I pray we get the Jerusalemite approach. Socrates was a legitimate threat to Athens.

The last thing a society wants is some impious philosopher to redesign society only to realise it’s a vastly more complicated machine than he expected. Libya is not a society we should aspire to become, yet that’s just what the philosophers would have us be, after they tear down all structures and sources of meaning, virtue, order.

The final words of the great philosophers after breaking a society: “Oops! We didn’t know.”

What does the author think of Calvin Coolidge or Senator Robert Taft, I wonder? Many on the historic “Right” have been more pro-worker than those on the historic “Left”.

There’s merit in the original article, but does the author also support mass immigration? I expect he does. Western polities wouldn’t be so divided were it not for the same “Left” that voted to import foreigners. As a result, we are divided.

Politically, different groups have been shaped to achieve ends which weaken the West and encourage an environment of corruption and exploitation. I expect this mythical “Left” is no different, just another group that was used for a different end, led along by false promises.

After WWII, the US was the only developed economy. It could have chosen to protect that advantage or to selectively redevelop parts of the world. Instead, it sought profit and also globalism by pursuing cheap foreign labour. Had the US chosen protection, it could have preserved a large middle class, a relatively slight wealth gap, and could have done away with most government programs, including social security.

No one went this route, because the workers are too stupid, and the elite are too greedy and also dream of some faux global utopia that’ll never be. I’m glad Trump has restored some sanity to politics, awakened some Americans to realistic dreams of a bright future, a future we can perhaps never achieve because we’re now too divided, due to mass immigration which the accursed anti-worker Left advocated for.

RamzPaul,

you tweeted “they” as singular, but that is incorrect. “He” is singular neutral. When in doubt, “he” is the pronoun to use.

I write this respectfully. I’m not currently on twitter, so I just post here.

On topic, I agree of course. There is and has long been an obvious double standard.

I disagree that science constrains anything really. It’s just a pursuit of knowledge. It’s popular to assert our genetics drive us towards some ethical valuation; but largely I disagree with that, because we’re not given objective values, only feelings.

You make a good argument, but I believe it is only religion which could justify the values I hold. What I fear is the loss of that which gives life value. I fear the world becoming plastic and meaningless. If I go into a nature reserve, I don’t want to see trees growing neon advertisements in their bark for Monsanto. I instead wish to see trees that developed without the direct influence of man, perhaps being bred but never genetically altered. So, their source is with a sense of the Creator or at least beyond man. Pagans often saw nature as tied to the gods.

I fear man replacing God, in a sense. And I fear the resulting moral relativity.

And, to keep things brief, I’d prefer nations to be distinct, developing their own traditions, organically. Elites direct development somewhat, but I hope not to have direct genetic engineering, especially not in the creation of genes that weren’t preexisting.

If you can follow my concerns there, that’s really all I have to say. It’s a simple concern. Wars and famines can take place, yet sources of meaning would still exist in the world. What I fear most I perceive as much worse than any hypothetical body count from another sort of disaster.

Religion is part of the solution, if those in power believe.*

Power interests aren’t driven solely by a pursuit of power. Some are legitimate nationalists, some legitimately devout. I’m no fan of Nietzsche, but I believe he wrote, “the spirited triumph over the strong.” Something like that.

I have other ideas on power relations. Religion is just a component, which isn’t to say I’m some expert.

*CS Lewis loosely paraphrased, I want to say? He said the powerful can also believe, I think.

Those at the mercy of the powerful should be grateful when those powerful refrain from abuse, because often the strong do so exploit their position. And who is to say, outside of a religion, that the strong abusing the weak is somehow wrong?

Peace arises from a balance of power that prevents the strong from abusing the weak. Religion, tradition, nationalism, community (meaning human-scale (small) social communities), etc. can help provide that balance, just as they can create imbalance. Atheism, however, is always imbalanced.

When the US declines, another power structure will replace it. If that structure is balanced, then it might not meddle much in the affairs of others. If it is China alone, ruled by a single ruler, then we could likely see great abuse, just as we see abuse today. China is limited today in whom it may abuse, only because it is weak. The US abuses others, because it is strong and unrestrained. (Also, the US is barbaric, ruled by common voters and special interests.) Such is the way of power.

Particular examples might help you understand the issue:

If China comes to power, with a head of state who is largely unbound by his Party and also unbound by Europe and the US (who will have fallen into decay and civil war):

China’s leader then could do anything. It might look to Africa’s rich resources, decide it would be easier to obtain them if not for Africa’s disruptive tribal population. A virus might be engineered that targets only Africans, or perhaps birth control would be pumped throughout African water supplies. This mass genocide would in a sense be “rational”, because China desires resources, though most religions would find it immoral. I certainly don’t wish to wipe out Africa.

Alternatively, China’s leader might realise it would be more efficient were China’s populace replaced by genetically engineered workers, bred to be compliant. GDP might improve, crime decline, thus all would be in a sense “rational”. Though again, most religions would find this immoral.

You seem to believe what is “rational” is somehow clearly set. It is not.

History reveals atheism to be the plague of humanity. Communist atheists killed over 100 million people, tortured and worked to death millions of others last century. No greater evil has been witnessed. Unbound, communist elites rationally pursue their power interests to the fullest, numb to how many die and suffer in the process.

It is money, not religion, that drives Americans to bomb others. Many behind America’s wars are atheists, encouraging atheism and depravity in Muslim lands. US wars have harmed Christians greatly.

You’re afraid of this truth: “Absent a religious foundation, progress falls to relativity.” You can’t face that truth; you fear the abyss, because you haven’t addressed it yet.

I argued in defence of theism as opposed to atheism. Nowhere did I assert Christianity is the only religion.

You’re too emotional to follow my arguments, sadly. You’re not replying to what I’m actually arguing.

I don’t know that I’m whom you’re thinking of.

Why would the US need to “shut itself off” from other polities? The ideal of protectionist trade is to trade where mutually beneficial. The EU, China, Japan, SK, India, and nearly all other of our trading partners use trade protections in the form of border adjusted VAT.

Why shouldn’t the US use protectionist trade, which has built so many past societies, including the US? (The first tax passed in the US was a trade tariff.) Why must the US subsidise the rest of the world’s development? You have no understanding of trade.

–

Cost of living is inflated in the US in the sectors you mention, and that’s primarily because of government intervention and also due to the Federal Reserve. You’re repeating standard lines from the television, totally misunderstanding what I’m arguing.

I’m no fan of Hayek. Try Belloc; I’m a distributist.

Most of what you propose does not help the bottom 99%.

Employers want to hire foreign workers, because they work for less. So, they import them or outsource to hire them. Trade tariffs and immigration/guest worker reduction reduce this supply, thus improving wages more than the increase in costs.

Education and healthcare would become even more inefficient under your proposals. What oligarchs want is a helpless, dependent, vulnerable working class that cannot pose a threat. Your reforms, unbeknownst to you apparently, bring about such servitude.

The ideal is for workers to own and earn more, for small businesses to have a chance to compete, and to generally decentralise wealth and power without direct government redistribution as you propose.

What you want is a small managerial elite that crushes the rest of the population, tossing down crumbs and declaring society to be a utopia. Decentralised wealth and power would be better.

You’re not even attempting to understand my arguments. What does “enlightenment” and “regressive” even mean? You don’t understand what is meant by, “progress falls to relativity in the absence of religion”.

I can’t break through your cognitive dissonance and incuriosity.

If the world “ends”, it’ll be by the hand of some dissociated, rational atheist who asks, “Why not?”

I’m sure many promises were made. We could always just deport illegals, but we’re to believe doing so would be somehow difficult. If illegals couldn’t find jobs nor receive welfare, and if the police could check their IDs, then they’d be deported more readily, including self-deportation. Visa overstays could also be tracked.

In 1965, it was promised the demographics wouldn’t change. Less than 100 years later, the US will have changed from 89% white to less than a majority. Rapid change.

Hypothetically, if Mexico’s standard of living were raised, then Mexicans would be less motivated to enter the US or to sell drugs to the US. But what about the rest of Central and South America? And what about the rest of the world? It would be easier to just deport illegals, in my view. Many foreigners cross through Mexico to the US, and many enter elsewhere.

Cob is a very nice medium for housing. It’s good to have ties to traditional ways, no need to rush into modernity. Sewage, water, and electricity are pleasant, however. I would love to have a cob house, Irish style.

Religion is not the only variable, and it has a synergistic effect when established within a complete system. Every past civilisation has been religious. It provides value where value doesn’t otherwise exist. It defines progress, where progress would otherwise fall to relativity. *In an overpopulated, transient, atomised world approaching biotech and AI, man needs religion now more than ever.*

The root of culture is “cult”; children are raised by culture as crops are raised by agriculture. It’s nonsense to say we can do without religion, because even you hold certain values which are properly labeled religious. A bit of cognitive dissonance might be requisite for a healthy psyche, but you undoubtably hold values. And no, your DNA does not compel you to be some benevolent person as is so popular to argue today. You could be conditioned by society to hold certain values, but only religion could provide a logical source for those values.

Simply, no. A healthy polity is religious; every past civilisation has been religious. Common argument: “The root of ‘culture’ is ‘cult’, and children are raised by culture as crops are raised by agriculture.”

