Counter-Currents
2,730 words
I know a kind person who has achieved a lot. We first met 40 years ago, although for many years we were not in touch. Then we remade contact, and now I don’t think we’re friends anymore. He found my political incorrectness hard to bear.
I still remember an incident from around 1990 when I told him I found it frustrating that the checkout girls at my local supermarket — this was in London — could neither speak nor understand English. A chill descended. I had done something wrong by making what I had thought was a natural remark.
More recently we corresponded about a philosophical theory, to which I raised a naïve objection. I don’t remember his reply exactly, but he didn’t like my point, yet couldn’t seem to think of an answer, and said something that struck me as evasive. In our revived friendship I often found myself thinking this of things he said.
Although a philosophy graduate, he is more interested in physics, and might qualify a comment I saw as mere common sense with a reference to the movement of planetary bodies. When I suggested that most people define truth as correspondence with reality, he contested the point by talking about the conservation of momentum and quantum-mechanical limits.
He has immense confidence in his beliefs, which are the yardstick by which he measures the quality of an idea. Yet, while he thought he had worked his beliefs out for himself, to me they bore an uncanny resemblance to those purveyed by the BBC.
In his mind, social class is a prevailing concept. Whereas his parents were working class, mine were middle class, which for him meant that I must have led a coddled life. When I told him a few things that showed that this was not the case, I don’t think he could take them in. They didn’t fit in with his preconceptions.
We enjoyed discussing things — or arguing, if you like — but because his positions were invariably politically correct, and what is politically correct is invariably untrue, I eventually won almost every argument, which I found embarrassing. It would have been better if he had taken less silly positions.
I don’t mean to be unkind about James, as I will call him, who has been very good to me. When I moved back to London in the 1980s to take a new job, he put me up in his flat while I looked for somewhere to live. He had me to stay for a weekend last year and went to a lot of trouble on my account. I would not attack him. I am just describing him.
I know one can’t bring facts home to people who are determined to shut them out, but I couldn’t accept that this applied to James. Surely he must bow to facts, I thought. But I kept finding that when he was proven wrong, it made no difference to his opinion.
He sedulously avoided sources of information he thought would contradict him. Once, when the subject of race came up and he rejected something I said, I offered to send him an article that would explain the situation. I’m pretty sure he never read it.
I found his denials of my statements about things I had looked into and he hadn’t so tiresome that I decided to stop talking to him about subjects on which our opinions might differ. But I couldn’t keep it up, so our discussions continued.
Why did we always seem to have opposite opinions? Mainly, I think, because I had studied political correctness, especially as conveyed by the mainstream media, and it was largely from the mainstream media that James got his picture of the world. I was interested in propaganda; nothing interested him less. The media’s politically-correct propaganda was now so comprehensive that our opinions differed on almost everything.
I was puzzled by his attitude to our cultural heritage. On the one hand he appeared attached to it. He belongs to two orchestras and runs a Shakespeare group that’s working its way through the plays, but he seemed untroubled by the attacks on our culture being made before our eyes. I told him about a recently published illustrated book on the history of music, the first few pages of which contained a dozen pictures including none of a white composer: no Bach, no Mozart, no Beethoven; instead, they contained a tiny picture of a white rock ‘n’ roll group and a couple of enormous ones of black musicians. He didn’t seem to see anything amiss.
He knew that theater producers increasingly mess with the race and even the sex of Shakespeare’s characters; indeed, it was he who told me that they were now also messing with the text, but he seemed to think nothing of it. Wondering if he could see the implications, I asked him what he thought would be next. He refused the question, saying that I was asking him to predict the future.
James has a young daughter who calls him by his first name, a sign of his egalitarianism. He is one of those parents who doesn’t tell a child what to do, but asks her and says please. He won’t let the poor girl know that there is someone above her, in charge.
He had a way of acting as though he didn’t understand the use of the English language. If I made a general statement, he would cite an exception as though this defeated me, appearing to think that generalizations purport to cover every case. Tell him that terriers like going after rats, to give an invented example, and he would say that he once knew a terrier that wasn’t interested in rats.
Once, he pretended not to understand the expression “to be happy with.” When I told him that Madeleine Albright, whom he turned out to admire, had said that she was happy with half a million Iraqi children being killed as a result of her sanctions, he queried the reference.[1] Was I sure that she’d actually said that the deaths filled her with happiness? He made out that he didn’t know that being happy with something only means that you’re willing to accept it.
Regarding our institutions’ intensifying attacks on the truth, when I said that I’d heard that the Science Museum had removed the statement that there are two sexes from the information it provided about a particular item, he said yes, he’d seen it. He made no other comment. Regarding our institutions’ attacks on our history, I wondered — privately; I didn’t ask him — whether he’d taken his daughter to the Museum of Childhood only to find that it was closed, its whole collection having been disposed of. Would he have just shrugged his shoulders?
When in 2022 I asked him whether he still believed what we’d been told about COVID and he said yes, I told him it surprised me. Did he honestly think that the “vaccines” were safe and effective? He said he did, despite having had the disease after being vaccinated and boosted as many times as recommended. The vaccines weren’t supposed to stop us getting the disease, he said, only to stop us having to go to hospital. That was a new one on me for a vaccine.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s It’s Okay to Be White here.
When I mentioned that more reports of harmful effects had been submitted regarding the “vaccines” than had been submitted regarding all previous treatments and medicines combined, he scoffed contemptuously. Presumably the BBC hadn’t mentioned this, or had said that it was a myth.
