Posts Tagged ‘john derbyshire’

Breitbart Succumbs To Leftist Capture As DR3 / Magic Dirt Becomes Official Policy

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

As mentioned previously on this site, Breitbart has fired Katie McHugh for stating the truth about diversity, namely that if there were not Other groups here we would not suffer their conflicts.

This provoked widespread outrage among the Right, who are currently looking for an honest news source, which means one that bucks trends like political correctness and reports the relevant news in full. Previously, Breitbart looked like it was replacing the somewhat Left-leaning Fox News, which is undergoing changes to make it more Leftist-friendly.

The full exchange shows McHugh stating the truth that all mainstream media establishments seem to dance around, and then reminding someone who is not English that his opinion is not necessarily on point. In return, the Breitbart kaffeeklatsch erupted:

A number of Breitbart colleagues, who chose to remain anonymous, also attacked Ms McHugh for her Islamophobic comments. Speaking to CNN anonymously on Sunday, one said they found them “appalling” while another branded them “terrible”.

…This is by no means the first time she has made inflammatory remarks about race. She once told her 19,000 Twitter followers: “Mexicans wrecked Mexico and think invading the USA will magically cure them of their retarded dysfunction. Lol.”

It is rare for Breitbart, a publication which has been accused of writing racist and misogynist articles, to dismiss its employees for their controversial views. Although one exception is the case of Milo Yiannopoulos. In February, the alt-right figurehead, who was one of the site’s most high-profile writers, was forced to resign from the publication after his apparently pro-paedophilia remarks resurfaced in an old podcast.

McHugh said nothing that Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and any conservative before 1965 would have admitted was true, and her comments are especially on point regarding recent Muslim terror attacks in the UK and France. If diversity did not exist, the problems of diversity — including the actions of other groups who want to dominate or destroy us — would not afflict us.

Breitbart has succumbed to DR3, or the tendency by conservatives to attempt to “prove” they are non-racist by accusing others of racism, creating a circular firing squad:

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

DR3 afflicts the mainstream Right, which struggles for “respectability” or at least less censorship in a Left-leaning time. Big internet giants like Google and Twitter, major publications and big donors often will drop and ignore any publication which crosses the line on race, which in late Leftism means anything but foaming-at-the-mouth advocacy of diversity or having multiple ethnic and racial groups in the same society.

As an implicit endorsement of diversity, DR3 subscribes to the “Magic Dirt” idea that if we take people from the third world, bring them to our lands and instruct them in propaganda for our system and culture, they will take it up and suddenly become us. This both replaces us and replaces their own culture with ours as a dominant colonial power.

When conservatives take up “magic dirt,” it shows that they have been captured by the very group they claim to oppose, namely the Left, since they have adopted Leftist policies like diversity, equality and indoctrination.

Over the past two years, Breitbart has increased its hiring of ethnic minorities. Its policy appears to be shifting more to what they will probably call “moderate,” but in a time when almost everything is full Leftist, really means conservative-flavored Leftism. As a result, they need to lose the people who are pushing the Overton window farther to the right.

This is reminiscent of the time that National Review fired John Derbyshire for telling unfortunate truths about race. While he stopped short of criticizing diversity itself, it seems that being less than enthusiastic about having Other groups among us is cause for exile.

As this story saturates the Right-wing, especially the internet, it becomes clear that Breitbart is not hoping to become a better news source than Fox News, but simply replace it by doing what it once did. As the mainstream shifts more to the Left and everyone else — who dislike the fast food, soft drinks, politically correct and insipid mass culture anyway — heads toward a realist Right position, this means that Breitbart has backed the wrong horse.

Conservatives who gain power and influence in the system have a nasty history of betting on Leftism winning and instead of fighting, and then in anticipation of this defeat, choosing to shift Leftist so that as individuals they can accelerate their own careers instead of widening the pool by moving that Overton window.

From a personal standpoint, this is a smart move in the short term. They push all their competition back, and take on the sinecure of being Official Conservatives who say nothing that will disturb the herd by implying that our civilization has to change direction or it will fail. In the long term, however, they defeat themselves by becoming their competition, in turn rendering themselves irrelevant.