I don’t want to repeat the same counterarguments, but biotech and AI are on the horizon. And only a religion can provide values, define progress. Progress, and all ability to define values, falls to relativity otherwise.

South America is a good rebuttal. I suppose they lack nationalism, roots and also have other problems which are impolite to acknowledge.

They additionally seem dominated by US businesses and US government meddling. South Americans are tempted by drugs, which the US doesn’t want them to produce. And they’re plagued by socialism as a quasi religion, which isn’t to suggest “capitalism” is the alternative. Also, the US imposes “democracy”. It’s a mess. Costa Rica (which, yes, is Central) is said to be doing relatively well, due I think to an excellent past president. A strong leader like Singapore’s LKY is necessary, especially since to actually build up a South American polity might require attracting foreign investment while preventing a US coup. The US would probably like success, but it also wants control. And America’s government is inept and ideological. (Lennie from Of Mice and Men)

Polities are complex. Religion has been important to every civilisation to date. It provides a source of values, an ability to define progress, and it explains why man is not a disease of the dust. Socrates was made to drink poison when he threatened the foundation of his society.

If you’re Chinese, you might be prevented from reading arguments in favour of religion; but with biotech and AI on the horizon, I struggle to understand how any could uphold atheism. (I’m more fearful of biotech than AI, but AI gets popularly mentioned, so I include it.)

–

If focusing on the simple and obvious, then, yes, trust and virtue are tied to religion. Religion is not the only facet to consider. Reduced transience and increased community ties would also improve virtue. Communities can conflict, reducing trust and creating division, but they can also provide for social needs. A fluid (transient) managerial machine could become dissociated within: The elites ruling over could lose empathy with/understanding of those they rule, and the rest of the population could lose attachment as well.

My original argument is just that political science is more complicated. The IQ reductionists oversimplify complicated problems. This is why I go off topic in the second-to-last paragraph, to exemplify the complexity.

The following book was previously available at Amazon:

The Crucifixion of Russia: A History of the Russians and the Jews A new English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together
Falco, Columbus

But it is currently unavailable. I own it, English version. The Russian is still available.

–

The New Jerusalem (including last chapter on Zionism) by GK Chesterton is still for sale.

It’s just interesting to see what gets censored.

A large middle class and reduced transience (more community) are good things, certainly don’t require socialism. Inequality today is often due to globalism (bad trade/mass immigration) but also central banks and the banking system in general.

I disagree that the “political inequality” resulting from great wealth gaps is a surprise. Pre-Internet, the masses were kept ignorant by the mass media, corralled away from unwanted ideas, corralled into a constructed dichotomy. Today we have the Internet, notably websites like this one.

Political science could be written as a triangle: Managerial at the top, chaos at the left, and distributism at the right. I think this clarifies how different small, traditional (Christian) communities are from a large, technocratic managerial state (at the top) and also from chaos (at the left).

The goal of most equality reforms is to pacify and neuter the impoverished masses, while cementing wealth and power under a managerial elite. There have been intentional reforms by “socialist” leaning politicians, such as Obama, to increase inequality. TPP, TTIP, TiSA are an excellent example. Obama wants the resulting instability; it’s intended to bring about reforms like single payer and gun control.

If the word “equality” were replaced with “enslavement”, it would be more accurate. (Belloc called it a “return to slavery”, the “Servile State”.) But those arguing against the “socialists” also push for what’s essentially enslavement. That’s why I say, there must be a third option to consider suppressed ideas, essentially to resist enslavement. Allowing others to construct a dichotomy for us just leads us to be corralled again, as with the pre-Internet era.

I see the “IQ is everything” crowd is at it again. China suffers from corruption, atheism, and workfare inefficiency. It has significant problems, as does the US. US problems are 90% immigration related, but that’s another topic.

China is wanting to make a very difficult transition. I expect China could come to replace the US as global ruler, but that won’t happen in the 2020s. A key word is “could”, because IQ is simply not everything. Polities are more complicated. There is much more complexity to political science.

Tocqueville’s assertion about ancient slavery is spurious. The Spartans ruled over the helots. You had multiple races in Greece, though a sense of Greekness arose. Egypt and India are two additional examples.

I just say this, because the assertion is a popular myth that is not entirely true. There is an element of truth to it, but it is not entirely true. He wants it to be true, however.

The truth of the ancients is they were human, like us.

The US is responsible for exiting Iraq, you mean.

It is Iraqis who are responsible for fixing their own problems.

Ridiculous. Blacks and whites in the South aren’t as you imagine. Also, our societies are split between the two groups, so it’s a very different social situation. Furthermore, we have outsiders manipulating the situation for political reasons.

Tariffs are not always good, but they can be, if a polity has the scale and resources to develop a particular industry.

They encourage domestic investment.

If Trump can achieve actual free trade between Europe and the US, then the whole of the two will benefit, until one or both figure how to cheat. It’s difficult to have true free trade unless under the same government, and even then regions compete. So, global free trade is really global government.

Importing immigrants is an entirely different issue, but without some form of trade protection, the US is in a race to the bottom in wages. Mexico is said able to undercut even China in wages. $2 / hr is the number I’ve seen.

There’s no reason at all to associate mass immigration with trade protections. Since protections lead to nationalist business, having interests tied to the fate of the US nation, the business comes to have an interest in America’s future.

Keep in mind, Marx favoured free trade.

I just quickly wanted to post praise for the March 1995 Sam Francis article example. That is a fantastic classic, one which I recently couldn’t find to link in a debate, though it’s probably here at Unz. Without Chronicles etc, I would be politically oblivious.

The unfortunate side effect of learning polisci though is one loses the ability to communicate with many others. For example, Republicans used to think protectionist trade to be “socialist”, because their mass media orgs programmed them that way. They weren’t able to think for themselves. And no one likes being told he’s an idiot or that his daily political “activism” is just low brow brainwashing. The mass media had dumbed down society considerably. Historic free trade advocates in the US could at least debate the matter, but with the radio and tv, US society became a society of dumb cattle.

I don’t care about drugs currently, because I’m focused on the long term. In the ideal, I want drugs banned. I’d even be open to a ban on alcohol except that it’s been part of European culture for so long. I’ve never had trouble with alcohol, but it does appear harmful to some.

Drugs covered, I like Rand Paul, because he’d audit the Federal Reserve (hopefully end it), break up the surveillance/police state, bring troops home, veto excessive defence spending bills, break up global trade, pick good judges, and hopefully change the system in other ways.

It’s Congress that needs to be strong on immigration.

Maybe once this economic bubble bursts, more Americans will want to reduce immigration, due to high unemployment and low wages. But I’m amazed at how stupid American voters are that many don’t believe immigration/guestworkers/ill aliens lower wages.

But could Rand Paul even get elected? That’s the question. Many voters like their social security, might fear a cut. He would need to go a bit populist, like Trump, talk about higher wages, greater equality arising from a better market system.

Utilities are arguably public sector oriented, but we have a sort of alternative that is acceptable in the US. And solar could become private sector oriented.

There is more to consider than socialism vs. capitalism. So “mixed” needn’t mean a mix of those two.

People tend to forget the third, very different, option: Small businesses, decentralisation. And I would add to this the need for a balance of power, which decentralisation provides. (This brings in Machiavelli, who otherwise might not seem to belong.)

People like GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc are so vastly different from socialism vs. capitalism that they deserve a 3rd corner in the triangle. Also, Aristotle’s recommendation for balance and a large middle class can be included here, as well as other classical authors.

In my experience, Europe went stupid politically sometime around the French Revolution, maybe earlier with Age of Enlightenment. Only the reactionaries and conservatives, including List whom you mention, seem worthwhile from that point. Our mass ideologies are made for cattle, are not legitimate political science.

There seems to be a sort of give and take in society, each choice offering positives and negatives. Too much decentralisation could lead to communities/tribes fighting one another and also to economic inefficiency. Too little could lead to distant elites manipulating a people and to other problems we associate with the West. So, the goal is, as Aristotle taught: balance, which also seems to be what you want, “mixed”. I just say, there’s more to consider than just capitalism and socialism. Small Is Beautiful.

But Anglos are convinced they are genetically programmed to be “individualistic” and “rational” and that such makes them superior! Surely the mighty Anglos (who once ruled a large empire!) couldn’t be wrong.

Look how successful the UK is today at repelling foreign invaders. And losing Ireland, angering Scotland and much of England, and dividing the UK into Celt vs. English had nothing to do with extreme classical liberalism! /sarcasm

The author is correct that we’re moving towards tribal affiliations today. And clearly in the US and UK, small groups dominate over individuals.

–

One point I don’t believe the author makes is that in the US, “citizenism” could be useful at reducing legal immigration into the US. Also, I prefer articles over videos, though this is a nice video.

Just as a general statement, controlling the culture and history of a people is powerful. How Jews have acted as a group here, I couldn’t say, but charity of this sort isn’t necessarily helpful.

Medical research and hospitals sound incorruptible.

Supposedly “most” Jews in Israel today were there prior to the state’s creation. The truth of the matter, I couldn’t say. But the argument, the claim, is that “most” Jews predate at least the state’s founding.

It’s noteworthy how the White Helmets are being resettled in Britain, Germany and Canada: The price of US/Western meddling in the MidEast.

Rand Paul would greatly improve things. The US has very high annual legal immigration currently. It’s more a debate over what’s possible.