A barrier seemed to come down in his mind as soon as he saw an unwanted fact coming. If he couldn’t escape it, he would misinterpret it, no matter how perversely. Seeing that he wasn’t interested in the truth, or even saw it as the enemy, again I told myself to keep away from controversial subjects.
I don’t know why it hadn’t occurred to me before, but one day I wondered whether James was not a victim of brainwashing. He acted like a member of a cult.
When I told him I’d been keeping a diary of events following the death of George Floyd, he asked me what beliefs it expressed, seeming to worry about harmful ideas I might be advocating. I pointed out that a diary doesn’t express beliefs, but records events and one’s thoughts about them. “Yes, but what beliefs does it express?” he asked again, seeming to insist that my diary must be a manifesto promoting dreadful heresies.
In being prepared to judge the diary without knowing what it said, he was “doing a Leena,” Leena being a woman I knew who once told me that she hated and despised the Daily Telegraph. “What don’t you like about it?” I asked. She’d never read it, she replied: She wouldn’t stoop to reading such a contemptible publication.
When I told James that, having wrapped up the Black Lives Matter diary after two years, I had edited it to make it readable by others, he suggested that I warn them about the sort of thing it contained. Not only did he still have no idea what this was, but he presumed to think that I might have prepared it to be read by others without writing an introduction.
I sent him the introduction, which mentioned the themes of the events concerned, and said that I saw them in terms of race, a concept many people are afraid of or don’t believe in. He responded by saying he wasn’t sure what I meant by “black people.” His difficulty with this expression apparently prevented him from commenting on anything the introduction said.
Although political correctness, now for some reason called “wokeness,” has only progressed over the years, James seemed to me archaic. He reminded me of a PC zealot of the 1980s, always ready to condemn a generalization or a reference to an unwanted reality. But eschewing generalizations means acting as if you’ve learned nothing about the world, and why would one pretend that unwanted realities don’t exist? Anyway, who says they’re unwanted? What to a hypersensitive PC person might be unbearable, to someone else might be an easily accepted fact of life. But of course, it’s precisely to stop people acquiring general knowledge and to make them think that if unwanted realities aren’t mentioned, they won’t be there, that political correctness has these rules.
James was particularly touchy about generalizations concerning women or non-whites, especially black people. What seemed to me to be a neutral comment, he would describe as “negative,” meaning that it shouldn’t have been made. Of course, if it really had been negative, he would have been incensed.
I wouldn’t describe James as particularly observant. I was surprised to learn that after living in London for 35 years, he still didn’t know that black people were particularly prone to crime. But then, political correctness requires one not to notice things.
He had picked up from the BBC the habit of referring to facts he didn’t like as “views,” making them sound optional. When I sent him a well-argued and highly empirical article by a commentator I admired, he described the contents as “fun opinions.” I found the belittling remark not only insulting to the author, but also characteristic of his way of dismissing arguments he couldn’t counter or knowledge he didn’t want.
Once, I asked him whether he thought it would be an exaggeration to say that Britain was turning into a totalitarian police state. People were losing their jobs for expressing disapproved opinions and being visited by the police for posting the wrong kinds of limericks on social media. The police were not only flying over the hills to tell hikers to go home; they were inspecting people’s shopping for “non-essential” items and breaking up church services. They were encouraging people to spy on their neighbors and report them for breaking any nonsensical rule that had just been introduced. It reminded me of Communist East Germany. James replied that totalitarian states were nasty places, whereas we lived in heaven. He said that he didn’t think that these developments amounted to much. He was a modern Pangloss.
I got so tired of his dogmatically-asserted opinions about COVID that I sent him a list of questions. Did he agree with the government’s decision to end our lockdown and social distancing rules, or with the Icelandic epidemiologist who said that such measures might need to continue for 15 years?[2] Did he agree with the Indian professor who said that India’s lockdown had been devastating,[3] or with the Indian government, which put the country into lockdown when only one in every 37.5 million people was affected?[4] How did he explain the fact that the COVID death rate was lower in the US states that weren’t locked down than in the ones that were?
Did he think that Anthony Fauci had been right to say that wearing masks could damage people’s health, or right to say that it was essential? Was Fauci on the mark when he said that the vaccinated didn’t need to wear masks, or when he said they did? Was his advice good when he said that children could go out of doors without a mask on, or when he said that they mustn’t leave the house without wearing one? I wanted to see how someone who took his opinions from the authorities dealt with situations when the authorities contradicted each other, or themselves.
I asked him whether he was aware that the Office for National Statistics had stated, before our first lockdown, that the coronavirus was no longer considered a high-consequence infectious disease,[5] and how he explained the sudden disappearance of it from the news agenda in February 2022. I wondered if he had realized that this was to make room for the next thing that was supposed to obsess us — namely, the coming events in Ukraine.
His reply was strange. This most opinionated person said that he didn’t know what his opinions were, and changed the subject to me. Why had I asked him these questions? Did I have some sort of agenda? He couldn’t imagine that I might simply have been interested in knowing the answers, of which he gave me not a single one.
What can be concluded about the politically correct from this example?
- They are devoted to their chosen authorities and accept whatever they are offered by them.
- They know that there are certain realities that must be denied, and will go out of their way to avoid making contact with them. They are determined not to know what is going on.
- They claim to be unaware of some of the most basic facts of life.
- They believe that certain groups must be protected from all criticism.
- They disapprove of generalizations. They don’t like to admit that human groups have characteristics.
- They have deserted reason. It doesn’t matter how idiotic the statements that political correctness suggests to them may be; they will make those statements.
- They are in favor of racial and sexual equality, by which they mean running white men out of town.