The future belongs to writers like Katie McHugh who state the plain truth not through attacks on specific racial groups, but in observing that diversity guarantees conflict and that the only solution is to go back to the nation being defined by a single ethnic and cultural group, preserving peace through separation.

On Conservatives And Race-Mixing

Saturday, May 20th, 2017

For over two decades now, my writing has championed moving to nationalism instead of racism. I dislike racism, which we might call “racial scorn,” but will never oppose frank recognition of racial differences, or the fact that diversity always fails because groups have differing self-interest based on the fact of their being different itself.

This leads to a number of questions. People do not understand that when I say that diversity has ruined America, I am not saying that “black people are bad”; I am saying that any mixing of groups in the same nation-state guarantees social collapse. Much of my thinking in this regard comes from Messrs. Nietzsche and Herzl, who observed similar things long ago.

One of the questions that comes up in email, and apparently will not die, is what I think of conservative writers who engage in race-mixing. For example, here is Fred Reed criticizing John Derbyshire on this very topic:

I do think your personal approach to the maintenance of whiteness — you imported a brown wife to the United States and had a brood of mestizo children — seems a curious one, rather like screwing for virginity. Since I too am a race traitor, and have a brown wife and mestizo stepdaughter, I commend your choice, but it does look an awful lot like hypocrisy.

Anyway: Since there will be lots of Mexicans in America no matter how much we grind our teeth, shriek, or hold our breath and turn blue, a reasonable question might be: How well can Mexicans and gringos get along? Not how well will they get along: this depends on economics, concentrations, schooling, hostility from the indigenes and excited net-hamsters, and whether the immigrants are corrupted by the welfare system. What is the best case? How well can they get along?

Derbyshire is not alone in this. Many on the staff of race-realist conservative publications tend to have Asian or Mexican wives (Mexican indios are a variety of Asian similar to Thai or Vietnamese). How does this balance with the viewpoint that diversity is destruction, and miscegenation erases our people?

Obviously I could not be in support of miscegenation.

However, let us dial back a bit from inside our heads, and venture to RealityLand. Here nothing is perfect, because perfection is a form of heat death, and so like good Realists, we look at things as they are.

Race-mixing has happened throughout history. Most current populations are mixed to varying degrees, and almost all of those are third world in nature. Obviously, on a societal level, race-mixing is doom. Even in the white world, when you have one-quarter Asians like many in Eastern Europe, the Western inclinations are lost.

This does not mean that we need a jihad against those of mixed-race. It means that, on the whole, we cannot support it and want a society geared against it. Some individuals may mix, and maybe those populations will slowly be absorbed; this creates permanent changes, like the Asiatic features of East Baltids. Perhaps it can occur to some degree and not more, but again, it erases the original group.

Individuals make their own choices, and so do their offspring. Being mixed-race is really no fun once the novelty wears off; one is forever torn between cultures. Luckily there are plenty of mixed-race places, many of them quite nice, for these offspring to go to and thrive in.

In addition, it is worth pointing out that youthful decisions are not the best. Richard Spencer got flack for having Asian girlfriends; I dated a half-Mexican girl once and was rather fond of her, just like I dated a quarter-Jewish girl and survived somehow. As I became aware of the struggle of our people, it became impossible to even consider doing this again. We learn.

Unfortunately, most get married young, and the smarter among us tend to be under-confident and therefore, more likely to embrace someone of another group. They did not receive the guidance they needed. While it is tempting to ostracize them, a better policy might be to realize that some mixing occurs on the fringes, and most will naturally repatriate when confronted with a national population.

In the meantime, there is no point beating this topic to death. People need guidance to do the right thing, which is to marry not just within their race but their ethnic cluster (Eastern, Western or Southern European) and then to have happy families. Over time, nature will sort this one out.

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws Of Politics

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017

Back when John Derbyshire worked at the National Review, he wrote some great stuff, including this summary of Robert Conquest’s Laws of Politics:

As best I can remember, they are:

  1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
  2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.
  3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.

The second law is the most discussed because it essentially says that any organization which does not design itself to be Right-wing only will find itself drifting Leftward. This points to a broader principle: there is pressure on all organizations to turn Leftward because human beings, in general, favor Leftism, much like they like cheeseburgers and donuts more than broccoli.

