1,269 words
Accelerationism is the idea that the best way to achieve White Nationalist goals is to accelerate the decline of the present system. This will supposedly have two effects. First, acceleration will weaken the system’s ability to maintain power, including to oppress dissenters. Second, acceleration will anger and awaken the white masses, making them more receptive to our message.
Accelerationism is often associated with the maxim, “Worse is better.” As a categorical statement, “Worse is better” is just a contradiction in terms, like “Bad is good,” “Night is day,” and “Losing is winning.” But there is a qualified sense in which that maxim is true: What is worse for the present system is generally better for dissidents. We all know that the system is going in the wrong direction: demographically, culturally economically, and politically. The sooner these problems manifest themselves, the sooner dissidents can step forward with alternatives—and the sooner resistance to our plans will crumble.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
Furthermore, the present political system offers only two options: the Left, which wants to accelerate “progress” toward complete social breakdown, and the Right, which merely wants to slow the process down and perhaps put it on firmer economic and social foundations. Accelerationists thus conclude that it might be better to have the Left in power, so it destabilizes and hastens the end of the system.
Then they talk about the frog. No, not Pepe. No, not the one with the scorpion. No, not the singing frog from the Warner Bros. cartoon. The frog in the pan of water. If you want to boil a frog, you have to do it slowly, so he doesn’t realize what is happening and jump out of the pan. By slowing down “progress,” the mainstream Right lulls the frogs into a false sense of security. But the Left, by accelerating the process, might cause the frogs to get antsy and jump out of the pan, etc. etc.
But not everything that is bad for the establishment is good for dissidents. Wars, economic crashes, and natural disasters can affect dissidents as well as authorities. Declining trust in the government and media obviously helps dissidents. But an across-the-board decline in social trust would probably strengthen whoever holds power. When black rule came to South Africa and Rhodesia, the cascading disasters did not galvanize white self-assertion but instead led to an almost complete collapse of white morale and resistance.
Worse (for them) is not necessarily better (for us). Worse is sometimes just worse. So praying for bad news—or actively promoting bad outcomes—seems like a very foolish way to create a better world. In fact, it seems akin to suicide bombing: an act of a people reduced to hopelessness and desperation after a long train of defeats.
So where does accelerationism come from? It begins as a psychological mechanism for coping with defeat. For instance, imagine you were convinced that it was vitally important for white Americans that Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama in 2012. When Romney lost, you might have consoled yourself with the thought that maybe four more years of Obama wouldn’t be so bad after all, since he might accelerate the system’s decline and red pill more normies. It isn’t an unreasonable position.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here
But there’s an important distinction here. There is a world of difference between (1) doing what one thinks is right, suffering defeat, and then hoping, in retrospect, that the bad consequences you tried to fight might hasten the eventual triumph of the true and the good—and (2) taking accelerationism as a first principle and actively promoting bad ideas and policies because you think they will hasten the triumph of the true and the good.
For instance, accelerationism was the basis of Brenton Tarrant’s scheme to use terrorism to provoke state repression of freedom of speech, gun rights, and open white advocates—on the assumption that this would somehow spark a White Nationalist revolution—a revolution that would somehow be organized without the ability to communicate and somehow triumph without access to weapons. Yes, his plan really was that stupid. We do not win by losing our freedom of speech, our right to bear arms, or our right to organize and participate in political life. That’s how we lose.
In 2008 and 2012, I argued that the election of Barack Obama would be better for White Nationalism than the election of John McCain and Mitt Romney. After all, McCain and Romney would have done nothing to halt non-white immigration and white demographic decline. Instead, they would have simply put white faces on an anti-white system and lulled the Right into complacency. They might have also made the anti-system function more efficiently. Obama, by contrast, put a non-white face on an anti-white system. He made white dispossession visible. Being a Leftist, he was also more likely to push too far, too fast and destabilize the system. I thought that McCain and Romney offered nothing to White Nationalists but that Obama would give us opportunities for progress. So I did not oppose him.