- Where Western civilization is concerned, James is unusual in having a foot in both the pro-camp and the anti-camp, or rather the camp that doesn’t seem to mind what happens to Western civilization. Most PC people are less undecided. They feel thoroughly ashamed of Western civilization and want to see the end of it.
- Yet, they can be basically nice people. It’s just that their minds have been taken over by anti-racism, feminism, and the other ideologies that make up political correctness.
Notes
[1] Newsweek, March 23, 2022, “Watch: Madeleine Albright Saying Iraqi Kids’ Deaths ‘Worth It’ Resurfaces.”
[2] Summit News, July 29, 2021, “Iceland’s Chief Epidemiologist Suggests COVID-19 Restrictions Could Last For Up to 15 Years.”
[3] SpectatorTV, May 7, 2021, “Professor Jay Bhattacharya: India’s lockdown had ‘devastating consequences’ | SpectatorTV.”
[4] Lockdown was announced in India on March 24, 2020. A week later, India’s official COVID death toll was 32 out of a population of 1.2 billion.
[5] “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.” See “High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)”, first published by the Office for National Statistics on October 22, 2018. By September 2022 it was published by the UK Health Security Agency. HCIDs are defined as acutely infectious, often fatal, and possibly difficult to detect rapidly or treat. Examples include Ebola, Lassa fever, pneumonic plague, and Avian influenza H5N1.
66 comments
Excellent observations. Every one of them spot on.
Agreed. I found myself nodding in vigorous agreement and affirmation with this statement: “He had a way of acting as though he didn’t understand the use of the English language. If I made a general statement, he would cite an exception as though this defeated me, appearing to think that generalizations purport to cover every case. Tell him that terriers like going after rats, to give an invented example, and he would say that he once knew a terrier that wasn’t interested in rats.”
I have simply had to cut ties with people who repeatedly do this with me and there are many. I want to enjoy my health and the day and not constantly be in foolish fighting mode (which I am in a more fundamentally, more thoroughgoing, more sustained manner all the time anyway). The level of disagreeableness the author describes here, though, is the result of willfull decision; it is honed by its own kind practice.
The Enlightenment has deluded us into reading homosapians as far more rational, logical and evidence-driven than we are. (Just look at the current state of “science!”) We are inherently tribal and mytho-logical creatures. Worldview is unconscious, deep and, I am told, pretty well set by adolescence.
Ironically, as the Covid lockdown revealed, the more a modern Westerner is educated and digitally connected, the less independent and critical a thinker s/he is likely to become*. Being comfortable in our social world usually outweighs the discomfort caused by stepping outside it, much less rejecting it.
I have been able to make very slight adjustments on the race issue with my liberal friends, at least in conversation with me, but their attachments and their pantheon of heroes and badguys remains intact.
And given the sense of alienation that comes with being a pro-White White, some days I can hardly blame them. But I can’t live that way.
*And the lamentable inclusion of so many she’s in education has been a powerful element in that irony.
Perhaps it is the lack of noticing changes in the environment which makes this otherwise congenial chap unreachable. He may just not notice the universal blackening of billboards, TV commercials and everything else and the rank hypocrisy everywhere. He doesn’t really recall it ever being different. ‘Oceania is now at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.’
Back in Edwardian times he would presumably have been John Bull’s staunchest supporter, a pillar of the community.
From the point of view of a hostile elite, planning fot the future, he may be the perfect Englishman
I was thinking of Orwell, too, as I read this essay. There is definitely a personality type that is immovably attracted to the constellation of attitudes that comprise “PC” and wokeness (I disagree with the author that these concepts are interchangeable; the former is premised on radical egalitarianism, but it is not necessarily aggressive; the latter is animated by hatred for whites and our folkways and heritage). In the long run, the PC-personality type, as with all other personality types except those inclining their carriers to white procreation (which will increasingly be inseparate from white nationalism), will be bred out of the white gene pool. Our race is going to have to shrink radically before it can or will start expanding again.
If the author had designated his friend as “X” instead of “James”, I would have concluded, with confidence, that the friend was female, for two reasons. The first is the blatantly effeminate way of thinking that this “James” exhibited by matching each item in the bullet list, which could have been titled “Things Women Think”. The second is that it is very difficult for a friendship between two guys so opposite to persist—it would soon degenerate into shouting obscene insults or even violence. But women can completely disagree with men while simultaneously avoiding strife by making little subconscious submissions and deferences, sort of like an octopus emitting ink. (And bless their hearts for being that way; otherwise, marriages could never last.)
Agreed. I had longstanding friendships with two blokes, who I thought of as my best friends. After I became ‘red-pilled’ about 6 years ago, neither of these friendships survived preliminary discussions on multiculturalism, grooming gangs and the like. However, ‘James’ sounds uncannily like my sister.
I would enjoy reading your account of the end of your friendship. I assume these ‘blokes’ were white (and British). If so, what was their attitude to grooming gangs, etc? Did they deny the reality itself, offer exculpatory excuses for the savages, or simply express hostility to you for even broaching these unwanted matters (which forces the PC to face realities which upset their equanimity by violently contradicting deeply cherished illusions)?
Increasingly, I find I cannot tolerate PC friends. I can, barely, tolerate non-rightist/pro-white people, as long as they’re openminded and avoid any type of censorship, including self-censorship.
Both were white, southern English.
‘David’, who I had known for about 34 years, just didn’t want to engage, which offended me far more than if he had robustly defended his corner. Was he not at least curious as to why I’d changed my views after so long? Apparently not.