Mr. Unz,

I respect how you seem to pursue truth, but I fear publishing this article breaks a societal taboo.

Since whites supposedly cause all problems and have never done anything but evil, then you’d think the entire world would like the idea of Europe and the US minding their own business.

Yet everyone wants advantageous trade and foreign aid from the US/Europe. No one wants true sovereignty.

I’m all for sovereignty, btw. If that means China conquers the pinoys, then China conquers. Nothing to do with me. True noninterventionism means allowing the rest of the world conquer one another as they will.

Limiting wealth/size/income, or wanting to limit such as a goal, seems more “distributist”. Japan had an interesting, ah, policy that limited the income of CEOs to something like 10x the salary of the lowest paid employee.

England/Europe had a revolution, multiple revolutions, that dispensed with much of the past wisdom and experience. So, partly I believe improvement is found in looking at what was lost. Currently the belief is that every change is “progress”, but of course some changes can be negative.

I’ve liked those who want more localised elites, decentralisation, small businesses. The general rallying cry is “Small Is Beautiful”. Capitalism and socialism tend to want economy-of-scale and otherwise want large institutions.

And Aristotle had praised how a large middle class brings stability.

I also like aristocracy, but I believe the goal should be good government. And power should be balanced, to limit potential abuse. So, one wants to encourage virtue but also wants a balance of power.

There are other reasons I like aristocracy, but I doubt you want to read more.

I’ve enjoyed how distributists have condemned capitalism & socialism as being similar. And I’ve liked how traditionalists have condemned “modernism”.

And I don’t claim there’s a perfect utopian solution. It seems there are positives and negatives to many ideas. Ty for your reply. You also seem interested in a balanced polity.

Why must it always be a binary choice?

The problem with socialism is it concentrates power in the hands of the few. In mythology, Marxist socialism is rule by the “people” who are free and self rule. In reality, it’s closer to slavery. Who can trust a distant elite, or a distant individual, with total power?

I like the Distributists, even though they weren’t entirely reasonable. Smaller is better.

Marx seems to have realised capitalism leads to instability. So, his mythology is just a strategy to ride that instability into power.

I guess that’s partly why the Left wants to ruin the US economy: then it can choose who gets to work, who doesn’t. If the economy is strong, then employees have the power, can just go elsewhere.

Hopefully customers obtain some more-conservative options. What might happen is we come to be more independent, shopping from more expensive small businesses which later replace the corporate economy, since it fails under the high costs of political correctness and corruption.

Being a bit oppressed could prove positive. Who knows?

We can produce our own power, repair old cars, shop from small, local farmers, and we have old movies. If the corporate world comes to hate us, maybe we can just bypass it. The Amish build their own houses. A conservative was mocked for praising the Amish as the conservative model, but maybe there’s some value to (some) of the strategy.

The Amish also get out of social security. Social security is very much against my religion, btw, but legally I can’t get out of it, that I’m aware of.

That all means a lower quality of living, but the US is headed for serious inefficiency.

I’ve noticed that at least some populists hate the notion of a “lower standard of living”, presumably because they have families to support. But the Amish get by. I guess partly they just work longer hours. It’s a fascinating topic to me.

Excellent video, ty.

If persecution against whites increases, this sort of info will become important.

–

I’d love to see more in depth guides on how people make their money, other than the usual “work for single employer” strategy.

The lead developer (or former developer) of the Monero cryptocurrency is a South African white: https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cryptocurrency/261073-how-a-south-african-became-the-lead-developer-of-monero.html

I just find it incredible how a South African white could be so successful.

I recommend getting some of the people who wrote for EconomicPopulist, EconomyInCrisis, and AmericanEconomicAlert to write here.

Alan Tonelson would be great, as well as Ian Fletcher. LifeZette and Breitbart probably have also featured good writers.

Trade protectionism is very interesting, because globalism has expanded wealth gaps. If workers were simply paid more, then in theory we’d have a more stable society, less demand for socialism.

In theory, a larger middle class reduces the potential energy used by socialists to come to power. Stupid “capitalists” have in the past defended and even praised wealth gaps, when that’s exactly what socialist revolutionaries want.

For years, many of us have been making this argument; it’s great how under Trump the argument is more popular. Wanting a large middle class and greater economic decentralisation is not “socialist” but an excellent defence against socialism.

RamzPaul,

regarding the problem with the legal system:

Partly this is due to multiculturalism, yes. But I suspect it is also due to the need for a large middle class.

I’ve had others ask me why a middle class is so important today when historically we had large wealth gaps and much worse poverty. Well, I suspect past gaps also created disharmony and abuse, but today we have a new problem: Poor whites are placed together with poor guest workers, poor illegals, poor recent immigrants, and other dangers. So, the poor really struggle today. When someone gets angry at whites, it’s poor whites who tend to become the targets of that rage.

This happens while the wealthy and upper middle vote for more immigrants, more guest workers, more bad trade, more wasteful war. They live in oblivion: wasting money, worsening the plight of the poor, destroying America’s future.

In the past it might have been legal for poor whites to set up a community that was only for law abiding whites, who could identity as being white, come together around a common culture. Today, that is banned.

So, perhaps wealth gaps wouldn’t be as important were it legal to exclude others.

Also, in the past whites, rich and poor, seemed to work together, identify together, against Amerindians and blacks. I’m not saying this is right, but there was a common unifier.

I know we used to have “mixed” neighborhoods in the sense that rich and poor more commonly lived together, even if all white. Today, we don’t have that. Today it’s dangerous for the wealthy to live near the poor. Everyone might be strangers in communities today; but the anonymous, transient rich cluster together while the poor get pushed elsewhere.

It leads to a perception that we’re not at all one nation but rather in a sort of class war.

Additionally, there is the perception that many do not truly earn their wealth. For example, after the Iraq War was declared, a defence contractor held a $10 million Bat Mitzvah. That creates the perception that the guy did not at all earn his money. It’s like a scam.

If we had a more decentralised system, then people could work for their money within a fair system, where the government wasn’t picking winners and losers.

A common culture matters, but I just wish to argue that there’s more to it.

Vox Day gave the best rebuttal on NS: It is associated with mass murder. Vox is too classically liberal, but he’s correct to reject the NS label.

Many of those advocating for “NS” portray it as any economic system designed to serve the people within that polity. That is just not true. That definition then paints the NS label on any movement that opposes exploitation by an elite.

It’s a toxic label that only some of German descent like.

Socialism concentrates wealth and power in the hands of an elite, destroying smaller units and traditions. It then requires trust. I prefer small businesses, a large middle class, decentralisation. That’s why I prefer “distributism” and “third position” labels, which are not code for NS. Classical political science and the reactionary Southern Agrarians also have value.

Daily Stormer appears to me as RamzPaul has labeled it: False flag and uneducated. It seems intended to make ethnonationalists into a Hollywood “America History X” stereotype.

It’s the fake opponent the SPLC and ADL always wanted.

–

Richard Spencer, RamzPaul (except on universal basic income), Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, Nick Griffin, James Edwards, Pat Buchanan: There are good nationalists. And they needn’t like each other, needn’t get along.

You can have a mix of radicals and civilised moderates (like Coulter and Buchanan), but Daily Stormer isn’t simply “radical”. The problem is it’s counterproductive.

“Is it good for Europeans?” No.

–

Regarding “universal brotherhood”: Christianity can have universal brotherhood yet still preserve nations. Dr. Fleming wrote how he takes into account all the compartments of spaceship Earth. We’re in this together, but we needn’t become a single polity.

The East Orthodox tend to be fine with intermarriage, btw. They don’t advocate for pure nations.

A major problem the world is facing is the complete loss of identity and meaning. We’re “progressing” beyond the ability to define, anything. So, nationalism, tradition and faith become necessary for basic sanity.

The white Left is like a virus that can expand and destroy others, but it could never sustain a civilisation. So, in a sense, it isn’t even alive. It tears down the West, hoping to pave the way for something “better”.

My comprehensive strategy: Bring the troops home. B) And cut the military!

We need to get the government to stay out of as much as possible while retaining a large middle class. The market needn’t be worshiped (no libertarian seances), but generally the government needs to exit out of our lives, exit out of foreign affairs.

I suppose I appreciate the devils didn’t raze Charleston.

The mystery is why Southerners today so believe in, and fight for, the empire. Note: I’m of the South.

Many of Pat’s articles are such. They’re nevertheless always worth reading.

No one seems to like how those opposing the war are icky right-wing, with their God and traditions.

Nick Griffin needs to fly in again to keep the UK out of Syria.

And there is good reason why the Right is “antiwar”. These wars are very against our interests for a variety of reasons, one being the sheer expense. (America is broke.) Another reason is that later, when the war proves to be a disaster and a mistake, it is inevitably portrayed as a symptom of right-wing thinking. So, it results in bad press. Dubya turned Europe Left.

And also refugees, destroyed communities (including Christian), heritage sites, traditions. Plenty of reasons to oppose this war and war in general.

Trump pretty much ran against attacking Assad. Hopefully he’s just virtue signalling that he’s a True Zionist. One article suggested that Russia is being told in advance, so military assets are being relocated.

Trump has harmed his reputation though. He ran against stupid wars. And now he’s attacking Syria, which he technically lacks the authority to do. Similarly, he’s sided with torture and with Yemen, both are harmful to his reputation. In theory, torture might be necessary, but the US simply has no enemies.