Leftist ideas are appealing because they are a form of pacifism. Instead of conflict and risk, they promise peaceful coexistence by simply sharing the wealth. The problem with this is that it makes it more efficient to be a free rider than a contributor, so civilizations that go down this path devour themselves.

For those hoping to have their civilizations survive, this means that there must be constant negative pressure against pacifism and related ideas like equality, pluralism, tolerance and individual liberty. People must do what is right, not what they decide they want to do, because the natural tendency of people is toward entropy.

That adds a wrinkle to Conquest’s Second Law. Unless an organization commits itself to purpose over individual choice, it becomes degenerative.

Even further, certain systems such as democracy, which validate the principle of individual choice as being more important than the consequences of that choice in relation to purpose, will always drift Leftward, even in the presence of the most extreme Rightist ideas. Rightism cannot coexist with egalitarianism; the two are opposites.

What Conquest hints at is what we all know, deep down, which is that moderates are our downfall. There is no such thing as a moderate because any moderate position simply allows more Leftward drift.

As a political system designed around compromise and mediating extreme choices, democracy propels the Leftward drift. Democracy is the political arm of Leftism, which is the philosophical arm of collectivism, which is the social arm of individualism. Individuals who do not want to face possible risk and consequences for their actions desire egalitarianism to escape accountability.

This leads us to the ultimate distillation of Conquest’s Second Law. Any organization which does not explicitly dedicate itself toward some outward purpose will fall into an inward purpose, which consists of human preferences, and these tend toward individualism and thus toward Leftism.

Like everything else in life, the science of organizations consists of resisting decay not so much by pushing down on something — although, like weeds, bad things must be removed — but in having clarity of purpose and motivating people toward that, lest they recede into their own minds, whims, emotions, fears and other degrading forces.

Conservatism Does Not Include “Freedom” And “Equality”

Friday, April 7th, 2017

Over at the National Review, a conservative publication that escaped favor when it fired John Derbyshire for being insufficiently politically correct, another stunner of a clickbait confusion about what conservatism is:

Colonial Baptists’ fight for religious freedom applies equally to Muslims in America today.

…Isaac Backus and John Leland, another Baptist hero for religious liberty, spoke out for the freedom of the soul in behalf of Jews, Muslims, and atheists alike. The principle was that religious freedom is not a spoil of politics, to be divvied out to — and defined by — the highest bidder.

To control religion is to attempt to hamper the effectual call by God on the souls of men. Men must be allowed to seek reconciliation with the divine. And civil government, acting in just accordance with its ordained function, must protect this process. In this way, government, like the church, is concerned with the souls of its populace.

They are confusing means with ends, which causes them to interpret those means as ends, and in doing so, apply them more broadly than the context in which they are means to the ends that conservatism prescribes.

Any idealistic slant to the article vanishes with the familiar Leftist argument:

What’s more, their position is short-sighted. Given the present shift in American demographics, it might not be too long before the Baptists are once again a powerless minority. And this time, it might be Muslims before whom they are pleading for “soul freedom.”

All Leftism consists of a begging-the-question fallacy in order to engage in circular reasoning of the form “if we assume we are all equal, bad consequences will come from not enforcing equality.”

Here, the argument advanced is that demographic change is a certainty and therefore, people should accept it as otherwise it will turn out badly for them. This is designed then to advance the argument that methods like “freedom,” “equality” and rule of law will continue to exist in that new society, ignoring the fact that the new denizens will be drawn from those who have no use for such things.

That in turn leads to arguments that are variations of DR3, or “democrats are the real racists,” a debate by which the Right tries to seize the ideological high ground based on Leftist ideals. Naturally, this fails for them every time.

However, it does not fail for individual conservatives, who are making their living by preaching a philosophy of impotence to their followers. They want their followers enraged but not engaged in anything more than the symbolic issues on which profiteers of the Right wing make their fortunes: abortion, equal treatment, the Constitution, strong defense, and banging the tin drum of Christian lifestyles.

In reality, conservatism is simple: conserve the best of human experience. This means that conservatism is an end, and not a means, based on both an uncompromising realism and a direction toward excellence and qualitative improvement. This is principle, not method, and contrasts Leftism which is method pretending to be an end in itself.