‘Simon’, who I’d known for about 9 years, was at least more responsive, but surprised me by his lack of independent thinking. On grooming gangs, he trotted out the view (expressed in some newspapers) that the girls involved weren’t exactly the sharpest tools in the box, although I shamed him into retracting this, and acknowledging that they were abused children. We then had a pointless exchange about whether the problem was Islam or ‘culture’. My views hadn’t hardened sufficiently to dismiss this as beside the point.
On immigration and housing shortage, he pointed out to me that Britain had ‘loads of empty space’. I realised at that point that the bloke was simply less intelligent than I’d always assumed he was.
Although I have some fond memories of these friendships, I can’t say that their passing bothers me. I view them as simply aspects of a life that I would have lived differently had I seen things more clearly at a younger age.
Yes. I had the same experience with a female French friend of 20 years who “ended our friendship” in an email a few years ago while I had pretty much already written her off for a while but didn’t feel the need to declare it. Besides, I am no longer sure men and women can be friends. I lean towards no.
‘Bashing’ white women is anathema to nationalists; criticizing feminism and pointing out that it has inexorably led past civilizations into ruin as it is doing to ours, not so much. Sometimes, given the extent to which bad ideas have permeated the minds of our people, it’s difficult to separate the person from the dysfunctional way of thinking she, and almost everyone else, has been taught from infancy. Not all nationalists are superhuman.
That’s a good point. Although we tend to be pretty biologically deterministic around here, the Woke Pod People weren’t always this way. Most garden-variety leftists out there aren’t mattoids or otherwise defective. They would be normal and agreeable if they hadn’t been immersed in propaganda from childhood.
Maybe “James” is an amalgam of two or perhaps three contemporaries known to the author since undergraduate days who together display textbook PC characteristics? One a heterosexual woman; the second an effeminate bi-sexual/homosexual man; the third a heterosexual man – all born around 1960 to 1963, living in and around London during the 1980’s.
Either stop discussing politics with this person (very antisocial trait) or jettison him. Some people become so comfortable being disagreeable that it defines the friendship as contrarian, which is no friendship at all.
Another meme I’ve heard over the years that seems to be completely untrue is the ‘social conservatism’ of the working-class relative to the middle and upper classes. Maybe by some unmeasurable metric they could be, but it would be slight, like how allegedly ‘white women vote Republican’ 53-47%. But really the working class has always been gauche, and the marriage rates, birthrates and employment rates have collapsed, while drug usage has increased. The gay neighborhoods where married men used to get their fix in the 1960s were just as run down as the ghetto, so it was not a degenerate elite phenomenon, just like most of it still isn’t.
Working-class folk are just susceptible to political-correctness/wokeness/postmodernism/Frankfurt School etc as anybody else, if not more so. Pat Buchanan articulated the draw of it better than anybody. ‘Cultural Marxism is user-friendly.’ It is its own wiki. Somehow everybody knows how to operate it without instruction. It has an evolution similar to that of Chinese whispers. It starts off as one thing, but ends as something completely devolved yet still related to the source.
It is just a new form of etiquette. Lying about truthful stereotypes, unless the negative generalizations are about white men, is now considered polite for some reason, so much so that it is a new dialect that proper people must learn and has thus become a form of social Darwinism. You have to speak this language in the workplace, in public and with prospective female suitors, lest you become a social misfit.
We all tell little, or sometimes big, lies about ourselves, our situation, and the people around us to make living our lives easier. Sadly, I see this happening to a greater and greater degree among the working class white people I know who give up on their standards, including their hopes for their children. They slowly acclimate to a vibrant enriched reality, and the disgrace their children bring to them, who acculturate to a lower level, comes to be the new normal. They acquiesce to thier own degradation either by pretending (too hard) nothing is amiss or blotting out the pain with self destructive habits.
My heart can’t make up it’s mind. At times I ache for them, but other times I despise them, which I guess is my way of coping. Sometimes I’m like a suddenly clenched fist, and then suddenly released, with a sigh.
That actually dovetails into another phenomenon I’ve never seen mentioned elsewhere: there is a mission-creep of ‘tolerance’ into ‘traditional’ families, which almost defeats the purpose of having a large family. I can’t quantify this, yet it is almost self-evident like some strange formula I’ve heard of how a little kid birthday party of 25 children somehow is mathematically likely to consist of at least two children with the same birthday despite 365 days seemingly defying those odds. So the larger the family the more likely there is to be degeneracy (a gay son, a race-mixing daughter, a drug addict, an SJW etc). Then there are adoptees, sometimes interracial, with the do-gooders spending their own resources to assimilate a nonwhite into an upstanding race-mixer.
I can’t prove it, but there seems to be something to it. What happens when your child ends up being one of these types? You learn to ‘accept’ (tolerate) it and thus the rest of the culture because your love for your own kin compels you to soften your dogma. Somehow we all have a homosexual relative now, but only in the last decade. So ‘making lots of white babies’ does have a slight downside. It’s kind of like what Ed Dutton says: ‘the new infant mortality is wokeness.’ You have to master this new lingo in order to adapt to pass on your genes as a male or else you end up as an incel. Meanwhile, when every other person died in childhood throughout human history until the last century, merely surviving was a conquest worthy of being rewarded with arranged procreation. Yet now outlasting childhood is a given, thus this glut of ‘life unworthy of life.’