Trump has done some good, but he lacks courage and confidence. Trump hasn’t taken strong stands, presumably because he lacks certainty. Were any of us up there, we’d have Buchanan, Philip Giraldi, and dozens of others who aren’t part of the mainstream. Trump went with the established “experts” instead…

Defending the President is good, but he either doesn’t believe in what he ran on, or he lacks the ability and confidence to implement it. Hopefully we see more achievement. Ending birthright citizenship would be huge. Separately, Trump appointing Sessions is likely to be his greatest accomplishment.

I haven’t listened to this video yet, but I will. I just wanted to comment on the general topic. Hopefully that’s OK.

Trump doesn’t trust his own judgement. You say this can’t be so, but it is so. Obama also didn’t trust himself much.

Mortal men cannot resist the allure of the Neocons, generals, etc. and their claims of glorious expertise. Could Odysseus resist the Sirens’ songs?

So, whites may identify now as religious and not as the accursed English secularists believe: genetically driven to be secular.

If we’re religious, then we’re like the rest of humanity and thus not some sort of Darwinian loser.

I’d translate it to mean: The Baizuo, White Left, believe all the world wants to become white Leftists. As wealth increases, everyone will become the Left, and nationalism, religion, and localism will become plastic and meaningless, amusing relics of the past.

It’s akin to GK Chesterton’s Napoleon of Notting Hill, which has a sort of similar theme, though Chesterton is of course championing the meaningful localism/nationalism, religion, etc. that people fight over.

Linh Dinh,

The US should be seen as akin to Bolshevik Russia or Revolutionary France.

The dominant spirit is to “progress beyond” what our ancestors held sacred – and to unite against those who resist this. Also, we’ve grown soft, and war is so shockingly destructive that Europeans have taken to believing in “more Enlightened” alternatives to a non-globalist reality (aka sanity).

–

South Korea has, I assume, become somewhat PC (passed a civil rights bill), so I expect Cambodians and Thai could see the same PC disease spread, with foreigners and minorities accusing you of being “racist” for not tearing down your/Thai culture and heroes.

War isn’t the only means the US has of influencing you, and the issue is also structural. Capitalism, as well as the “managerial state” (James Burnham), both tend to want expansion. And expansion requires that Cambodia, Thailand, every place be consumed. Such is not to assert everyone is doomed, only that there is both intentional pressure and structural pressure.

Japan’s borders are more definable than others’, but there are pressures for Japan to become non-Japanese. Japan hasn’t yet caved.

Here’s the SK bill (which might not even be significant): https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/11/06/south-korea-anti-discrimination-bill-excludes-many

RamzPaul,

someone replied to me on the “Hitler took guns” meme. The claim goes that Hitler took the guns of *Jews* only.

So, do you dispute this still?

1. Americans now notice immigration. Even the word “moratorium” has come into use.
2. Americans are now open to trade tariffs.
3. Americans now realise the military is out of control. We should mock the heck out of him trading border security for the military. *We have no threats.* Not one.
4. Other things zzz.

Peace with NK is awesome.

I also want normal trade relations with Venezuela. So, they’re Latinos who hate Gringos? Why should I care? If Cuba can cease acting berserk, we should normalise relations with them also. The meddling is stupid and counterproductive; It creates blowback in a number of ways. It’s like spending money to lose.

So, I just wanted to express that last off topic paragraph. The “do something” militarists are fools, or perhaps it’s 3-D chess for militarists/globalism.

Vote Constitution Party if you’re angry. It at least gets your vote against them counted (as opposed to not voting).

The problem seems to be American populists argued for and built a movement without any leaders. With the Internet here, maybe someone can win a seat without selling himself to lobbyists.

Democracy is a failure. The Bill of Rights is nice at least, while it lasts.

Are you familiar with the Hindu Vedas?

Auster would freak out if a topic went into unwanted territory. That was his defence mechanism. He supposedly posted well on other topics, however.

Stephen Miller is the unusual one, because of his apparent sincerity and forthrightness. Another example was Marcus Epstein (half Korean, half Jewish) who was once condemned as a “white nationalist” for simply being friends with the Buchanans.

I don’t really know enough to make a list of “good Jews”. Breitbart and Antiwar (many Jews there?) are fascinating.

–

Regarding IQ, I believe an additional requirement should be that a person has been educated by a Paleo. Too many comment on Jews without seeming to have the most basic understanding of culture, history and political science. For example, Dr. Fleming likes Aristotle’s Politics. If a person is familiar with that, it’s a great start. There are just a few books I believe a person should be familiar with to have a basic level of education. Paleos tend to have a list of maybe 20 books or so, but it’s really not an overwhelming number to read to achieve “educated” status.

My intent isn’t to be condescending; my intent is to say that while IQ is important, it is not everything. If a person can’t become Christian, then he should at least be familiar with the classical pagans (and possibly also some Christian works even if lacking faith.) The schools teach a great deal, just little to do with education.

I don’t know if it contributes anything, but the topic reminds me of Brahmins in India, how they seemed to serve their caste’s group interests, and perhaps also the interests of Hindu society as a whole, by enhancing the complexity of sacrifices, expanding the need for their services.

So, Brahmans were perhaps an example of symbiosis in Hindu society. At other times, we see elite groups act as parasites.

We have similar elite struggles in society today, not only by Jews. I’m from the US South. A popular competitor to “blame Jews for many of our problems” is “blame Yankee WASPs”. Also, it’s popular to blame “Communists”, without specifying just which groups tended to be Communists (Jewish and immigrant).

A concern of mine is always that if we blame others overmuch, we’ll overlook our own flaws. I believe a true elite, a true winning people, figure how to win, don’t simply blame others for the lost utopia.

So, I tend to blame Anglos for our destruction, simply because I hope that we’ll rise from our ashes just as Rome did after being sacked by Brennus.

Jews are clearly very powerful in US and European societies today, but their power is also clearly declining. The “Left” in both Europe and the US do not support Israel and perceives Jews as largely European or at least as racist.

This could mean that Jews suddenly become pro-European, which is fascinating since they’re currently so obsessed with Hitler (or the Cossacks) and the notion that nationalism/tradition leads to gas chambers… One odd example is in how Neocons tend to support Ukrainian nationalists who at least claim to believe things that should be objectionable to Jews. Another odd example is the past friendly relationship between South Africa and Israel.

Nationalists, however, want a large middle class, do not like the idea of enthroned elites, especially not an elite that identifies as foreign (Jewish). So, it’ll be interesting to see what happens. Jews, consciously or not, wish to preserve their status and wealth, prevent any potential threat to their position. Nationalists wish for a more equitable society. And Leftists (Muslims, Latinos, blacks) wish to overthrow both.

Some mention the draft in a different context, but that’s certainly unwanted to have a mandatory service (in the US) in peace time.

The 15% being selected is interesting, not for what you’re suggesting but more generally for the power it would grant.

What happens when the US dollar collapses and foreign imports become prohibitively expensive? Poverty. Massive unrest.

We’re on course for eventually having large numbers of unemployed. And it’s the young who get violent. Employing them in some sort of “National Service” would keep them out of trouble. It also allows for social engineering, and it helps reduce the birthrate since couples would put off having children for an additional 2 years.

I’m not praising this idea. I’m saying that, from the elite perspective (which is not my perspective), it makes sense.

Alternatively, I’ve tried to encourage people not only to home school but to start college early (15 or 16) and to even take online courses, so that one can work at the same time (and not be brainwashed by a college English prof).

Similarly, I’ve tried to push for higher market wages rather than government dependence. It’s interesting how the elite essentially pursues the opposite. The populist vision is a large, independent middle class (and otherwise decentralised power); the elite vision is a servile, dependent population.

I suppose a draft proposal is too dangerous then. Ty.

I’ve heard Jews tend to be strong in verbal IQ.

Unz, the owner of this site, seems to be a genius. He’s Jewish.

His idea of just paying people more rather than redistributing wealth via government services is actually quite useful and had seemed like a potential breakthrough in the US.

How often do you hear something new in US politics?

Bardon Kaldian,

I’m saying Marx would have identified as a person having some Jewish ancestry. I have Marx’s book where he condemns Jews, but he would have been aware of his own ancestry.

My original comment was:

“At the least Marx identified as ethnically mixed or foreign, which isn’t the same as “100% German”. ”

I’m sorry if I used poor wording in the most recent reply. Ancestry needn’t be binary. What Marx truly identified as is conjecture; but unless it can be shown he was unaware of his partial Jewish ancestry, it likely mattered to him.

TS Eliot highlighted why secular Jews (note the word “secular”) are a concern, in his “anti-Semitic statement”: They identify with coming from a different ethnicity and religious tradition. If Marx identified as partly alien from Germany, then that could well have mattered.

He would have identified as being ethnically Jewish. Jews

Let me ask you this: Does an Orthodox Jew identify as European? No. He identifies as Jewish, Semitic, Middle Eastern. Is Palestine part of Germany or even Europe? Jews identify as having separate religious (etc.) customs and a separate genetic identity.

I acknowledge some Jews clearly see themselves as European today, might have in Marx’s time. But it’s conjecture.

–

Marx suffered from ill health. Supposedly his skin was “yellowish” (which makes me think of jaundice), which can be a sign of mixed heritage. Wikipedia mentions he either had a liver problem or perhaps hidradenitis suppurativa.

