Talking About Race

Black folks always want to talk to you about race. Anyone who had ever followed any unmoderated blog’s comments section that had at least one black commenter knows how important it is to them. For Whites, on the other hand, few things are as tiresome as talking about race. The reason for that difference is an asymmetrical frustration upon contact. For them, easy access to us is the highest moral good. They were taught that this is called “Civil Rights.” Conversely, we find their access to us intolerable but there is no affirmative word for that in mainstream political language.

Blacks seek to alleviate their frustration with insufficiently easy access to Whites by begging us to “talk about race” and escalating that to a hostile confrontation. Whites, in turn, seek separation through whatever means are at our disposal and under present laws, passively.

The context for that is the rebirth of Communism. When left wing politicians push gun confiscation in Virginia, they officially frame it in the generic language of public safety but informally, through their junior activists on Twitter and such, they gloat about replacing us with brown people. When they float trial-balloons for banning private schools or defacto White neighborhood zoning [link], they frame those things as matters of anything other than what it really is.

Likewise, our public discourse in opposition to their eradication-agenda is also framed in the vocabulary of this so-called civic nationalism. This is by necessity. The political maturation of the normies masses has its own inertia, a paced progress from implicit to explicit identity. Westerners in their invaded countries are compelled by their enemy to once again learn how to talk about race. But on our own terms and grounded in the righteous spirit of our right to exist, affirming our own identity with its sacred history and destiny.

As to the the talented mulatto Trevor Noah, he sees contemporary South Africa as aspirational while to us it’s a nightmare scenario. This clarifies things.


Display Morality



All people are guided by two kinds of morality: their innate moral compass which is part instinct and part culture/upbringing, and what we can call “Display Morality.” Some Westerners are unsteady on their Display Morality. Normies, boomers, people who aren’t of the national Right, aren’t sure how to signal in situations like Richmond, where the primary objective is to secure the 2A and the secondary objective is to secure the 4th generation warfare claim on moral high ground. In error, they fight for a good cause with faulty Display Morality. It’s possible that the Feds anticipated that, which is why they pulled the aikido move of not crushing the patriots in the kill box.

The identitarian spirit is there. What’s missing is clarity on moral first-causes. No one actually believes in anti-racism or in demon-tranny right of access to children. But with alien fiddles playing their tune all through the decades of the Cold War via their monopoly on media, Westerners’ sense of Display Morality has became deformed. Especially that of Boomers, who were force-fed the Civil Rights theater in their youth.

Addendum for perspective: I don’t know what the rally was like and how prevalent those cuckservative banners were. One can’t rule out the clowns in the photo above being Antifa with new instructions. But one way or another, the Left’s Communist program is not stopping until it’s stopped. The national spirit is there and in the course of events it will mature. One anecdote from Mendo:

One such story was an older gent and his son who had to park faraway and walk towards the event, when a cab pulled up and asked if they were going to the rally. They said they were and he gave them a lift. When they got out, they were gonna pay and the cab driver said he supports patriots and didn’t charge them.

And a comment by Suburban_elk, which should be quoted in full:

The linked Anglin DS article on the Virginia rally is really good. I got two points, in response to it.

1. The rally goers’ main problem is brilliantly presented: We are fighting for our guns, so that we can protect our guns.. Hahahahahaha

Obv they need something more than that, to fight for. And without that thing being explicitly themselves and their families, what are they left with, except to fight for “muh our way of life” and that presents its problems because, it’s not explicit enough, mainly. A way of life is too much values and not enough blood; or at least it can be manipulated into such.

Anglin suggests that the answer of what to fight for, is God. Hard to argue with that, but on the other hand, as an answer it leaves quite a bit to be desired..

Here is what PA says —

No one actually believes in anti-racism (or demon-tranny right to read books to children). They just don’t have a grounding in proper Display Morality. An injured sense of identity, to be repaired.

I disagree that no-one believes in anti-racism, but leave that for another time. It is absolutely the case that our Identity as White Westerners is in bad shape. Display Morality is an interesting concept, worth exploring. A healthy display, is a health mind and body.

2. The second point I have regarding the DS take on the Virginia rally, is quite simply that the (White) people there weren’t as fat and ugly, as made out to be by the DS crowd. The old adage of, you find what you seek. Memes were made of the worst looking people; those pictured meme people are not representative specimens.

Or are they? I wasn’t there, I watched a half-hour on the livestream. I saw that there were any number of regular looking people. Yeah America is obese and “over-saturated” with chemicals and fats and plastic and hormone disruptors and the rest.

But to the point: There were guys who looked more the part of men.

Those people, are less inclined to be in front of the camera, for starters.

Bluebirds with bluebirds, red birds with red birds

The Ministry of Propaganda made a curiously innocuous-looking MLK Day doodle.


Snap impression: tall Chad with a redhead and a brunette (let’s say). Boomer liberal woman with vibrancy. But there is more going on. And do we want to see their faces? Their art always has sinister energy. Anyway, just about the entirety of Western news from 1945 through 2007 has been fake by virtue of the fact that all of it was created, packaged, and disseminated to the public via the intelligence-media complex of the United States. The MLK myth was one such synthetic product. This is a short post and an open thread.

Oh, it’s just some young Australians having fun

…in 1983:


So what do you say about that photo? It really does cry out for your thousand words.