I agree with you, except the bit about there being any downside to more white babies being born. Some couples breed true with high quality offspring. Those more dysgenic will have offspring of variable quality. Some couples ( single mothers more likely in the current fallen state of society ) will produce children unlikely to be useful members of it. More children born to the former two groups will increase the number of civilization-sustaining people in the next generation. Engendering children into the third group ought to be discouraged. To an extent this is happening already amongst the white population but the lower orders of white society are being replaced by non-Europeans, whilst the middle classes face competition from Chinese, Indians and Jews. It seems as though this operation is not being performed in the interests of the future of the European peoples as we have known them, but perhaps a white elite will survive and flourish.
Single motherhood was severely stigmatized, and not subsidized by the state, up until fifty years ago, in part because it was correctly seen as a threat to society as a whole, both for its exemplary danger and its potential to breed irresponsible wastrels. It’s a difficult one. At this point I think we could use a lot more stigma, especially for functional members of society, for single non-motherhood.
All of this is speculation because we simply have no way of ever proving any of it. In theory, I agree that more white children is always better. In reality, we have a dearth of white children because patriarchy (coverture) has been overthrown and will always nosedive afterwards. So we have to go by the patterns. There seems to be a correlation of diversity mirroring white fertility rates on a long enough timeline regardless of proportionality: whites in South Africa are a tiny minority, yet all of the nonwhites are converging on below-level replacement, which no other Sub-Saharan population has anything close to. Nonwhite minority immigrants in white countries mimic native white fertility rates almost instantaneously. So whites are indeed the lodestar of sociobiology. In essence, when white birthrates are booming (postwar), nonwhites bloom even greater. Yet when white birthrates are descending, nonwhite birthrates are collapsing. So in this one area we are better equipped. I won’t say that it is ideal, but nonwhite birthrates are indeed plummeting simply because ours are.
As for single-motherhood, there simply has never been a precedent for this in history besides perhaps conquered tribes, which is not the same as divorced/separated parents. This phenomenon has not occurred long enough to determine the exact fallout because the ‘pro-family’ advocates use the nuclear family as a frame/of-reference for ‘where it all went wrong’ and also as a cargo-cult for basic success despite this single-family unit itself not existing much longer than single-motherhood.
We also see completely different turnouts between black and white single-motherhood to the point that it is synonymous with black even though there are far more single white moms. Single-motherhood itself also seems to be in the same transitory stage of biology as the nuclear family as it devolved from the extended-family because ‘teen pregnancy’ was a 1990s Religious Right meme synonymous with single-moms. Now we see that this trend was incredibly ephemeral as ‘teen birthrates’ collapsed so much so that it lowered overall birthrates for nonwhites. So the ‘teen pregnancy’ (always a normal thing throughout human history until the 1990s) phenomenon seemed to be a bellwether of cascading sterility rather than future welfare queens, as birthrates for young women overall have collapsed concomitantly to the point that it is now below women in the age-40+ cohort somehow.
And divorce happens to every class of whites regardless of ‘genetic quality’ because women will elect to separate nearly every chance they want to, going by the data. So all of the neo-stigmatization of the Religious Right in harmony with feminists managed to crush ‘teen birthrates’ and early single-motherhood at the cost of our overall birthrates. I hope they are happy with themselves because altering nature does not simply stop there. It causes cascading failure elsewhere as we have seen with the incipient incel subculture. I am no longer anti-single motherhood because at least whites were being born in relative abundance.
In reference to post #5, Smash cultural Marxism May 20, 2023 at 10.06 pm
“Somehow we all have a homosexual relative now, but only in the last decade. So ‘making lots of white babies’ does have a slight downside.”
The recent prevalence of non-hetero-sexual orientations may in part be explained by the much greater number of single parent households headed by women residing in public housing with limited resources. In this sort of environment the more physically dominant younger males monopolize access to adolescent females, leaving the less assertive males with fewer opportunities for forming heterosexual relationships. Out of sheer sexual frustration these secondary males engage in homosexual activity. Of course all of this is endorsed by contemporary popular culture and advertising.
”
Another meme I’ve heard over the years that seems to be completely untrue is the ‘social conservatism’ of the working-class relative to the middle and upper classes.”
While it is true that more homosexuals/transsexuals are present in working class communities this like has much to do with their size. Relative to the size of our ruling elite, and we can be generous and pretend that’s merely the top ten percent of earners, the working class is significantly larger. But proportionally wealthier, more liberal areas tend to produce more people who identify as homosexuals or trans. Bill Maher did a brief segment on this phenomenon some time ago.
As someone from a southern, working class background I can say I did observe that the poorer and working people I was around were more conservative, however, I don’t think it is the same for the whole of the nation. But I do believe that poorer people are typically more racially aware regardless of their political affiliation. Maybe there are not more “conservative” working people on the whole but there are certainly far more “racists” among them. At least that’s been the case in my experience.
I know I’m coming as highly critical of the ‘working class,’ but I believe psychological deconstruction is essential for this movement, considering most of us are ‘working class’ or a rung below that (NEET).
But historically-speaking, there never really was a working class or collective consciousness or lumpenprole, unless you count the peasantry, which is not the same as a modern wage-slave. So that is why I question the ‘conservatism’ of this very unstable cohort. I listed off universal missives that are plaguing proletarian culture right now far worse than anybody else. So worker ‘conservatism’ was at best an ephemeral moment in time like every other epochal anachronism we idealize like ‘Muh 1950s,’ when in reality society did not exist like that before or after this fleeting era, and only occurred because of state intervention. So the ‘traditionalism’ of the working class has always and will always be in flux. I think that is another reason why the specter of Marxism disappeared as quickly as it happened upon the arena.