This means that conservatism is larger than the subset that American conservatives have tried to carve out for themselves based on American history, which began with a hybrid of Leftism and has drifted Leftward ever since. We are now at a crux of history where liberal democracy has failed, and with it have failed the methods intended to limit it that also failed.

Conservatives need to abandon DR3 and its cousins. There is only one Right-wing philosophy and it is Radical Realism plus a tendency toward qualitative improvement toward excellence. Anything else is a weapon of the enemy and when conservatives defend it, they make their motivations suspect.

Aaron Burr Conservatism

Friday, March 10th, 2017

There is a fundamental difference between the Alt-Right and the Conservative Movement. The Alt-Right is still loyally American. The Movement Conservatives are exactly what the Left says they are: traitors. They care about their wallets and their sinecures first. Everyday Americans can go die in the ditch as far these Aaron Burr Conservatives are concerned.

Thus, the wikileaks report revealing that Hillary Rodham Clinton had bought six Republicans to backstab Donald J. Trump should surprise nobody.

First, there were three of Donald Trump’s opponents.

The email, sent in July of this year, describes how funds were being diverted from Clinton’s campaign to the Super PACS of Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich. According to the email: “JB, CF, and JK PACS will be noticeably silent for the rest of the campaign. Each will receive a significant allowance from advertising budget. HRC is in the loop and has talked to all three personally. Eyes only.”

Then, there was the leader NeverTrump Rump in the House GOP.

….the Pantsuit Mafia, has bought off several key members of the Republican Party to push the Clinton agenda. Such as: “He is on board, will retract the invitation to speak. Eyes only.” This email was dated days before Speaker of the House Paul Ryan withdrew the invitation to Donald Trump to speak at an event in Wisconsin.

In the GOP Senate, “Songbird” McCain was predictably all aboard the train. Given where Senator Lindsay Graham’s nose typically resides, his continuance in John McCain’s wake was not a shocker. This is disgusting. This is obvious treason. Progressives are infinitely evil to their enemies. Unlike the “Respectable Right,” you don’t find them corn-holing their own for a favorable mention on Carlos Slim’s NYT Blog.

It makes me wish Donald J. Trump would just channel the essence of being ¡LITERALLY HITLER! He should do what Kim Jung Il does and put the Caps Lock into Capital punishment. Nothing more explicitly says “F^$* U” like executing five people with an anti-aircraft gun. But given the rate of fire those weapons have, I’m not sure we have the ammo that treating these guys the way competent enemy soldiers treated a sortie flown by “Songbird” McCain would require. It’s pretty much the entire manifest of the next NRO Condescension Cruise.

It’s not inaccurate to assert that these people represent the core of movement conservatism.
•(((Bill Kristol))), editor in chief of the Weekly Standard, tweeted: “If you’re for Trump you functionally are for a man unfit to be president, and for the degradation of [American] conservatism.”
•(((George Will))) wrote a column titled “If Trump is nominated GOP must keep him out of the White House” in which he stated his hopes that Trump would lose all 50 states to Hillary Clinton.
•(((Tom Nichols))) of The Federalist, probably the keystone journal of the think-tank cons, titled his piece “I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump.”
•(((John Ziegler))), noted conservative documentary cineaste, wrote “The Case for Sane Conservatives to Strategically Vote for Hillary Clinton to Save the GOP.”
•Former California gubernatorial candidate (((Meg Whitman))) publicly expressed her support for Clinton.
•(((Max Boot))), longtime WSJ writer, stated “There’s no way to lie down with somebody like Trump without getting fleas,” while pledging to vote for Clinton.
• (((Erick Erickson))), formerly of Red State, said “It’s ‘Never Trump’ as in come hell or high water we will never vote for Trump”. (Red State was something of a sweep. Editors (((Dan McLaughlin))) and (((Ben Howe))) and contributor (((Leon Wolf))) also jumped on the bandwagon. Howe, never one to miss an opportunity, started raising funds for a film on Trump titled The Sociopath.)
•(((James Kirchick))) wrote the Daily Beast op-ed “Hillary Clinton Is 2016’s Real Conservative — Not Donald Trump.”
•And we can’t forget (((Peter Wehner))), Commentary’s last man on the ramparts, who missed no chance to disparage Trump, the same as he had done to Sarah Palin eight years earlier. “I think right now, I would say it would be better for the country if she [Hillary] won than if he won… the dangers that he poses to the country are greater than hers because I think he’s just so deeply unstable.”