I can’t find my source that accused him of having yellowish skin. I just remember reading it. Clearly he had some sort of ailment.

–

Yes, Paul Lafargue is whom I was thinking of as the “nephew”. I tried googling the topic to be sure I was correct in my details, but google no longer works for that topic. Marx once said LaFargue was helping to solve the “race problem” or something like that.

At the least Marx identified as ethnically mixed or foreign, which isn’t the same as “100% German”. His yellow skin, due to disease (I’m no dermatologist), could have also given him the perception of being somehow foreign.

I’m from the US South. However, I’m quite aware of my British descent. Marx also knew his descent. Additionally, his nephew was part black, and Marx was quite aware of that. (Interesting that google no longer brings up the articles on Marx’s nephew…)

Similarly, an ethnic German is likely to be descended from a particular part of Germany, which can be significant (or was in the past). A family’s class or historic profession (or urban vs. rural) can also be significant.

Brits also seem to be nervous. I suspect a nervous or obsessive predisposition can give one an advantage in academic fields and could explain some (not all) of the alleged Jewish-Gentile IQ difference.

That’s why I continue to say these topics are complicated and easily misunderstood: If a person enjoys success, he then strives to justify that success. IQ is a flattering justification for success, but it’s likely only one of a variety of explanations.

And my post is not to allege that IQ is not genetic. It clearly has a strong genetic basis. But there are many aspects to success. IQ test results also vary depending on exposure.

It’s frustrating to me to see certainty attached to matters that are uncertain. Whenever I make an argument, I like to include the arguments against my argument (at least the ones that come to mind).

Everyone with power abuses that power. To say Jews have done wrong is in part to say Jews have been powerful. Man is fallen. Were the Romans “fair” to the Gauls? Was Athens fair to those under the Delian League? (There’s a philosophical quote by Thucydides is why I mention Athens.)

I do not believe Dr. MacDonald wishes for “justice” or revenge. And I know for a certainty he has acknowledged certain Jews as positive for society. For example, in one of his books, he mentions that Jews in the US South tended to be supportive of the South, perhaps because they had been welcomed here.

If the man has made a mistake, it’s to be expected since he studies a topic that is entirely taboo. While I am no expert on MacDonald, I believe the above article to be unfair, especially since it includes Anglin with MacDonald.

I have time to at least follow some twitter comments. Anglin I assume still likes NS. MacDonald has explicitly rejected NS on twitter. That’s quite the difference.

–

Regarding classical liberals having higher IQs… That sounds like a low-IQ statement. Classical liberals are more likely to embrace the simplistic ideology in place of a religion. And they might appreciate how the ideology advantages them, justifies their wealth and power. A great many non-classical liberals appreciate the market without worshiping it.

People tend to believe in ideologies that advantage them. Socialism, libertarianism: No ideology is very good in truth. A person with high IQ is more likely to take a powerful position which he then (likely) wishes to expand and justify.

If Jews want to win over the Alt Right, then simply be more supportive of Europeans. To give an example: I fully expect Jews to be condescending to Christianity. That’s normal. But it would be nice if Jews also saw Christianity as more beneficial than atheism and helped defend it.

Similarly, I expect Jews to value their heritage, their traditions, most. But it would be appreciated if Jews also saw the value in helping to defend others’ heritage and traditions.

Finally, usury and other dual morality shouldn’t be embraced. And concentration of power, whether under capitalists or socialists, shouldn’t be celebrated. Concentrated power leads to abuse, regardless of who is in power.

These matters can be discussed. MacDonald isn’t the second coming of Hitler…

Solzhenitsyn and GK Chesterton have also been quite critical of Judaism. They’ve been wrongly condemned for it. Neither wanted harm to Jews.

The history can be understood in context without demonising either side, but history tends to have multiple perspectives. What’s frustrating is how I readily acknowledge sins of my ancestors while Jews insist they’re always victims. I believe most Jews don’t realise how absurd this society has become due to their recent (and open) cultural dominance. It’s not hatred to desire truth, and I do not see Jews as a natural enemy.

I don’t especially want a draft. I just thought it an interesting explanation for why Americans opposed Vietnam yet don’t seem to mind current wars. (I find a variety of ideas “interesting”.)

Maybe a better reason is the body count, and obviously I don’t want the body count to rise.

Trump ran against the powers-that-be. What else could be expected?

He ran on the support of populists. Populists have elites also, but there just isn’t a strong power that’s served by Trump’s ideas. And he’s lost some of his populist support, rightly or wrongly, due to appearing too much like a tax cut and war Republican (as opposed to a spend and war Dem).

We’re moving towards an authoritarian society that serves whoever can grasp at power, believes in nothing, a truly “secular” state. Democrats fit that niche perfectly.

This seems to be what the “Left” is moving towards in the US, not just drug gangs fighting but fighting over money and power in general.: https://twitter.com/bbhorne/status/975407952504016896

Dentistry isn’t a difficult field, so far as I’m aware. That hasn’t been mentioned.

Blacks seem to excel at diversity jobs, especially jobs where they talk about racism as a job… This society intentionally keeps blacks poor via mass immigration, then they’re told to blame whites. The powers-that-be want blacks poor and angry at whites.

So, it’s great to want to help, but I don’t expect blacks would be allowed to improve their lot. Instead the mass immigration, harmful mass culture, and bad trade policies are likely to continue.

I disagree with an above poster that sales is a good profession for blacks. Maybe white women and some blacks would want to hear from a black salesman, but I doubt others would. I can’t say I know much about selling life insurance and used cars though…

I indeed don’t know much about Cambodia, Vietnam, nor Syria for that matter. It’s a great argument for why the US shouldn’t be involved. When we do get involved: locals blame us, some legitimate abuse results, foreign interests sway us, other special interests sway us.

As you say: in Syria, Israel and Turkey are expanding. And the Saudis/Qatar are expanding their head chopper brigade. All we hear about is bad bad Iran. Israel is of course the dominant influence on the US. Israel seems to want not only part of Syria but also part of Lebanon. And Christians are unsurprisingly the biggest losers.

Which side is the truly “good” side in such a conflict? Even Israel can present an argument. The US needs to get out and stay out.

And the term people need to remember is: Ethnic cleansing. That’s what’s truly taking place. The US should cease taking part in such a thing. And so much history, including ancient communities, are lost forever. Personally, if I’m being honest, I believe the US intentionally supports the head choppers.

But I live in a democracy. Voters are too stupid to understand events, or to even much care. Some talk of returning to the draft to end the warring. The draft is why the Vietnam War became unpopular.

I fear people can’t be taught how the media influences us, but thanks to the Internet at least the official conditioning can be challenged somewhat.

Beautiful scenery. I love how Japanese (and also Chinese/Korean?) trees look in their gardens. I don’t like every aspect of the gardens, but the natural poetry is incredible. It’s as if God is glorified, rather than glorifying man’s conquest over nature.

It’s so easy to just study on one’s own rather than in a classroom.

US schools do often teach Spanish and even Chinese. Well, I don’t know the statistics, but both are common in the schools in my area, even for elementary school children. The languages that interest me aren’t taught in local universities, and I wouldn’t benefit from attending a course anyway. I tend to view US schools more as daycare and as workfare for teachers though.

You write: “In small country politics, everybody is always accusing everybody else of being a foreign lackey, and most of the time, all of them are at least partially correct.”

That’s sad to read.

In the ideal, Cambodia would be fully sovereign. The diversity of nations is the wealth of mankind. It makes the world much more interesting when people are “from somewhere”, have a home, a nation.’

I only know two things about Cambodia: Angkor Wat and Pol Pot. And I’ve also read (favourably) that Cambodians don’t tolerate foreign perverts.

The ideal of “progressing forward” should include preserving as much as we can of the old world, as well as the environment.

This is one of Pat’s most insightful articles. Trump could still turn things around, but the troops need to come home, and the defence budget needs to be cut.

Americans won’t accept cuts to anything but “defence”. It’s just got to be cut. If Congress doesn’t want to cut, then he could at least speak against it. Republicans have no choice but to support Trump.

Dems have very good reason to fear cuts to the welfare state, due to the spending deficit. And they’ll never support cutting it until market wages are markedly higher. As Unz famously argued: It’s better to pay people more than to have government redistribute wealth. Trump could use that.

Trump clearly wants to cut spending, but the empire is what needs to be cut first.

Part of why Russia is condemned is to justify the police state. “Big Brother will protect us. Those who question Big Brother are with Putin. Those who resist mass immigration and the EU are with Putin, are ‘unpatriotic’ essentially”.

You’re “with us, or you’re with Putin”. It’s an attempt at coopting the patriotic sentiment and also the “conservative” label.

Look at how it worked on encouraging Americans to embrace a police state after 9/11. That police state will eventually be used against Americans; it’s a huge potential threat.

–

Religion is an important facet. The (recent) past devotion to classical liberalism was also religious. It’s good we’re highlighting the religious element. (We were programmed to be classical liberals, because such was guaranteed to lead to socialism and to otherwise weaken resistance.)

A similar method is to create a dichotomy: You’re either with FOX or you’re with MSNBC.

Trump and other populism threatened to break that dichotomy. It likely can be broken; look how the elites panicked. Sky high market wages, closed borders, an end to war: These ideas are potent.