You can call that accelerationism if you like. But, by the same token, I did not vote for Obama, because there’s a difference between hoping and knowing that good will come out of evil. I believe it is our duty to do good and fight evil. If the gods want to turn evil into good, that lies in their power, not ours. Moreover, I knew my individual vote would not have mattered anyway, so I would have felt foolish wasting my time voting. Beyond that, I would have still felt vaguely dirty casting even a meaningless vote for Obama.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right here
Furthermore, if Obama ran on the policies promoted by today’s Democrats—namely censoring White Nationalists, grabbing guns, and abolishing the borders—and McCain or Romney opposed those policies, I would have supported them enthusiastically.
In 2016, I had a very different attitude toward the Republican nominee, because Donald Trump had broken with Republican orthodoxy on immigration, free trade, and foreign policy. He was defending immigration restriction, protectionism, and an America First foreign policy. These were our issues. It was a huge win for us when Trump simply created a debate about these ideas, because none of the other candidates would have done so, and we can win such debates. Also note that this was a win for us no matter what happened next—whether Trump won or lost the election, whether Trump succeeded or failed in implementing his policies. But of course, we wanted Trump to win the election and then triumph over the congress, the press, and the deep state to build the wall and put America first, because it would have been “our” victory. Not a complete victory, of course. But it would have been a significant step in the right direction.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country here
Thus I was very impatient with accelerationist talk in 2016. I actually heard people say that maybe we should support Hillary Clinton, you know, to accelerate things. At this point, it became clear to me that accelerationism had mutated from a coping mechanism into a toxic “strategy” that basically amounts to the axiom that “We win by losing.” It would have been perfectly understandable to advance such ideas if Trump had actually lost. But when our ideas were actually threatening to win out, it was the height of perversity to suggest that we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because we somehow win by losing.
No, actually we lose by losing. When we lose, we can of course hope that somehow the gods or “history” will turn our defeats into conditions for future victories. But in the end, we can only win by winning.
28 comments
It’s hard to accelerate or reverse or advance or anything when you don’t really know where you are trying to go.
Let’s hypothesize a young man who joined the movement in the 2010s: he heard that demographics was destiny, he saw the steady erosion of his living conditions and social position against a Rising Tide of Color, and doing some back of the envelope calculations he realized that if this continues not only is his existence in jeopardy, but the existence of everyone and everything he cares about.
He lent his energies to the movement.
Now it is 2020, and what does our hypothetical young man face: the electoral victories have not moved the demographic needle at all. His Enemy’s immune systems were revived by those wearing helmets and body armor, carrying clubs shields and torches and shouting “white sharia now”. Communication is more difficult, organization is more difficult, and the priorities seem to have shifted from chromosomes and maps (ie the real world) to reviving Hellenistic Judaism (aka Christianity) and banning pornography.
Confusing, demoralizing. So what is the answer? The answer is what it has always been: an honorable, respectful, peaceful campaign for Partition. Some dithered and delayed fearing that if we were seen to not be energetic enough for Trump 2020, then we would be blamed by our target audience for his defeat.
Does that even matter now? Trump is heading for defeat; and while no one can predict the future, it is equally if not more likely that Trump will have a bad 10 months than a neutral or even good 10 months until the election; especially given his actions in the Middle East. Currently he is tracking for 250 Electoral Votes, he may drop through the floor.
The movement already decided that it wasn’t going to use the 4 years offered by Trump productively back in late 2016 and 2017. That isn’t going to change now. We must wait until the verdict of 2020 is in before a New movement can begin. See you then!
I’d never heard of the concept of ” Christianity as being Hellenistic Judaism” before, but I grasp the concept. I would hope someone more literate in Greek history and philosophy could flesh out this idea in a post — or a whole book — because if we could present a unified theory to the whole blazing Evangelical choir on why their adoration of and subservience to ‘the Chosen People’ is not in their best interest, it would be a massive first step in the battle against the ‘anti-Semitism’ that is routinely plastered all over White society worldwide
Basically the new testament if read as a text in the sense that Barthe or Baudrillard meant its possible you are reading, especially in the gospel a Greek dramatist satirizing Judaism. Jesus was unlike any Jew I’ve ever met. He’s practically a troll remade as literary device.
If you want to understand why Christianity is Hellenized Judaism, search for “Richard Carrier” on YouTube and watch his videos.
But you should really start with this one (not by Carrier):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE
Watch the whole thing, it will transform your understanding of Christianity.
If you want to know why you’re losing, maybe start with the fact that you’re referring to the faith of generations of our White Ancestors as “Hellenic Judaism.”