Even the expressed beliefs of the working class evolve dramatically every generation. West Virginia was a Democrat state until it wasn’t. Somehow someway they overlooked all the diversity accumulating in the Democrat platform until the 2000s. Appalachian indentured servants were resoundingly secular in the Chesapeake Colony, especially compared to New England. Then they became renown for esoteric snake-handlers and Pentecostals charismatics.
The fertility rates are not much higher than other classes either. Neither is the ‘religiosity’ (depending on how it is tabulated). But overall, they indeed numerically dwarf other classes. Nonetheless it cannot be said that working class families are ‘stronger’ than any other class or ‘strong’ at all, especially since every person amongst it is trying to escape it via hypergamy or ‘education.’
Funny that you should know my neighbour James. Between his CNN obsession and being an accountant all that matters is money. If importing five million psychos into the neighbourhood would push up the “value” of his house he would be all for it.
The conditioning is so deep that only a traumatic event could shock this person out of his false beliefs. Until then, he will deflect, ignore, or be blind to anything contradictory.
As we now know, often not even such an event. How often have we read about parents who forgave the murderers of their children, if the murderers had the right color?
I’m not so sure even that would bring about an awakening. I just read a Breitbart article about a New York nurse, six months pregnant, who tried to wrest her rented bike back from several nigboys who had taken it from her. One of the youfs video’d the episode and posted it with a narrative about how this white supremacist “Karen” had threatened, bullied, and stolen a bike from these aspiring rocket scientists. The video reportedly got forty million views, resulting in her being placed on leave from her job, even after she produced a time-stamped receipt for the bike rental. The Breitbart article goes on to say: ‘And Yahoo still has this fake headline up: “White woman caught on video trying to steal Black youth’s bike in New York City.”’ Then in the comment section of the Breitbart article, someone quoted this from the GoFundMe page set up for her: “She holds racial justice and equity dear”.
“Political Correctness” = modern day heresy.
Modern Liberalism = secularized christianity. They just replaced god with the government and the 10 commandments with the woke commancdments (race, gender, IQ are social constructs, etc.)
https://www.christcuck.org
It took hundreds of years of battering by the Enlightenment, a completely home-grown White European male invention, with its ludicrous mantras of universal equality, to turn the once robust and grounded Christianity of the West into the castrated version we see after World War 2 and now in its clownish death-throes.
A huge part of our plight comes from a self-created and self-inflicted ideology.
The Enlightenment came after the Reformation. Previous to the Reformation, Europeans were not allowed to read the bible, and the church forbid the translation of the bible into any language other than Latin. The punishment for translating the bible into a local language was death. Nonetheless, most Europeans couldn’t read the bible in a local language anyway as literacy only began to grow after the invention of the Guttenburg printing press which coincided with the Reformation.
The christian cancer was always present in Europe since the Flavian Era. Things got bad after the Enlightenment only because of protestantism and increasing literacy, this has nothing to do with secular Englightenment values.
It reminded me of Communist East Germany.
Well, Communist East Germany, alike totalitarian states of our times (China, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, or authoritarian like Qazaqstan etc.) are a little better in this context than “democracies”. In totalitarian and authoritarian states a person KNOWS exactly what he/she could say or write, and what he/she should not. There are strict rules what is forbidden and what is not. In democracies you never know if what you say is PC OK or not, because what was PC-approved yesterday can be regarded “bad” today, and that change is done without any governmental decree, openly published for all. In totalitarian states the State introduce the rules, in democracies it is difficult to say who introduces them and why.
and how he explained the sudden disappearance of it from the news agenda in February 2022. I wondered if he had realized that this was to make room for the next thing that was supposed to obsess us — namely, the coming events in Ukraine.
Absolutely correct. Stage One, the Coronavirus, was over, when Stage Two, war in Ukraine, began. When Stage Three, invasion on Taiwan, begins, everybody will forget about Ukrainians.
When I visited friends in Sheffield, England in 2015 and 2018. it was honestly the first time I actually saw, in person, a Moslem woman swathed in black crepe from head to toe, with only her lovely eyes in view, outlined and mascaraed, revealing a woman who cared about her appearance, though only about 1% of her ‘self’ could be seen. I was both angered and saddened at once, and formed a life-long dislike of Moslem men who do such a thing to a woman. I’m not a raving feminist, but just another human woman who could cast herself into the same imprisonment psychologically for a few moments. And yet, when I talked to English people, they thought nothing of this, just replying that this was ‘just their culture’, and we shouldn’t ‘judge them’, or not be ‘prejudiced’ against them — i.e., a racist!
To this day, I dislike Moslems for the way they treat women, as we see it clearly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I do not consider my outlook on them to be racist in the least, just an honest assessment of a terrible cultural reality about which we can do nothing. It’s not racism, it’s just plain sadness for their having been born into such a culture that imprisons them.
Muslim women dress up and preen for their husbands at home. Non-Muslim women do it for strangers on the street, while at home they go around as scary as death.
Somehow these types think that Islam is a race.
I am only pointing out that if you say anything against ‘a Moslem’ — who is indeed an adherent of the Islamic religion — you will be called a ‘racist’ by any of the ‘woke crowd’ within hearing distance. I guess they could also call me ‘anti-Semitic’. This is getting a little convoluted.
Our distractors also relish calling any White person a “White Supremacist’ — which I would construe as a ‘racist comment’. The whole range of name-calling is getting absurd.
I know being ‘racist’ is supposed to be the worst thing ever in today’s world (if you are white, other races who are racist is seen as quaint), but since there are far worse things in reality, is it so bad to be called the r word ? I don’t care if people call me that anymore. Whether I am or not, it’s rather inoffensive as a character trait.
