergence of the idea of equality and egalitarianism in the 18th century, in the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence. The fact that the United States rejected monarchy in favour of republicanism is evidence that such ideas were well established in the 18th century. Americans rejected the idea that a man should rule a nation through an accident of birth.
It was inevitable that such ideas would lead to a belief in racial equality.
You're blaming Jews for an ideology that was created by white gentile Europeans.The people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who peddled the idea of racial equality did so because they believed it was in everybody's best interests. You might believe that they were mistaken but it was an ideological position that was well-meaning. People don't always do things for sinister motives. There is such a thing as sincere idealism. For good or ill, sincere idealism is one of the characteristics of the new version of western civilisation which white gentile Europeans created in the 18th century.
Too much paranoia is not healthy.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mr. Rational
Actually, it’s the other way around.
Your people invented Secularism and then pushed it onto my people in order to destroy us. Every year a huge part of the Jewish community abandons Judaism and becomes secular and intermarries with gentiles.
It is obvious that White people invented the Enlightenment and Secularism as part of an evolutionary survival strategy to undermine other people’s traditional cultures in order to weaken their resistance to buying Western prpducts- which require total lifestyle changes – and to Western domination of the international system.
A White man, the English philosopher John Locke, is the originator of the idea of the Blank Slate – the grandfather of the open borders idea. Obviously, this was done in order to undermine other cultures belief in their uniqueness and hence ability to resist Western domination and culture.
Whites also invented medical advances tha allowed poor countries to proliferate well beyond sustainable numbers, ensuring weak and poor countries that can never challenge Western domination and a huge population to buy Western products.
Of course, White people themselves aren’t affected by the poison they push onto others – India might be miired in filth and overpopulation, but White countries are the richest in the world, continue to dominate the International system, and are not overpopulated but even experiencing a population decline.
When I start developing neurotic systems and believing in conspiracy theories, I will go in for psychoanalysis.
So you agree that those who make claims about white genocide have the same standing as Jews who fret about the disappearance of Jews?
I agree. But I think its not so much that they can't be persuaded its futile, as that is their hearts desire. All the other stuff - economy, culture, etc, are incidental to them.
Their primary desire is for a racial hierarchy with them on top.
However, I dont think it matters much. People like Rosie, Intelligent Dasein, Oveland, are unhappy without really understanding why. The anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny are just attempts to deal with their unhappiness by finding other people to blame.
Their particular solution merely means they won't be playing a serious role in changing the culture. But other people will, and they will benefit all the same.
Rosie's White kids will be uplifted by changes brought about by people belonging to races she hates. She just won't be a part of the change - she will even hinder it.
Yes, the racists and the anti-Semites will indeed make the change harder to achieve - the racists are pawns in the hands of the elite, who stoke their prejudices. That is obvious. But that will not work forever.
Eventually people of good will of all races will join together and create a movement that will successfully overcome the elite attempt to stoke racial division and create real economic and cultural change.
Its remarkable- and I was thinking about it today- that the old dream of genuine racial equality is dead. Everyone today argues for some form of racial privilege. No one dares to support actual racial equality anymore or racial harmony and amity. Across the board, everyone supports some form of racial division.
Its like the old dream has died, by tacit, unspoken, implied consensus.
What that means is, idealism has died, and selfishness has replaced it by tacit consent. But movements that challenge the status quo are driven by idealism of some kind - a vision of a better common future, not mere divisiveness and selfishness.
These "little visions" of racial divisiveness will eventually be successfully challenged by a "big vision" of a common better future. Big visions are always what work against petty small visions.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom
There are undoubtedly a lot of people these days who feel like they’re getting the rough end of the pineapple (and they’re correct to feel that way) and they’re angry and resentful (and understandably so).
The difficulty is that the reasons they’re getting shafted are complex so it’s also understandable that they look for somebody to blame.
What’s weird is the number of people (and I’m not suggesting that the three commenters you mention fall into this category) who prefer complicated conspiracy theories as explanations for their troubles.
"The Jews what done it" is not that complicated.Replies: @dfordoom
Your people invented Secularism and then pushed it onto my people in order to destroy us. Every year a huge part of the Jewish community abandons Judaism and becomes secular and intermarries with gentiles.
So you agree that those who make claims about white genocide have the same standing as Jews who fret about the disappearance of Jews?