–

For me, a “patriot” is a nationalist. Someone loyal to his government is more like a subject, mercenary, or slave. A nationalist could of course be loyal to a multinationalist government if it seemed to serve his nation’s interests.

Or we could just bring all troops home and cut spending. There’s no purpose to the warring.

IQ is one facet. Its worship, and the worship of evolution, could get out of hand.

I’m from the South. We supposedly lost our “Faustian spirit”. My great dream is to preserve my people, not to evolve into some new “superior” nonsense. Depending on the type of “Faustian” spirit, I might not have complaint with your dreams.

I dream of a society of Anglos who aren’t suicidal, though it’s perhaps an impossible dream. Survival is my great hope. To the extent technological advance is necessary, it’s only to ensure societal defence is possible. Otherwise, life is good.

“Modernisation” has not been entirely positive. In the South, we had many flaws, but our agrarian elite had some positives. We’d be better off under a similar elite than under democracy.

–

Btw, I read the Harappan cities would rebuild exactly as they were, house on top of house, for as long as they existed, until the Aryans conquered them. I like that ideal of enduring. Sparta also endured for a long time. Societies should be built to endure, shouldn’t be suicidal.

That’s an excellent argument, ty.

I wonder if bringing grandparents in to help raise children wouldn’t improve things: Extended family households or just passing children between the two. Avoiding harmful mutations seems most important to me.

So, the nuclear family could be questioned, to cut costs (in favour of the extended family: Living with parents.) As this society becomes more “socialist”, expenses for working families should increase, especially for whites who’ll be further discriminated against. The extended family, as a unit, might become more popular (immigrants seem to live like this).

Other concerns are you want parents who pass down their values, as opposed to having the schools teach everything. I realise not every parent is skilled at cultural instruction, but ideally someone in the extended family would be. The schools, and even churches, can have harmful cultural components.

You risk passing on genetic mutations after the age of 35, younger if a man is overweight. And women can lose the ability to have children fairly early.

If the purpose of marriage is children, then passing on genetic mutations should be a concern.

RE Lee quotes to bolster your speech on character:

“I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself.”

“Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character.”

“A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.”

“I like whiskey. I always did, and that is the reason I never use it.”

“The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive; he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be put the past.”

–

That said, politics is probably the domain of demons, from what I’ve seen. One just has to keep a core of oneself that is respected, pray that God forgives. I once saw a quote, I forget by whom, that politics isn’t for a Christian. I believe the quote to have great merit. Much of politics, like war, involves deceit – especially in a democracy and especially when dealing with a large population. It’s like running along a razor-thin balance: If one but slips, not only political loss but damnation await.

The core motive might be pure, but direct honesty is a luxury in politics, from what I’ve seen anyway. We can but try to make the best of this fallen world. Or we can give up power to others, to guard our own immortal souls.

Yes, NS was a bad idea for the US… I told some people that and got accused first of being Hungarian (what?) and then of being Jewish. It was like the moronic Storm Troopers went after me, who try their hardest to ensure everyone hates them.

I don’t know anything about Heimbach. I had read a few comments online by his acquaintances who said they hoped he’d grow out of it. I assume the guy is German and therefore sympathetic to the massive loss that Germany suffered.

In the South it’s often said we’re not as apologetic as are the Germans; we haven’t been broken. But at least when I defend the South, I defend it honestly and humbly. I acknowledge, obviously, that slavery was wrong. I still like being a Southerner, however; I believe we had many positives, that indeed the world could learn a great deal from us if only it would take a breather from trying to wipe us out.

–

RamzPaul, you were right about Anglin, especially. I don’t know anything about your conflict with Richard Spencer. (Saw you grumbling at him on twitter)

Your sort of nationalism is similar to mine. I don’t see any need for nationalists to be scary, scary. What is the alternative to nationalism (and faith)? The alternative we’re speeding towards is Orwellian enslavement, Communist nightmare. So, nationalism seems to me the alternative to jackbooted Communist thugs. And if we want to look to history, we can say nationalism is the alternative to “tyranny” (or despotism). Despots would move people about, destroy groups, as we’re seeing done today.

The reason we condemn “Communism” today is just because we don’t read history. It’s largely the same phenomenon though. We pretend we face unique struggles when it’s largely just a repeat of what man has been facing for thousands of years, albeit at a larger scale. Moderns are just too “educated” to read books or to otherwise learn about history.

–

Another bizarre phenomenon within the AltRight is the IQ and evolution worship. Such often feels heartless, soulless, and it’s defended as somehow the alternative to “nihilism”. What? One guy recently made a video that I glanced at: The guy was condemning poor, low IQ whites in Europe. Well, isn’t that who makes up much of the nationalist (as well as socialist) groups in Europe? The IQ obsessives seem to have no IQ, no strategy. I’ll end my rant there. Well, the Universal Basic Income is another bad idea. People need to consider a “distributist” approach: Encourage a middle class, small businesses, decentralised economy.

Schiff is right in wanting an across the board tariff. I also want this. He’s also correct that the poor would be hit by a tariff (he sort of mentions this in the history of the income tax), but the poor would also benefit from the increased wages. Reducing immigration/guestworkers would also be positive in boosting wages. Additionally, small businesses (which would benefit from Schiff’s reduction in regulations) are anti-socialism.

–

I dislike how Schiff praises America’s movie-making ability. I do not want America exporting our destructive left-wing movie culture.

Trade tariffs are the right approach. Schiff is right about 90% of what he says, but tariffs are the correct approach. If taxes are to be cut, then spending needs to be cut. I’d like for the “defence” industry to be cut by 90%, for starters. Something has to be cut, and Americans won’t give up their welfare state so readily.

–

If you listen to Schiff, Paul Craig Roberts, Peter Gemma, Pat Buchanan or most any other Paleo: They all sound *very* similar. And I’m not sure they even realise how similar they sound. They are all correct about most things. They also repeat the same arguments, which gets boring. (RamzPaul (like Steve Sailer) doesn’t repeat.)

So, Schiff fans need to realise that the protectionists, like myself, agree with him on most things. Schiff’s recording is admittedly better than I’d expected.

I’d like to highlight one concern if I may:

Prisoners should be helped, not brainwashed. The goal should be to encourage inmates to become capable employees, thus enabling them to later provide for a wife and children.

I’m unconvinced the author wishes to actually help prisoners. “Climate science or poetry” do not make one employable. And workfare for teachers is unwanted. A student must be motivated, will not benefit from osmosis in a classroom.

One reform that would be interesting is to ensure white collar crimes are treated more seriously.

People frequently write on “helping” prisoners, but rarely does anyone seem interested in actually helping them. Prisoners are being used as pawns in political chess.

Edit: I wrote this assuming my earlier comments were removed, which have just reappeared. I’m confused, not intending to spam.

I’m all for prisons not sanctioning rape at least.

GED programs are good. Similar programs could exist for collegiate education (with a focus on employable skills, not gender studies and climate “science”).

What I fear is workfare for teachers. As you say, a motivated inmate can accomplish a great deal on his own. Magical osmosis from sitting in a classroom helps no one.

Why would it be positive to teach them climate “science” or left-wing poetry? Let’s not brainwash prisoners.

Teaching job skills would be nice. Online college courses, books, and monitored test taking are all they’d need though.

Don’t hire more teachers. Don’t expand the state. In general, fewer teachers are needed for the US system as a whole.

I’m all for helping prisoners, improving the prisons. (Prisons oughtn’t sanction rape by other inmates, and the food should be nutritious.) But let’s not create workfare for teachers.

Access to the US market is nevertheless wanted.

Focus on this: The US wants investment capital. How is it to obtain investment capital?

Tariffs/other trade protections (like border adjusted VAT or BTT) are the best option I’m aware of.

–

While tariffs are “the swamp” in a sense, they can become less swampy by making them flat.

Also, some swamps are better than other swamps.

–

Tariffs are the best thing Trump has done. Also, others have moved on tariffs, though the media doesn’t report on it. Much of politics is theatre. Example: When Obama attacked Yemen, it wasn’t reported, so politically it didn’t happen.

Were Obama acting on trade today, it wouldn’t create such drama, because the media wouldn’t report on it. Ergo, it wouldn’t have happened in political theatre.

Wonderful reply. A negative of the government meddling in any way in trade is it tends to reward big business at the expense of small. Small businesses tend to be more conservative, more difficult for evil elites to manipulate.

Also, there tends to be [legal] corruption/special interests.

As you say, balance is the important word. I fear Japan’s political elite cares more for the Japanese than does America’s elite for Americans. So, while I believe in trade protections, I also acknowledge we’re asking demons to serve in our interests.

As such, flat tariffs are best for the US.

Given an opportunity, US politicians will always choose donors over Americans. Politicians also seem to generally dislike America and Americans in general. So, while government involvement is necessary, America needs to acknowledge its limitations.

The US has been in a trade war for years; it’s just been on the side against Americans.

The US can easily win any trade war, because access to the US market is so desperately wanted. Raise tariffs –> Investment capital floods in, if the tariffs are high enough.

American welfare for the rest of the world via bad trade needs to end. If you want money, work for it. Don’t take America’s wealth.

Trade tariffs also create barriers, which hinder global elites.