  • No hoverhand over any hemisphere.
  • “Producer! Subvoit this. Title it Revenge of the Nerds.”
  • I want this. For our next generation.
  • Make the mustache great again.
  • “How did we get so far from our fields?”
  • Remember when dude short-shorts were in style and it never crossed anyone’s mind that they’re a bit too personal?
  • [An effort-paragraph about the metaphysics of our destiny.]
  • No try-hard gym muscles and the chicks had a lovely bush.
  • Just a sweet pic. The other 996 words have melted into bliss.
  • This is who we are.
  • The one on the left looks good. Yes, I’m talking about the girl.
  • Pure vigor.
  • From politics and war, to mathematics and philosophy, to art and poetry… [photo] … to slave, to guerilla fighter, to politics and war.
  • Feminists envy those two.
  • Eye on the prize, Mr. President, eye on the prize.
  • “Ouch, time traveler from 2020. We can party but we are also good at war. Just like you, my Yankee bro, we already cleared a continent once. We can do it again. We just need a leader.”
  • The drinks at waist level, yup.
  • Open thread.

Positive and negative attention

Everybody likes attention because everyone feels like he has something valuable to share. Even shy and introverted people enjoy attention in their own way. One can attract negative attention or positive attention.

Positive attention is much more difficult because it requires patience, as it’s a product of a long-term effort that goes along with building one’s character. To accrue positive attention, first of all, you have to do nothing to attract attention. Especially when you see an opening to do something but that little voice tells you that this isn’t the right moment to get attention because it’d be negative attention. So you do and say nothing for much of the time except at the right time when you do or say the exact right thing. Comes with practice.

Some people weren’t told at age ten that no-attention is better than negative attention. So as boys, they saw that it’s easy to get attention by doing things that make a moment uncomfortable, make people stop and wonder if there is something wrong with you, but it’s still attention. So they develop a lifelong habit of drawing negative attention to themselves. The result over decades is that other people avoid them.

Zombie Politics

The uniparty thinks it can continue to square the circle indefinitely: maximize White productivity at no positive incentive, minimize White discontent with no concessions to any grievance. In a typical example of the Republicans’ hollow words, a GOP consultant makes an appeal to muh conservative principles (Washington Post “Wake up Republicans. Your party stands for all the wrong things now” Dec. 31, 2019). Grandpa Lampshade on Gab offers a point-by-point reaction to the italicized passages:

“Look, I was just wondering: What’s the Republican Party all about these days? What does it, well, stand for?”

Thanks for asking. I think a great start would be no more wars for Israel and you know, actually participating in the culture war.

“Republicans now partly define their party simply as an alternative to that other party, as in, “I’m a Republican because I’m not a Democrat.”

As opposed to what, exactly? Being a part of a party that taken as a whole is no different than the Democrat party?

“In a long-forgotten era…..”

Oh hell, here we go.

“Though there was disagreement over specific issues, most Republicans would have said the party stood for some basic principles”

Aside from consistently losing/surrendering to the commies, these so called conservative principles always seem illusive so please enlighten us poor ignorant rubes

“….fiscal sanity…”

Ya’ll never delivered any of that….ever.

“….free trade….”

Ah yes, the good old days…when the people were in the streets demanding to lose their jobs so that big corporations could profit via free trade. What happened to those good old days?

“….strong on Russia….”

This one is funny in that Russia only became enemy #1 because Hillary Clinton said they were. To the uninitiated this may seem strange coming from a conservative but for those who have paid any attention it makes perfect sense.

“….and that character and personal responsibility count”

Tell us Mr. Conservative, is the Republican party for or against gay marriage? What about abortion? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? Conservative principles are defined as standing for the things they claimed to be against just a few short years before

“A party without a governing theory, a higher purpose or a clear moral direction is nothing more than a cartel”

LOL Project much?

“Trump didn’t hijack the GOP and bend it to his will. He did something far easier”

I bet I know where this is going

“He …offered himself as a pure distillation of accumulated white grievance and anger.”

There it is. Just like the commies; “The problem is white people!”

“Trump didn’t make Americans more racist; he just normalized the resentments that were simmering in many households.”

Shut up and support free trade bigot!

“The United States is now a diverse, chaotic collection of 330 million people, a country of immigrants and multiculturalism that is growing less white every day.”

Yes, he’s saying this as though it’s a good thing.

“It is not some gauzy Shangri-La of suburban bliss that never existed.”

It’s funny how in one breath he says that what it is now is different than what it was before and in the next says that what it was before never existed. You read these things from conservatives and it’s indistinguishable from what is said by commies. Hey Mr. Conservative, perhaps that might be part of the problem?

The uniparty message is the lifeless, mindless sound produced by a walking corpse. On one side of politics, you have exactly that kind of an appeal to pseudo-Reaganesque points that move no one. On the other side you have globalism with its hatred of our civilization. The two sides differ solely in style: one feigns patience with Whites’ reluctance to get on the one-world bandwagon, the other is openly Communist.

The way out of this quicksand is to subordinate muh principles to identitarian aspirations. Especially any talk of “the economy.” Not concede it; subordinate it. Donald Trump cracked that door open in 2015. Viktor Orban does this effectively. The global supply of cheap labor is this Ring of Power that tempts national leaders. Once grabbed, it promises power and guarantees war. This cheap labor also turns into more of a burden than benefit to the economy, with “economy” understood in the good-faith sense of common prosperity. Hence the uniparty’s above-mentioned imperative to maximize White productivity.

National leaders who nevertheless keep on reaching for that ring even after all the hell of Diversity that’s in front of our eyes are not leaders. They are thieves who took control over your government. By natural law they face execution for treason. The right moral focus is on the health of one people of one blood and one language living in one given country as the highest political good and the path of life over death.

Libs coming around?

Has anyone else noticed middle class White liberals they know personally cooling their engines over the past year? They’d save face and not necessarily tell you that they were wrong; certainly not come around on Trump. But maybe the antiwhite insanity plus the blatant pdplia push on the part of the Left, or maybe the Epstein event, has them reconsidering.

For my part, I never agreed with the proposition that liberalism is a religion. It is, more than anything else among liberal White people, social conformity pumped by their ego and fueled by their pity for what they see as inferior gays and nonwhites.