Maybe saying shit like that is a big turn-off to otherwise potentially receptive normies.
Good points. We thought something monumental had been achieved in 2016 when despite almost total institutional opposition, white America elected a right-wing populist who was going to kick out all of the illegals, build the wall and “Make America Great Again”. 4 years on and we realize that it was either all a con from the start or the system is able to render electoral victories irrelevant and paralyse popular policies backed by the president. All the time and energy we spend on the democratic pantomime is wasted. We’re worse off that we were 4 years ago and we’ll be worse off again 4 years from now, regardless of whether Trump wins or not. Every 4 years of democratic navel-gazing brings us closer to the abyss.
Aside from democratic politics, internet censorship prevents the effective growth of an online counter culture. They can censor posts, ban accounts, shadow ban and even take down entire websites at will. If they felt threatened in some way that’s exactly what they would do. Also, is time and energy spend reading articles or watching videos on the same old topics beneficial beyond a certain point, or does it became demoralizing to be consuming the same stuff without things ever moving in the right direction?
We’re not going to march through the institutions because the doors are firmly closed to people like us and those who try will more often than not be assimilated into the system. We also don’t have time on our side as our enemies did due to demographics. WN’s aren’t going to take over the media, hollywood, law, academia and finance.
Violence as we’ve seen doesn’t work for other reasons. They don’t need it as a pretext to restrict our freedoms because they do that anyway and the reputational damage it does is overstated when you’re already seen as being on a moral par with devil-worshippers but far more aliens migrate to our nations in one day than anyone has managed to take out. Aside from generally being seen as morally repugnant, numerically it’s never more than a drop in the ocean so as far as white survival goes random shootings of ethnic aliens or leftists are pointless.
If democracy, internet activism, entryism and terrorism aren’t viable solutions then what is? I would say that forming families, networking with other nationalists irl and building ideologically unified white communities based on the Orania model in very rural areas (with an eye to future secession) is the best hope. It requires far more effort than voting or writing and there are numerous hurdles to overcome but it would give our people something worth living for. Those with the largest online platforms could help us organize on a local level to meet people in their towns and cities. We can’t build any kind of effective movement if it’s almost entirely online and abstract. The result is that most of us become alienated and give up.
This is well written, but I have three criticisms:
1. There are plenty of work-arounds for dealing with deplatforming. The system can make life hard for us, but no system ever made it easy to be overthrown. We will not monetize our revolution on the system’s platforms.
2. The underlying assumption of your argument is that EITHER we do “democracy, internet activism, entryism and terrorism” or OR we are “forming families, networking with other nationalists irl and building ideologically unified white communities.” Let’s leave terrorism out, because I have given crushing reasons to reject it. Honestly, this is not an either/or. My assumption is that everyone engaged in “democracy, internet activism, entryism” is not doing exclusively that but also “forming families, networking, and building communities.” I would also include education and career-building as things we need to do alongside our activism. One can, for instance, build a career, a family, and a social network while engaged in the long march through the institutions.
3. Orania is a bad model. We should not be running off to the woods and rural areas, where we simultaneously lower our connectivity and influence in the society we want to change and form easy targets for destruction.
Several years ago there was a lot of innovative nationalist content getting hundreds of thousands or millions of views on Youtube. RWDS entertainment, uncucktheright, murdoch murdoch etc. Now the platform is a wasteland for this kind of content, many of our brightest creators have gone dark and a few of us have migrated to internet ghettos like bitchute where it’s a total echo chamber. It’s a similar story with twitter and gab. Our enemies have the power to consign all of the top pro-white websites to the darkweb or force us into distributing samizdat. Trying to build a dissident political movement online is far less stable and viable as a strategy than it was just a few years ago and I can’t see things getting any easier for us on that front.
Voting and internet activism (entryism is a different story) aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive to building families or ideologically unified white communities but the psychology behind them renders them mutually exclusive in practice. People who believe they can vote or shitpost their way to victory (or infiltrate institutions totally controlled by our enemies like academia or media) aren’t going to be interested in anti-mainstream strategies like building intentional communities and gradual territorial secession. Imo we need to realize that we have lost the battle for control of the system before we can start to build anything with a solid foundation.