You can’t preserve a nation from all enemies foreign and domestic; if you are too busy betraying your own to secure your own position and income stream. Why did the GOP get Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi jammed up their butts like homoerotic sex-toys? Hell, why did Lindsay Graham sit their grinning as if he liked it? Because they are traitors who secretly hate the people they claim as their ideological base.

The NRX, The Alt-Right, the Everyday American; none of us can ever trust the GOP. No one of these “Conservative Intellectuals” would do anything other than piss on our cadavers if they showed up for our wake. Kevin Williamson was comparing Donald Trump’s sons to Uday and Qusay Hussein. The cowards then deleted the link to Kevi-Kev’s coruscating brilliance. Still waiting for them to fire his butt the way they did to John Derbyshire…..

Frau Merkel Salutes Great Germans Like Georgy Zhukov

Sunday, March 5th, 2017

Loudoun County, VA has just unearthed a massive problem. It seems they badly need to clean out their jury pools. The county has 350,000 residents officially but finds itself disqualifying potential jurors at a rate of 1,800 per year because they are here illegally. Oh, and guess where they get their jury lists? The database of registered voters.

Between 2009 and 2014, the Washington, D.C., exurb of more than 350,000 residents had disqualified more than 9,000 of them for jury duty because they were not U.S. citizens. Loudoun County jury pools come from two sources — voter registration lists and Department of Motor Vehicle driver’s license applications. The county’s 9,000 juror disqualifications means that a potentially significant number of noncitizens vote illegally in Virginia.

Assuming maybe 1/2 of the queried jurors come from voter rolls, then we have about 4,500 non-citizens with a right to vote out of a population of 350,000. This gives us an illegal voting population equal to 1.3% of Loudoun County. Extrapolate that nationwide, and you get approximately 1.55 million non-residents voting in the last US presidential election. According to total advocates of open immigration this is acceptable. They operate under the Magic Dirt Theory of national identity, described by John Derbyshire as follows:

The core idea is that one’s physical surroundings—the bricks and mortar of the building you’re in, or the actual dirt you are standing on—emit invisible vapors that can change your personality, behavior, and intelligence.

This sort of thing is not uniquely American. In fact it is not unique to any country because it is a war cry of sorts raised against the spectre of any sort of emerging nationalism. We get The German Version of the same theory:

Chancellor Merkel is now facing opposition from many, including within her own party, for claiming that anyone living in Germany is part of the Volk, which amounts to saying that all migrants are German by virtue of living in the country…

So if you count prolonged Military TDYs, I can add a few names to the long list of great German Generals from WW II. One of the first to reach the promised land was William H. Simpson.

After the Battle of the Bulge, Simpson and the Ninth pressed on through Germany and crossed the Rhine on 24 March 1945. The Ninth encircled the Ruhr from the north and linked up with LTG Courtney Hodge’s First Army on 1 April, trapping 300,000 German soldiers. Elements of the Ninth were also the first U.S. troops to cross the Elbe River on 12 April.

Another of Merkel’s honorary members of the great Volk Mannerbund would have to be George S. Patton. Never you mind that his War College Thesis back in 1932 was an Independent Government Cost Estimate for the force necessary to defeat General Hans Guderian’s then-notional armor heavy formation.

Patton’s forces played a key role in defeating the German counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge, after which he led them across the Rhine River and into Germany, capturing 10,000 miles of territory and liberating the country from the Nazi regime. Patton died in Germany in December 1945 of injuries sustained in an automobile accident.

But the true German Immigrant by Merkel’s Magic Dirt Theory of Volkiness has to be Georgy Zhukov. He did so much to contribute to the state of Modern Germany that Merkel would be completely unfair to neglect his wonderful contributions.

Zhukov later led a successful campaign that eventually brought the Soviet troops deep into Germany, and capturing Berlin. Along with Field Marshal Ivan Koniev, he accepted the German surrender on behalf of the Soviets on 9 May 1945, two days after Germany surrendered to the western Allies. Zhukov remained in Berlin after the war as a leader of the Soviet occupation forces.