Israel is that-a-way.
Now, where’s MY ethnostate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Ea6cUt658&ab_channel=IanBerwick
That’s not really true. Until the Great Awokening racial equality (and the belief in the desirability of racial colourblindness) was pretty much a universal belief among educated westerners, Jewish or non-Jewish.
It was an inevitable result of the Enlightenment and the emergence of liberalism as the dominant ideology of the West. It was an inevitable result of the belief that hierarchies needed to be destroyed. You can see the emergence of the idea of equality and egalitarianism in the 18th century, in the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence. The fact that the United States rejected monarchy in favour of republicanism is evidence that such ideas were well established in the 18th century. Americans rejected the idea that a man should rule a nation through an accident of birth.
It was inevitable that such ideas would lead to a belief in racial equality.
You’re blaming Jews for an ideology that was created by white gentile Europeans.
The people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who peddled the idea of racial equality did so because they believed it was in everybody’s best interests. You might believe that they were mistaken but it was an ideological position that was well-meaning. People don’t always do things for sinister motives. There is such a thing as sincere idealism. For good or ill, sincere idealism is one of the characteristics of the new version of western civilisation which white gentile Europeans created in the 18th century.
Too much paranoia is not healthy.
The difficulty is that the reasons they're getting shafted are complex so it's also understandable that they look for somebody to blame.
What's weird is the number of people (and I'm not suggesting that the three commenters you mention fall into this category) who prefer complicated conspiracy theories as explanations for their troubles.Replies: @iffen
who prefer complicated conspiracy theories
“The Jews what done it” is not that complicated.
But these days we're also seeing something else happen. Many angry resentful people are resorting to complex and elaborate conspiracy theories (involving coded messages in pizza menus, high-tech CIA mind-control technology, impossibly convoluted searches for evidence of Satanism among the elites, complex assassination conspiracy theories involving multiple layers of Deep State actors).
This seems to be something new.
Instead of a simple lashing out at a hated outsider group we're seeing full-blown grandiose delusions that resemble the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. It could just be a result of closing the mental hospitals and letting the paranoid schizophrenics walk the streets, or maybe we're seeing these symptoms appearing in non-schizophrenics possibly as side-effects of drugs.
There's also the idea Ron Unz floated a while back, that the CIA or the FBI were spreading conspiracy theories in order to distract attention away from conspiracies. I love the idea of conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories!Replies: @iffen
It was an inevitable result of the Enlightenment and the emergence of liberalism as the dominant ideology of the West. It was an inevitable result of the belief that hierarchies needed to be destroyed. You can see the emergence of the idea of equality and egalitarianism in the 18th century, in the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence. The fact that the United States rejected monarchy in favour of republicanism is evidence that such ideas were well established in the 18th century. Americans rejected the idea that a man should rule a nation through an accident of birth.
It was inevitable that such ideas would lead to a belief in racial equality.
You're blaming Jews for an ideology that was created by white gentile Europeans.The people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who peddled the idea of racial equality did so because they believed it was in everybody's best interests. You might believe that they were mistaken but it was an ideological position that was well-meaning. People don't always do things for sinister motives. There is such a thing as sincere idealism. For good or ill, sincere idealism is one of the characteristics of the new version of western civilisation which white gentile Europeans created in the 18th century.
Too much paranoia is not healthy.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mr. Rational
I have read it, thanks. This ground has now been well trod by us, so your comment can be the last word for the present. I appreciate the colloquy.
"The Jews what done it" is not that complicated.Replies: @dfordoom
I know. That was the point I was making (although I probably didn’t make it clearly). Mostly people who are angry and resentful respond by simplistic blaming of a particular group of people (Jews, blacks, commies, women). That has always been common.
But these days we’re also seeing something else happen. Many angry resentful people are resorting to complex and elaborate conspiracy theories (involving coded messages in pizza menus, high-tech CIA mind-control technology, impossibly convoluted searches for evidence of Satanism among the elites, complex assassination conspiracy theories involving multiple layers of Deep State actors).
This seems to be something new.
Instead of a simple lashing out at a hated outsider group we’re seeing full-blown grandiose delusions that resemble the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. It could just be a result of closing the mental hospitals and letting the paranoid schizophrenics walk the streets, or maybe we’re seeing these symptoms appearing in non-schizophrenics possibly as side-effects of drugs.