I didn’t mention military coup or a collapse but both of these are out of our hands and the former would almost certainly be of an authoritarian conservative bent than a racialist variety, so not all that much better for us (anyone above captain is a de-facto politician anyway so it’s unlikely we’ll even see a coup in the absence of extreme and prolonged social disorder).
It’s true that retreating into the hinterlands would distance ourselves further from the centres of power but we have no power in the centre anyway. As things continue to degenerate, those out in rural areas with intentional communities will be far better off than those in the belly of the beast. If there is ever any kind of “collapse” in the way many in the movement optimistically imagine it then those least dependent on and furthest removed from the centres of power will be in a much stronger position.
The system doesn’t commonly resort to mass murdering its citizens, I think mainly due to optics-related concerns but as we know, accidents do happen. It makes it more difficult for them to do it though if we’re not completely centralized geographically, religiously cultish and are seen to obey laws that most of our people support, such as not engaging in polygamy or arranged marriages. I don’t think there are any silver bullets here, it’s a desperate situation. It’s vital though that we are able to see tangible progress and a future for a committed minority of our people if they majority cannot or will not be saved. As it stands things get worse every year and it’s not healthy to be part of a movement that keeps losing ground.
Excellent points, but from “traditionalist” perspective even making children only multiplies the problem, but then I guess we are no longer talking about WN.
I see WNs as stuck between accelerationism (“making things worse is good”) and holy life (“doing good is always good and the only good”, i.e. “to do good you must be good”).
WN is still very much “becoming”, just not as deep in the water as accelerationism, because they follow politics, modern culture and all that in an attempt to prolong a sense of racial security that no race will ever attain. What WNs expect from existence itself is misguided and all their goals and hopes are therefore misguided – and if you point this out you get a reply with either pathologizing or just ad hominem, even though impermanence is just an impersonal truth of becoming.
“Traditional” PoV abandons this issue completely, since it ceases to be politics. “Winning” course of action (=being good) is always turning to the eternal and therefore always and already possible.
There are pros to choosing such “suicide” even from contingent PoV. One can only save oneself, so therefore instead of jumping into the game of lies and influences to wage war, we could choose truth and let our enemies also find it. It could be even possible to convert our enemies from the most depraved and highest echelons of globalists, but not from WN PoV. There have been leaders like Jesus and the Buddha who won against impossible odds, but even they couldn’t save the races. Our situation is in no way worse than it was back in those days – in many ways ours is less dangerous and less hostile and we have access to more information. Normies were always the same.
It seems to me that guys like Brenton Tarrant rely a lot on the future predicted in The Turner Diaries.
Although not an accelerationist book, the “revolution” is a reaction to an extremely adverse situation. The problem, as quoted in the text, is that the book, although very realistic in many passages, underestimates much of the communication and firepower difficulties.
Great article. Clear, easy to follow: That’s important to me since I’m not versed in CC’s literature.
@ Greg; are you going to vote for Trump this year?
I will support the good things Trump stands for. But I doubt I will bother to vote. The point is to use Trump’s campaign as an occasion to educate people about our issues. That matters far more than my vote.
A 2020 victory by Donald J. Trump would be a metapolitical victory. The ‘arc of history’ will — once again — bend in a direction other than the ‘progress’ our enemies prefer. If Trump wins, I want to be able to feel that I helped put that look of horror on their faces. I’m in a solidly ‘blue’ state and so my vote has no chance of affecting the Electoral College, but I still want to rack up points for the ‘red’ team when the popular vote is counted. 2020 will probably be the last time someone who doesn’t reflexively hate White people will be elected to the Presidency. It may be a moment to savor.
Trump might take a victory in 2020 as a mandate to invade Iran.
Arguments over “accelerationism” are too generic. The answer varies depending on what you are talking about.
Anything that wakes our people up without doing permanent damage to us is helpful. Anything that does heavy damage and does nothing to wake our people up is not helpful.
Terrorism is in the latter category. It does not wake our people up, it turns them against us. This version of accelerationism is clearly a negative. This include Brenton Tarrant and others like him.
But other accelerationist tactics are helpful. Desegregation efforts that target liberal white communities are helpful. They directly threaten white liberals who otherwise can’t see (or empathize with) the threat that the rest of us can see. It forces them to deal with reality. I want liberal communities to get the furthest left, most anti-white officials possible to get elected. I love that AOC and the squad are doing their thing. I want them to give it to their white supporters good and hard.