While it is true that trade tariffs tend to involve special interests and corruption, such can be circumvented by making tariffs flat. Also, the current trade policy America has (which is wrongly labeled free trade) involves special interests and corruption.

One advantage of protectionism is it rewards a better elite, a better class of fat cats (those whose fortunes are tied to the US). If there’s going to be corruption anyway, then one should embrace the more America-friendly corruption.

Obviously RamzPaul and most trade protectionists oppose the US empire.

The US empire is sustained in part by bad trade deals with India, S. Korea, Japan, and Europe. America essentially uses bribery for influence.

How to end the empire? Protect trade.

If the US were to truly put America first, we’d hit Germany, Japan, and China so hard with trade protections that they’d be sent into a recession. As Pat Buchanan recently wrote, even Lexus would move factories to the US if enticed with tariffs.

No more wars, open borders, central banking, and bad trade for the empire.

Corvinus,

Look these 3 up on wikipedia:

Naturalization Act of 1790
Immigration Act of 1924
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

1965 is what I meant by Americans voting to no longer want to be British, though I was really oversimplifying. We were really voting against remaining northwest European.

“Xenophobia” was quite common as well. Americans generally wanted to remain English, generally wanted to remain northwest European after that. Today, white Americans generally want to remain majority white. There was significant persecution of Irish, for example. I see Irish as generally “British”, but the English conflict with the Irish.

Somewhat Americans identified as distinct from the UK. But we were still British and saw ourselves as such. Look at how America fought together with the Brits in WWI and WWII. That was largely because of our shared blood. Someone will say Jews got us into WWII; well, they weren’t the only ones.

Yankee WASPs used to be the strongest elite of the US. Today perhaps Jews are strongest, with Yankee WASPs only serving in a sort of support role. Jews are strong in part due to their group cohesion, historical memory, and traditional wisdom. Too many focus on IQ; they forget the real strength that enabled Jews to best the Yankees.

Many immigrants were brought to the US for the same reason slaves were brought here: Cheap labour is profitable. The political struggle on immigration has largely been between those who profited and those who just lived here.

The South was very wealthy. You are confusing raw military might with per capita wealth. China could easily destroy Switzerland or Hungary.

The South was poor after having lost the war. Our cotton supplied England. When our cotton was cut off, England developed production elsewhere. After the war, Southern cotton once again flooded the market. Prices plummeted. Farming never seems to have recovered its profitability for whatever reason.

Industry was developing in the South prior to the war. Had the war taken place 10 years later, we might have easily won.

The South was also kept poor after the war. Reconstruction was Hell. We had to essentially fight a second revolution to throw out the Yankees. Yankee policies have continued to persecute the South and to stir up racial tensions here. Perhaps those in power are no longer “Yankees” in the same sense, but the policies remain the same.

For example, no one outside the South wants to help blacks. What’s wanted is for blacks to be absolutely miserable, so they can then be used against Southern whites. Have a problem? Blame your white neighbor! We get blamed, though we’re not responsible for a variety of problems blacks face.

The North would have adopted slavery, had a profitable use been found for the system. Slavery spread wherever it could in the US, as far as it could. You still had critics prominently wishing for its end. Jefferson described it as having the wolf by the ears: You couldn’t let him go, but you didn’t want to hold him there. Jefferson tried blaming the King for introducing slavery in the Declaration of Independence. That part was edited out, however.

–

Many made their fortunes from slavery. They arrived in America poor but died rich. America was carved from a wilderness, which yes Amerindians resided in. That’s why it’s called “land of opportunity”. The South certainly developed an established plutocratic planter elite, especially in my state. And that elite did possess some aristocratic qualities.

The US was overwhelmingly (70%) English in 1790. It had additional Celtic descended citizens. So, the US was a very British society. I’m partly descended from French Huguenots, but they were not a significant part of the US.

Today, the US population is not very British. Brits apparently didn’t like being British and voted to change our society. I’m still British descended (other than the small bit of French). Sam Francis (in his article on secession) once wrote how the US seems to have lost its identity after breaking away from Britain. I suspect he’s correct. I would say the Louisiana Purchase might have been a mistake. I know an amateur political writer who believes the US should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation (pre-Constitution).

It’s difficult to know just where the US went wrong, because no moment in history is ever perfect.

The regional differences within the US can be significant, but we’re still very similar. One can find significant differences between urban and rural in England today (among the English descended). Go most anywhere in the world, and you’ll find spiritual Yankees in the cities and spiritual Southrons in the country – especially in agrarian societies.

The US isn’t more bigoted than most any other society. Slavery was disliked by many, but it was too successful. Those who embraced it thrived and rose to power. Those who rejected slavery largely did not thrive. The North’s embrace of the slave trade is difficult to see as better than actual slavery.

The slave plantation is akin to the modern international corporation. It is generally acknowledged how corporations flood the US with cheap labour, how foreign workers are mistreated, how American workers will be mistreated in the future if we continue to chase wages and conditions down. Yet, the corporations cannot be defeated.

And so, we embrace our enslavement, because we haven’t the power nor the political education to do otherwise. We couldn’t stop slavery from coming to the colonial US, and we can’t prevent our own enslavement in this day. Our guns and rights to speech will soon be taken from us, and this society in general does everything it can to exploit the dumb US citizen. There are even attempts to lower the voting age, because indoctrinated 16 yr olds are yet another easy group to manipulate.

As Belloc warned, modern society is returning to the norm of slavery.

America can, however, brag that it once ended slavery. For a time.

Unz would be a boring website if all white or otherwise homogeneous. It’s interesting, because Unz seems to welcome in all with challenging arguments, as well those who are suppressed by the powers-that-be.

It’s common to argue for a white society, but a white website is a very different thing. Partly why it’s desired we have separate and distinct societies is so our differences can be appreciated. The world’s more interesting that way, and people come to feel they have a place of belonging, feel they are special rather than just another human resource. And elites, those in power, are then encouraged (from having a polity of their own) to actually care for society as a whole, rather than just themselves.

People generally don’t know what they want. Since utopia is impossible, they are constantly reacting in one way or another, spinning like a top. People get emotional, struggle to express themselves, seek out another to blame.

If I were in Vietnam, I hope I would meet some natives with enough piety for their society to be wary of my white influence there. If too many foreigners move to Vietnam, it will cease to be Vietnam.

Class matters. It doesn’t matter to me, but it matters.

Being Jewish also matters. It’s clear many of these secular Jews are sympathetic to Israel, and it’s natural that Jews would work comfortably together.

One way Judaism matters is as TS Eliot warned: They identify neither as European nor as Christian. As such, secular Jews are less likely to conserve the West. So, it isn’t necessarily an intentional “Jews vs. West” situation but rather that secular Jews tend to go “Far Left”, so to speak.

Mormonism also seems to be relevant.

I’m open-minded. I believe it’s easy to err on this topic.

If pursuing certain political changes, then elites, even Jewish elites, shouldn’t be able to abuse the system. I generally want to shrink the super wealthy, shrink large corporations, shrink big government. And I want to empower the middle class. That’s not all I’d change, but that gives an idea of my positioning.

I view such changes as a sort of struggle among elites. If greater power were given to the middle class, I believe it would be an improvement. I’m not seeking utopia.

But Judaism, as well as Mormonism and likely other groups, has been significant. Sam Francis wrote the following (which is actually still available online!):

“If we are looking for the sources of the collective consciousness of “sins” such as “racism,” “sexism,” etc. and the systematic, politically enforced reconfiguration of American society, then the Jewish role in promoting racial egalitarianism, promoting feminism and subverting male social roles, instilling collective guilt, promoting mass immigration, and pushing multiculturalism (through Franz Boas and his disciples in anthropology, the civil rights movement, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, any number of Marxist and New Left movements, Jewish feminist ideologues like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Susan Sontag, pro- immigration lobbying by Jewish “public interest” groups and individual political figures, and the major architect of multiculturalism, Horace Kallen, not to mention the largely Jewish “neo-conservatism” of recent years) can hardly be ignored. Gottfried, however, does ignore it almost entirely, though he gives a casual and not very complimentary nod to Kevin MacDonald’s work, which he characterizes in a footnote as “methodologically uneven but occasionally illuminating.” (p. 42, n. 5; and see also p. 15, n. 21”

I like to add Frank Meyers to the list. His “Fusionism” was harmful, in my view. Essentially Meyers “fused” traditional conservatism with libertarianism such that… only the libertarian remained. And a great weakness of the Right has been its ideological fanaticism and Pavlovian tendency to see any deviation from the market cult as “socialism”.

Rothbard supposedly is a positive influence (I haven’t read much by him). Stephen Miller is the latest Jewish conservative, and he seems to be quite the conservative. Marcus Epstein was once condemned as a “white supremacist” (obviously he’s not) for being a man of character. The Antiwar website is supposedly very Jewish. I think there’s a Jewish guy at VDARE? So, we have lots of “good Jews”. It would be interesting to see the topic explored further. Dr. MacDonald once wrote how Jews in the US South fought for the South, were thus patriotic. So, there is a counter-narrative.

Again, I’m a colonial Brit, and supposedly the British Empire did plenty of harm. And my state voluntarily embraced slavery. So, I can’t blame everything on Jews. But it is noteworthy how very powerful Jews are today.