By extension of Frau Merkel’s reasoning without loss of generality, we could declare General Sherman an Honorary Son of Georgia. Why not make Custer, Reno and Bentine Honorary Sioux? Or Alaric, Attila and Arminius legendary Romans. I mean all these people came to a new country and stayed a while.

Just because Zhukov’s APCs did a few doughnuts on the lawn of Chancellor Hitler’s digs in Berlin isn’t a reason to get all ethno-nationalist or anything. Like the Rapefugees who increasingly infest countries like Germany, France and Sweden today, these people all came and occupied The Magic Dirt. By Frau Merkel’s curuscating brilliance; they are true citizens of the lands they infest. Take that you ¡RACIST! Alt-Righters!

Diversity Means Cultural Erasure

Thursday, January 26th, 2017

The inimitable John Derbyshire (pronounced: DAR-bih-sherr) writes about the nature of how civilizations end:

The SOAS students have been demanding that dead white males like Socrates, Descartes, and Kant be dropped from the syllabus and replaced by African and Asian philosophers.

Some academics are on board with this. A mulatto chap named Kehinde Andrews, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Birmingham City University, told a British TV audience on January 9th that the Enlightenment was racist.

Of course the Enlightenment was racist. It’s built on the idea that there is a special knowledge from Europe. We think about someone like Immanuel Kant, who is still revered, comes up with the idea of the taxonomy of the races, which is so important to how we understand that I wasn’t deemed to be a person by Immanuel Kant when he was writing. If that’s not racism, I don’t know what it is.

To people like me — bookish, thoughtful types who respect and admire real scholarship — the most tragic aspect of our civilization’s decline is the ongoing degradation of higher education: the infiltration of the student bodies by whining ignoramuses like the authors of the SOAS report, and the appointment to academic positions of illiterate clowns like Professor Andrews.

The end result of diversity, contrary to how it is sold, is the establishment of one culture into which all other cultures can fit. Just like if you have five-foot doorways in your home, and then acquire a seven-foot-tall friend, the standard for what is normal must include its furthest outlier. In the case of civilization, this amounts to a reduction of standards to a lowest common denominator.

For that reason, anything that clashes with this new reality must be removed. What matters is not whether most of it is true, but that it contains some small amount of data that contradicts the narrative; for this reason, Kant and other thinkers must get the shove. What this does is reduce social values to the “intersectional,” or that which does not offend every group, which becomes a broad and low standard indeed.

No group gets what it wants under this standard, which is the prevalence of its own culture, because culture is comprised of choices and principles, and those necessarily exclude other options. The idea of choice and principle is to narrow, so the lowest common denominator broadens it, at which point everyone is living in a shopping mall with no rules except “no stealing, murder, rape or offending anyone.”

Through this process, every group becomes obliterated through loss of its culture and, without that to separate people, outbreeding. This explains why most third world countries worldwide are inhabited by racially-mixed populations with simplified cultures and a high degree of personal freedom, but almost zero ability to come together, agree on values, and fix endemic problems in their civilizations.

Law Of Attraction

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

“When you’re on my level, God just gives you free shoes.” – YouTuber Lilian Shekinah

There is an antidote to the ennui that is sucking the West into the toilet of history. It is an antidote that you take as an individual. Taking it will inure you to the pathological rot marauding the institutions of our Modern Society. It involves the Law of Attraction.

The Law of Attraction is simple. You ask for it, you get it. That can be good, bad or indifferent. And you’d probably better take control of the asking, because your brain will do it on autopilot if you don’t.

If you let it slide, you get whatever you tolerate. It will suck because the crowd will populate your universe the way algae can kill all the fish and stink up the water at your favorite pond. When others control what is in your mental and sacred space, they will use it as a porta-crapper.

You will experience internal dialogue every day of your existence. Your brain will take things in aggressively and that will shape your view of the world and your place in it. You filter those images or they fill you to the neck with toxic crowdist sludge. Take control of this stuff or you will end up like “Fat Boy” in this old Silverchair song.