See here: “How White Liberals Will Wake Up”
https://www.unz.com/article/how-white-liberals-will-wake-up/
South Africa’s situation is at the other end of the spectrum. Once white South Africans gave away their power, they were doomed. The damage done was too high and permanent. Whatever “awakening” value it provided was irrelevant. Their only hope now is a civil war, which won’t be possible until the rest of the Western World is too screwed up to stop it.
In sum, the answer on accelerationism is “it depends.” How much will a tactic wake people up ? How much damage will it do?
it seems to me that your comment goes against the argument that Greg Johnson always says reality Red pilled a lot more people than any white nationalists. However, this is not what the text deals with.
Not whether AOC’s behavior is good for the cause or not, but whether you would support her because understand that this will accelerate the breaking point.
Goes in favor of Greg Johnson’s argument and not against.
I’m not understanding your comment about ‘civil war’ in South Africa. I just looked up the demographics in SA on Wikipedia –which is not the most scholarly source, but it does in a pinch — Black Africans outnumber Whites by 44,227,995 to 4,832,916. That is 10 to 1. And while Whites have more intelligence and thus, strategic planning capabilities, along with guns, they are doomed by numbers and tribal bloodthirstiness.
We, in America, still have demographic superiority, but we are widely divided. Most people would laugh at the words ‘civil war’ in America today, or would blankly stare at you and ‘say what?’
So, as I see it, accelerationism in America can only be accomplished by brilliant propaganda, and in my humble opinion, we are sitting on the best site on the ‘net for creating the ideas underlying that propaganda right along. Stay here and stay tuned!
White South Africans morale is also being held down by the white collaborators of the system, and here I want to highlight the liberal Afrikaans section including the mighty Naspers (National Press) who swung white opinion toward accepting a majority rule government, including white academics in the universities fearing for their pensions and jobs.
The question is what is going to happen when the ANC falls and the economy fails. The infrastructure failure is busy accelerating due to affirmative action. The whites still have the know-how and still are a few million strong. If they just can hang on long enough beyond the ANC (they will eventually fall), perhaps they will regain a fighting change, but there are also other contestants waiting in the queue. But to see that happening will most probably not be in my lifetime.
How BEE deindustrialised South Africa (here the decline is acceleration by itself without a particular push by the whites)
http://praag.org/?p=20844
Some thoughts on South Africa and Rhodesia.
1. There was no internet back then and their declines happened at times when the mainstream anti-white ideology around the world was very dominant. The U.S. and Britain played large roles in the declines as they were major super powers. But it’s going to be another thing entirely when it happens to the super powers themselves.
2. They are in Africa. An African country being taken over by blacks will garner more sympathy than a European one.
3. One or two white countries dying may go without any further action, but it happening all over the West likely will not.
4. White Rhodesians were only 8% of the population, and the blacks there had Chinese and Soviet funding. It’s creates a different mindset to go from about 85% of the population to a minority than to have always been an extreme minority.
5. South Africa is similar in that the white population peaked at around 20%. The country also serves as a warning to whites around the world and more people are waking up to the situation there. Support for white secession continues to grow there.
I have arrived at the personal decision this election year, for the first time in my middle aged life, to not vote in the presidential election.
I have a bit of a luxury where this is concerned in that I live in a deeply red state that is, worst case scenario, 10-15 or more years out from being demographically threatened as far as presidential elections go. So I can sit this one out knowing that my voice is irrelevant, and that I make a stronger statement by NOT voting, and forcing the GOP to face the music if this election turns out to be tighter on my state than it was 4 years ago.
Of course, these idiots will rationalize that it was Trump’s hardcore stance on immigration that caused his numbers to dwindle, rather than admitting it was the Middle East saber rattling and failing to live up to his other election promises.
I have come to the conclusion that there are maybe 10 states in this country where voting matters at all. It would be nice if white people could make a concerted effort to move to these states and tip the balance back in our favor, but the states they might leave would invariably shift in favor of the left. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
In general I do not encourage dissidents to not vote…certainly if you live in a swing state, please do. If I lived in a swing state, I’m sure I would hold my nose and vote for Trump again. If for no other reason than to get the satisfaction of watching cat ladies howling.