There’s also the idea Ron Unz floated a while back, that the CIA or the FBI were spreading conspiracy theories in order to distract attention away from conspiracies. I love the idea of conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories!
There’s always the Ukraine.
But these days we're also seeing something else happen. Many angry resentful people are resorting to complex and elaborate conspiracy theories (involving coded messages in pizza menus, high-tech CIA mind-control technology, impossibly convoluted searches for evidence of Satanism among the elites, complex assassination conspiracy theories involving multiple layers of Deep State actors).
This seems to be something new.
Instead of a simple lashing out at a hated outsider group we're seeing full-blown grandiose delusions that resemble the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. It could just be a result of closing the mental hospitals and letting the paranoid schizophrenics walk the streets, or maybe we're seeing these symptoms appearing in non-schizophrenics possibly as side-effects of drugs.
There's also the idea Ron Unz floated a while back, that the CIA or the FBI were spreading conspiracy theories in order to distract attention away from conspiracies. I love the idea of conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories!Replies: @iffen
This seems to be something new.
No, what is different is the media and the expanded social media access of the masses. These groups and ideas have always been around. When I was a teenager, I saw the John Birch Society distributing elaborate pamphlets explaining the dangers of fluoridation with not-so-subtle hints that it was the work of nefarious individuals and groups. There have always been anti-Masons, various Illumanatis, Straussians, esoterics, etc., not to mention 10, 001 religious sects and groups.
Also different is the media promoting groups like QAon in order to vilify and discredit legitimate opposition to governmental actions and policies.
Most unsettling is that resources of the U. S. government are being increasingly diverted from protecting the U. S. from various threats and instead are being used to protect the government from scrutiny and for protection from individuals and groups demanding accountability.
It was an inevitable result of the Enlightenment and the emergence of liberalism as the dominant ideology of the West. It was an inevitable result of the belief that hierarchies needed to be destroyed. You can see the emergence of the idea of equality and egalitarianism in the 18th century, in the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence. The fact that the United States rejected monarchy in favour of republicanism is evidence that such ideas were well established in the 18th century. Americans rejected the idea that a man should rule a nation through an accident of birth.
It was inevitable that such ideas would lead to a belief in racial equality.
You're blaming Jews for an ideology that was created by white gentile Europeans.The people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who peddled the idea of racial equality did so because they believed it was in everybody's best interests. You might believe that they were mistaken but it was an ideological position that was well-meaning. People don't always do things for sinister motives. There is such a thing as sincere idealism. For good or ill, sincere idealism is one of the characteristics of the new version of western civilisation which white gentile Europeans created in the 18th century.
Too much paranoia is not healthy.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mr. Rational
You could not be more wrong. The transformation of anthropology from what we’d now call “race realist” in orientation into radical egalitarianism was due to the malign influence of ONE academic, (((Franz Boas))), and his students. The NAACP was founded by the small hats, who comprised most of its leadership for decades. And one of the goals of the (((Soviet))) KGB was to bring about the downfall of the USA by fomenting racial tensions… which a race-realist country would eliminate by simply accepting that the races are different and not fungible, so stop trying to turn blacks into something they’re not.
Do I really need to refer you to the composition of the Frankfurt School?
Once you see their handiwork, you can’t un-see it.
First she falls for you, and then she adopts your politics. The sequence cannot be reversed, can it? Dissident right men understand this better than anybody, for they never expected women to think like men in the first place.
But I've been married 26 years and thus may be out of date.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Ron needs to add a “cringe” button!
Yet women, by and large, seem to find more important things to do than to hang out on a fine blog like this. This should tell us something.
Optics count for nothing. Nazis are just normal White people.
The Jews won't leave US alone, not the other way round.
Its a question of seeing the enemy and making it FEAR US.
Do not try to befriend this pitiful alien parasite.
Look and learn from Trump.
He is philosemitic in the extreme. He has been a great boon for Zionism.
However,just being White and America First has made them despise him.
Do not follow his example. Learn from his mistake.
The Jew is the enemy. Now and forever. It cannot COEXIST with anyone peacefully.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Jewish outmarriage rates are at historical records. They thus literally coexist with a lot of non-Jews right now.
Maybe so. Every wife is different.
Yet women, by and large, seem to find more important things to do than to hang out on a fine blog like this. This should tell us something.