So how do I establish this level of self-control and inner dominance? You control what goes in and out of your life. You build your own High-Pass Filter. You demand better. As TRS puts it; “Will to power, bruh!” Really? How?

Visualization is how you start. Imagine what right looks like. Put visions in your mind of what you want to see happen. Make them increasingly detailed. It’s not Dungeons and Dragons. It’s using your imagination to plan what your life will look like.

  1. Create your personal story board: Imagine your life as a movie or novel and lay out what you want to see happen. What type of person do you want to have kids with? Where do you want to live? How do you want to make a living? Answer these things or the world will give you those answers and they will be crowdist and sub-optimal.
  2. Plan How To Live Your Story: Build a bridge. Look at where you are now and ask yourself how you intend to get from your current state to the life in your story board.
  3. Listen Critically to Your Internal Dialogue: If it tells you negative things or drives you in a bad direction, treat it like a Nickelback song and turn that drivel off. You have discretion over what messages you accept and which ones you “Nickelback.” You need to use it. You will always hear internal dialogue.
  4. Start Yesterday: As you age, your options dwindle. John Derbyshire describes the urgency this requires well in a movie review he did of Saturday Night Fever.

    At twenty, these young men are all pretty much done, and you can practically hear the doors of opportunity clanging shut around them. Not that it is impossible for them to get somewhere in life from this point on, but now it will need more courage, determination, and luck with every passing year. This is the thing that Tony grasps at the very end of the movie: “I’m an able person. I can do these things.” (Unspoken: But I better get moving.)

  5. Do Things At The Right Pace: “Festine Lente” said the great Philosopher cum Emperor. Set a pace you can steadily move forward at. Plan your work, work your plan. Ignore the crowd. They are garbage.

So, in conclusion, you need to internally fortify yourself against the external carny house of a culture we live in. Stand on the promises you can make to yourself and keep. These are reliable. Nothing you encounter around you will be.

Mixed-race Kevin Williamson gives us “the talk” about white boys

Saturday, March 19th, 2016


White Boys. What do you fricking do with them? All those honkies too broke to afford the latest suit from Armani just look alike to National Review Magazine. They have a role in life. They work, they save, they build capital and institutions and they then sit there in docile compliance when socialist dirt bags steal everything they have and give it to tossers who haven’t done jack to earn it. What do you do with those melanin-deficient apostates who just say “F#$% it!” and cook meth instead? Kevin Williamson of National Review has a solution. He hopes that it is a final one.
Here’s how Kevin Williamson would like that all to work out.

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.

So given National Review’s proud tradition of purging dyspeptic bigots from the ranks of the Conservative Movement; I hereby call on Rich Lowry to immediately fire Kevin Williamson and delete every article this man has ever written from the NRO archives. Mr. Lowry, you see, has established a precedent in how he handles this situation in the past. It occurred when John Derbyshire wrote pure, unadulterated heresy in the hallowed pages of his publication a few years back.
Here’s what John Derbyshire wrote:

The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

Mr. Lowry was scandalized. Once he had cleaned up from browning his trousers, he took to the Corner Blog of his website to write the following:

His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation.

Unlike Mr. Derbyshire, Mr. Williamson’s anti-white hate screed worthy of Robert Mugabe or Winnie Mandela, will be right on the marquee of your print magazine, Mr. Lowry. It will have National Review’s name and imprimatur on every despicable column inch. Do you support these views? Are you proud and honored that the self-supposing voice of “Conservative” America now calls for the obliteration of Working-Class White neighborhoods? Is this what you believe the purpose of your “Conservatism” really should be?
Until Mr. Williamson has been fired like a howitzer; I’ll have every reason to believe that National Review Magazine now exists to hate me, hate the family line I came from and wish nothing for me but a total and ineffable damnation. Amazing how that doesn’t quite make me feel like running out there sending NRO more money or voting the way that they would endorse. Mr. Williamson’s evil, classist and racist hatred of all White People too poor to regularly board the Acela and work in the board room is a direct challenge to your pre-supposed intellectual fairness and judicious defining of Conservatism as a non-bigoted ideology. I will eagerly await Mr. Williamson’s hasty termination as a sign that this self-coronated voice of “Conservatism” truly measures up to its own press releases.

Recommended Reading