Side note…This concept of “accelerationism” is happening no matter what. In fact, I’d argue that Trump has been a catalyst for white people waking up to demographic issues just as much, if not more, than Obama was or another liberal would be. I think we’ve reached the point where politics have become an “uncontrolled chain reaction“ similar to nuclear fission. Everything that happens adds fuel to the fire of the collapse of this empire.
I wish I had an answer. I guess the only real answer is to sit it out, make our arguments, and hope that people are hearing us.
We face the same challenge in France but the problem is that french white people are too much prosperous. Therefore I am agree with Greg Johnson when he criticizes the inefficiency of terrorism and “accelerationism”. I want to point to my Americans readers that I am 25 and I have heard about the identitarians ideas since 2012. If you have an age between 18 and 25, I recommend progress in your studies (law,history,science), build relationships with politicals friends, make lot of sport(swimming,boxing etc.), reading ours fundamentals authors (Dr.Pierce, Johnson, Bardèche, etc.) and found a beautiful white family. Keep the flame alive and remember that: if you are an intelligent and capable person, you never will be alone! Make your life a count! (William L. Pierce).
Best regards from France.
Le Fauconnier.
I agree with your advice there to 18-25 year olds….read, get good grades build the foundation for a successful life.
At that tender age I made the mistake of taking myself as seriously as the Jews who tried to get me kicked off the school newspaper (college) and wasted a lot of time and energy spinning wheels on political advocacy and activism that achieved nothing. Far better to have used my time and effort to read more good books, get better grades and improve myself for the long haul. I was a skinny teenager with pimples and my writings were totally inconsequential. I know that now. Too bad I didn’t realize it then.
Between 2014 and 2016, I spend my time to read far-right literature instead of studying. The reading of “The Colonization of Europe”, written by Guillaume Faye in 2000 caused my radicalization. I was very schocked and, the therefore, after the Paris attacks on November 13th, 2015; I was ready for race war. But the (((French Republic))) fought the ISIS’s cells vigorously in the name of its false political doctrine: antifacism.
White Nationalists are compared by (((the controlled news medias))) with the Salafist jihadist. Therefore, what is to be done now? Educate, commmunicate and inspire white people with good will.
I encourage white american nationalist to support the Nordic Resistance Movement in Scandinavia, the most serious far-right organization in Europe. The afrikaner town of Orania is success story too.
There are currently 330,000,000 million people in the US. If you assume half of people voted in the 2016 election (although I think it was closer to 60%, which would make the following numbers even less) then your share of “power” is 6X10^-9 or .0000006 percent of total voice power. Negligible to the point of being stupid. The reality is that who you vote for by and large almost certainly doesn’t matter, except perhaps in the very local elections. And that doesn’t even take into account the strong likelihood of rampant voter fraud, and census manipulation with illegals. Elections are theatre to convince plebs they have a say in things, rather than acknowledging that this is an occupation government.
In my opinion, Accelerationism is best thought of not as a movement but an observation. The rate of cultural change does indeed appear to be increasing, especially because of technology, which makes me think it is a valid concept. I don’t believe this can be slowed down or increased willfully except with totalitarian control of some sort, and even then it is still probably too late as all this technology can’t be put back into pandora’s box. The paltry influence of a few votes would have no effect one way or another. Being for or against acceleration, in this context, is also meaningless. Its not in our power to influence. Remember, the end “goal” of acceleration is the technological singularity eg Roko’s basilisk.
I don’t think there will be a ‘technological singularity.’ I think we are approaching the limits of at the very least tech devised by humans. Besides that, you say that it is all an inexorable flow toward a single point of perfection, but wouldn’t the accelerationism spoken of in the article be the opposite of the one you speak of? In the former, it ends in dissolution, certainly a falling back, a regression (one probably necessary), the later is one of continual, unending progression. Do you really think there is no limit to beings like us?
Greg makes an important distinction between the two kinds of accelerationism which I would surmise as follows:
1) If the left wants to shoot itself in the foot, let them.
2) But do NOT offer to shoot them in the foot just because that is where they are heading.
I am more on the line of Woodley and Dutton: It is all a matter of average IQ. And that is declining at its own pace. Very hard to accelerate that, though of course the government is doing a very job of it.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.