It’s none of our business what Muslims do in their own country, so long as it does not interfere with our own prosperity. They are not at risk of extinction ,like we are, in part because they have maintained a clear delineation between male and female roles in society. The burka is an abomination in our country because it confronts us with the reality of our invasion.
Women covering their body and hair and dressing ‘modestly’ is a quite sensible practice which was was followed in the West in a less dramatic fashion until 1900 with gradual devolution to the point where now lycra gym tights without even a skirt are the standard street attire. Men too would not be seen outside the house without a pair of trousers and a shirt, and probably a jacket and a hat. I’ll grant none of our dress codes would have prevented onlookers from correctly ascertaining the physical attractiveness of the object of attention as the burka does
But you are indeed a feminist. You are empathizing with women of a different race against the men of their race, which is what feminists do. I don’t care one way or another how nonwhites treat each other. It’s not my concern, nor should it be yours. If anything, we should learn from Islam, or rather relearn, because Christianity used to be similar in how it distinguished the sexes. As for your crusade against Islam, which has been done to death before by every enemy of whites, it is a tiresome anachronism because Islam is in free-fall. https://www.dailysabah.com/turkiye/birth-rate-falls-household-size-slightly-shrinks-in-turkiye/news/amp
Good points. If we are to survive as a distinct people then many or most women will have to come around to your position somehow. The difficulty we face is the ridiculously high levels of empathy and fascination for the ‘other’ which our people, especially women, exhibit.
As for Turkey ( or as I prefer to call it occupied Asia Minor ) ‘Liberalism’ is designed to be a global mechanism for wrecking nations, sapping the will and rendering the populace into greasy streaks of obeisance to the prevailing narrative. Depressingly, along with its butch enforcer, feminism, it works, and Turkey (oAM), as the most European Muslim state, is the vanguard. Sad, I know some wonderful Turkish people……there I go, empathasing witht the other again, it’s pathetic.
Turks are not Europeans. They are the enemies of Europeans. They were allowed to occupy the Balkans and other parts of the Black Sea region for centuries, in addition to perpetuating pogroms against European nations (Greek and Armenian Christians) and getting away with it to this very day. Having been to these regions recently, the Turkish influence is unbelievable even centuries later, and there is still an entrenched minority Turkic backwash who have not made Muhacir.
We are seeing now that liberalism is an even greater iconoclasm than communism ever was. It erases culture and borders in ways and rapidity that would make Karl Marx seem moderate. I can only hope that nonwhites become even more liberal than whites, which seems to be happening. If anything, I hope Turkey remains stable because it is becoming its own Wakanda, forming a vector for migrating nonwhites and a crucible of evolution for nonwhites in the same way Paris, London and California have for crossbreeding with each other instead of with indigenous Europeans, further bastardizing their bloodlines.
Invincibly ignorant. The author isn’t describing an error, he’s describing a form of bad character. Ultimately, these people simply prefer willfull ignorance to the security of their own children. They promote stupidity, reality denial/self censoring, and a preference for capitulation over self-assertion every time they engage in their self-indulgent performances. They should all be fixed.
Good points. It was in the 80s that I started noticing that the upper class (to which I suppose I had gained admission via elite education) had a strong disposition (as a class – obviously, there are individual exceptions) towards psychological “self-swaddling”. I think this began with “determinedly positive” women, mostly – women who were weak in character, and had a very deep need always “to believe the best about people” (maybe this is an American export?). Then it gradually seeped over to men and the larger society. I think the constellation of genes + environmental interactions which produce PC psychology also is a very white thing inherently that Jews recognized and weaponized for their own purposes, which institutionalized that psychology and increasingly codified it.
Your friend is an NPC. He does not have sincere ideological convictions, he is simply interfacing with the power structure of the tribe as it has been presented to him.
On some genetic level he does not possess the capacity to truly process a concept independent of it’s ramifications for his comfort and material well-being. This is an evolutionary trait that many humans have, as we have been genetically selected over time for our ability to “get along” in the tribe.
If you place a rat in a contrived maze, it will learn that if it goes down certain routes and presses certain levers, it will recieve a piece of cheese. It will also learn that certain passages and certain levers result in an electric shock. This is basically how society is organized, with punishments and incentives. Most humans are simply trying to maximize their comfort and their pleasure and they are genetically wired to do so. Going against the neo-liberal control matrix is not conducive to maximizing comfort and pleasure.
But it is the ability to step outside of this matrix and pursue truth/danger/adventure/curiosity for it’s own sake that made the Aryan man so great. Yet the true Aryan man was always a tiny minority, even among his own. In an ideal society, NPC’s like James who are agreeable and productive members of society, would be going about their day to day lives, making possible the infrastructure that partially enables the explorative Aryan type to pursue this destiny. But our semitic overlords have, to their credit, fabulously undermined this historically normative process and now harness the energy of the Jameses to their own ends, one of which is our gradual dilution into oriental satrapy stew.
If you control the levers of power you control the Jameses.
Well said.
It’s like the former KGB spook Yuri Bezmenov said:
“The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people…”
That didn’t happen.
‘Yet, they can be basically nice people.’
No, they’re not. They’re ticking time-bombs waiting to be exploded on command from their authorities.
PC/Wokeness is a religion intended for the masses that provides advantages to its leadership. It is a religion that mobilizes discrimination in the name of non-discrimination. It is a religion that mobilizes inequality in the name of equality. These are the kinds of contradictions that shut down the frontal lobe and higher-level thinking processes. This operation is fundamental to certain types of brainwashing and was pioneered on a mass scale in ‘communist’ countries in the 1940s through the 1960s.