Great potential energy existed which was taken advantage of (not only by Jews). Richard Weaver, for example, warned how those who helped build the bombs used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn’t necessarily know what they were a part of. And he condemned “The Great Stereopticon” of mass media. These are societal weaknesses, potential energy, potential abuse.

And regardless of who is in charge, such structures render a people little more than malleable, interchangeable, oblivious cattle. In short, it’s slavery; The managerial state is slavery. I value hierarchy, obviously (as does most anyone on the Right); but “hierarchy” needn’t mean enslavement.

The US empire spends too much supporting its empire.

What is even the point?

Protect US trade. Put America First. Let China play at empire and go bankrupt.

Great videos. The second and third are especially appreciated.

It appears from the videos that Fields was indeed innocent; likely he was panicking, and the street was indeed one-way. I’m really impressed by how the videos have improved.

Antifa are terrorists, akin to ISIS. I’d be terrified as well.

OK, in a theoretical poli sci debate I’d agree: who rules is what matters.

But there’s danger in oversimplification. Other lessons should be learned also, such as why powerful Europeans didn’t advance their interests. Part of Jewish power is in how Jews currently advocate for their interests and work together as a group while white Gentiles currently do not.

My fear is we’ll repeat some of the same mistakes again or we’ll view NS Germany as the alternative, rather than keeping an open mind. NS Germany was too managerial (I mean roughly too centralised) and too progressive. I know little of NS Germany, but it seems to me too modern.

Also, I don’t believe Jewish power was as dominant then as it is today. I’m not a believer it was only Jews who pushed us into WWII. Never underestimate English ineptitude. And I’m of colonial British descent (half English, half Scot, roughly). The English didn’t appreciate the unique Bolshevik danger. They should have seen the Russians as the greater threat.

In elite theory, elites drive the world. But I believe elite theory can be misunderstood. There are many elites, and they are disunited. Also, there are unintended consequences, “fate” (sheer luck).

Oh, ty. Sorry to have wasted your time then.

I used to could get people into debates with just that much, but now the only debates I seem to get into are over misunderstandings.

I tend to reduce things to *loss of piety*, but I guess it’s the content not the representative term that matters.

No. We lost our piety, traditions, and the wisdom of our ancestors. We lost pride in our history and culture.

We instead just assumed we could “progress” forward with magical science and individualism, that our natural genetic superiority would inexplicably propel us without the need of additional aids.

There’s no group of people on Earth more easily manipulated than an uprooted English nuclear-family individualist who knows no history and has no traditional safeguards and community ties. And our extreme “capitalism” seems to naturally lead a society to socialism, though we pretend it’s the great alternative.

While technology is important, we still see “right wing” Europeans praising our “Faustian spirit”; they seem to worship “progress” as a sort of religion and whites as that agent of “progress”. They’ve embraced madness.

–

We also grew soft from success and other reasons. Perhaps it’s true that were Jews not so powerful, European Christians would have righted things eventually. But our open, individualistic system enabled their great power.

The US seems to have been behind much of the leftward shift among Europeans, post-WWII. Looking at the “conservative movement” in the US:

The Greeks knew a large middle class to be beneficial, but “conservatives” viewed such as “socialist”.

The Greeks knew the importance of culture, wouldn’t have allowed Hollywood to destroy society. But “conservatives” valued the free market. The Greeks wouldn’t have allowed Marxists to take over the universities either.

And the Greeks knew overly large societies could be dangerous. And we have other legitimate conservative voices warning us of the unstable changes society had made.

It’s the Godforesaken “conservative movement” (not to be confused with actual conservatives) that deserves some of the blame. It wasn’t only FOX and Conservative Inc but also the worship of ideology among many independent conservative Americans who should have known better. Just a brief reading of Aristotle and Belloc or even Machiavelli and Livy would have snapped them out of some of their foolishness.

If we had pushed for a larger middle class back in the 60s (and continued to focus on preserving the middle class), maybe the 1965 immigration act and other policies wouldn’t have passed. Then other improvements could have been made to the system. But it was seen as essentially “socialist” to resist socialism.

Europe has 1000s year old expressions as well. For example, “Nothing in excess!”

We just came to worship the Industrial Revolution, Enlightenment, simplistic ideologies, and “progress” rather than our own heritage.

And like the Chinese, we’ve destroyed much of our history and heritage. Christianity and the change of language both reduced our historical memory. But we still have the Greeks and Romans.

Confucius is wrong to entirely discourage foreign ideas. One can still learn from outsiders. It’s just a disgrace that the Chinese currently place Marx, who was the lowest of the impious progress worshippers, before their own heritage. The Chinese still identify as “Communist”; as such, they dishonour their ancestors.

By your logic, China could arguably be “not-Chinese” today. Instead it’s “Marxist” or was Marxist. I suppose the elite in China are still Chinese though, but Jewish rule doesn’t entirely explain the decline of the West.

The West has been greatly harmed by one-way mass media and by our centralisation and transience. A tiny elite was empowered to remake society, and it did. Individuals were at the mercy of elites, even as those same individuals proclaimed how free and independent they were.

Asia is just rising at a different time and environment. WWII did not necessarily change the trajectory. We could have still committed suicide.

It’s clear today that modernism and technology can be harmful. Too many Europeans came to worship the impious and individualist “Faustian spirit”. As such, they gladly abandoned the past to commit societal suicide, all in the name of “progress” and moving “forward” towards madness. Progress though falls to relativity outside some religion or tradition to define it.

Hi, I wanted to post this quote by Machiavelli:

“Either we have to deal with a
republic eager like Rome to extend its power, or with one content merely to maintain
itself; in the former case it
is necessary to do in all things as Rome did; in the latter,
for the reasons and in the manner to be shown in the following Chapter, we may
imitate Venice and Sparta.”

However, in the next chapter he write: “But returning to the point first raised, I believe it
necessary for us to follow the
method of the Romans and not that of the other republics, for I know of no middle
way. ”

Citation: Chapters 5 & 6 from Discourses.

I generally think as you do, that preserving one’s people is best. But mere preservation can lead to decay.

Also, the book “Antifragility” caught my eye recently, basically arguing that a system should be designed so as to benefit from some difficulty, rather than to be weakened by it – similar to how muscles grow stronger from use.

I’m not arguing against you, rather I’m just posting some comments you’ll find interesting. A nation-state built to endure, especially one that won’t commit suicide, is my dream.

I imagine “isolation” could of course be taken overfar. Nothing in excess. But more-isolation certainly seems better to me. So much of American globalism is wasteful, and interaction with foreigners tends to bring unrealised costs.

GK Chesterton recommended travel among polities to encourage fellowship and understanding. He also wished to preserve. His “Patriotic Idea” is focused on preserving Europe, especially the British Isles, but applies generally as a sort of ideology of piety and preservation. He favoured “Little England”.

The US obsesses over slavery as a political tool against white Americans. If you notice, the US imports many immigrants and guest workers. We’ve embraced a strategy of “invade-the-world; invite-the-world”, which results in the importation of angry refugees. We export our investment capital, expand our debt, etc. The US doesn’t serve the interests of US citizens.

A better example might be how the US bends over backwards to help blacks, then blames whites when blacks fail to excel. Meanwhile, Asians outperform most everyone… Asian supremacist conspiracy perhaps? (That’s a joke.) By blaming whites, blacks are encouraged to be angry at whites, which divides society, creates disharmony.

Some argue this is a “divide and conquer” strategy by America’s elite.

Similarly, low IQ whites defend the exceedingly wealthy, thinking they’re mutually at risk from the angry blacks (among others on the “Left”). In truth, workers in general share many common political interests. So, the “divide-and-conquer” strategy appears to work very well on the population in general, or has in the past anyway.

–

In short, a superpower that “apologises” is not necessarily a good thing. It could be good. Every society sins of course.

I certainly acknowledge slavery was wrong, but specific sins are focused upon and emphasised for political reasons. Man is fallen. Societies don’t usually act on morality but on power. There are some mostly good people, but most things occur because of power, greed, etc. And it’s much easier for one to play at being “good” when weak (and lacking temptation). Also, it’s often the ambitious who advance, not the good. I’m not suggesting a person should then become “evil”; I’m just highlighting how man is fallen.

China has many sins. Tibet is a great example. China conquered Tibet, largely destroyed or reduced most of an ethnicity. I don’t wish it to “apologise”, but it should strive to protect Tibetan heritage, which it might well be doing. And of course, I’m no expert on the matter; so who am I to judge China?

Regarding diets, it’s important to eat a balanced diet. A focus on calories isn’t everything.

If a person eats healthily, he’ll feel a great deal better. It’s also good to be thin, of course.

Libertarianism didn’t serve white interests. It was largely a vehicle for manipulating whites, with some positives.

If we’d pursued a larger middle class back then, or limited big business; we probably would have won. Libertarians wouldn’t let us. People were paranoid of “socialists”.

Ron Unz’s proposal of a higher minimum wage was an excellent attack on the state. Libertarians hated it. “That sounds socialist.” Unz argued it’s better to pay workers more than to have the state redistribute wealth. And others noted how it would reduce business desire to import cheap labour if the minimum wage limited how far market wages could be hammered down.

Libertarians still mumbled about “socialism”…

Now things are so bad that more extreme, and risky, proposals are considered. Ideology is a disaster. Libertarianism wasn’t the only enemy, but it was an important enemy.