But, deep down, the problem is mass society itself. Wokeness and its (((priestly caste))) are leveraging the hive-mind/no-mind capabilities of mass society to commandeer White society.
Modern liberal attitudes are in part, a kind of affectation and status grabbing. A clamoring for a moral high ground within the framework these people are presented with – shaped by its rewards and punishments, and a reach for comfort over discomfort. Ignorance is bliss.
Actually, there was an article on here some time back, that was controversial at the time because it mentioned that No White Guilt guy, but the ideas were quite strong. Maybe some of them would apply here.
But this strange maintained bubble of smug willful obliviousness some people seem to live in, it might come from being attached to comfort too much, or being less affected by stuff generally, being more self-obsessed, just being more numb. Some liberals are kind of numb about a lot of stuff.
—
OT question to Greg: What’s happened to Nick Jeelvy ? He was a major presence here, hi articles were always though provoking but he seems to have been ‘vanished’ from the site. No one is even asking about him. Is he ok ?
Nick is publishing and streaming on Odyssee.
I think there are two types of PC people.
The first type are cowards. They are aware of the realities to an extent, even those who live in some amount of denial. They claim not to notice differences but avoid black neighborhoods. They just don’t want to go against the mainstream because they are scared to. That would require them to have a confrontation which is against their cowardice. The friend on this article is one of these.
The second type are insecure people who are aware of the realities but use their vocal support of being PC to feel superior to those who do not agree or who are not as up to date on the ever-changing narrative. They are very judgmental and vocal in their condemnation of the great unwashed.
Many people in our civilization today suffers health problems from the many unhealthy things added to socalled “processed food”. Some nutritionists questions wether some of it should even be allowed to be labelled “food” at all. A similar thing can be said about thought in our civilization of today. Many suffer from the, to the individual and also our very civilizational body, unhealthy and hazardous “processed thought” that they receive and unquestionally digests on a daily basis. One rots their body, the other their mind and soul. And in time the overarching civilization.
Your mate can be summed up very succinctly – he is a bell end.
Indeed many of us have friends like this: well-educated (or even with superior credentials), residing in sheltered corners and receiving their news from the BBC and The Guardian newspaper. Such persons nurture a naïve political worldview appropriate, perhaps to their college days, when rank outrages to minorities and women were indeed commonplace in Britain.
I would suggest not to be a bore(*) bombarding them with daily ‘counter-signalling’ but simply to make the occasional telling point when some symptom of our nation’s onrushing collapse intrudes upon their lives. Some of them, at least, will get the message before it is too late.
(*) A terrible faux pas with the English, guaranteeing the loss of friends.
What an interesting and well-written essay!
I believe the concept was termed “double-think” by Orwell. Basically it involves being able to hold 2 diametrically opposed beliefs at the same time and apply them to different issues depending on one’s situational awareness. The person genuinely does not believe there is a contradiction, hence the poorly framed concept of “truth” or facts here.
Your friend clearly knows nothing about science or physics but merely brings up those theories so as to appear wise before non-scientists.
I guess he really doesn’t read actual books, otherwise I’d suggest “The Bell Curve” or other works by Chas. Murray.
It’s a mass delusion. The brains of these people are protecting them from painful realization and insecurity.
There’s a term for a lot of this and it’s called “scotosis”, from the Ancient Greek skotos (darkness) and -osis (state, abnormal condition), and is defined as “intellectual blindness: a hardening of the mind against unwanted wisdom.”
All your questions and contrarian takes about Covid have explanations that you can easily find on the internet. For example, it’s bizarre that you would think that vaccines are supposed to be 100% effective in preventing illness caused by a virus, given that the well-known and long-running flu vaccinations never claim that, and that’s not generally how medicine works. The fact that you chose to listen to obvious right-wing idiots rather than look at the actual scientific evidence is a perfect example of the process that leads people to believe in Blank Slate and other nonsense. Rightist conspiracies about Ukraine is another universe of sheer idiocy and denial of reality, which makes liberals on race seem almost sane by comparison. The truth is that people look for bias information and confirmation of their priors by their ideological leaders or allies, not the truth. When rightists or leftists are right about something, they are right by accident, not due to a careful and objective examination of the evidence, as this article shows.
The truth is that people look for bias information and confirmation of their priors by their ideological leaders or allies, not the truth.
What can be seen well from you. Everyone knows by now the vaccine was practically useless, so don’t spread nonsense here. You are just making a fool of yourself
At no point does the author make the absurd claim that vaccines are supposed to be 100% effective. “Right-wing idiots?” Honestly? Ferraro must have been looking for Media Matters analysis and wandered here by mistake.
I still scratch my head at how vaccines became so polarizing. We are so proud of western civilization and it’s insights but want to retreat to third world medicine. One can fact the New England Journal report that the first major vaccine trial was to reduce hospitalization and deaths, not guarantee zero infection. Such is also true for vaccines to influenza, whooping cough and others. You young guys who don’t bother voting can skate by without vaccines. My parents generation, who reliable show up at the voting booth and vote Right wing, seems to benefit a bit from them. It seems that anti-vax counties have a higher Covid mortality and these tend to be right wing voters. So the anti vax movement has been as helpful for right leaning whites the way Black Lives Matter paved the way for an increased homicide rate in their demographic.
I still scratch my head at how vaccines became so polarizing.
Allow me to relieve you of your unaccountable and frustratingly conventional itch.
The compulsory jabs ( vaccination is properly innoculation with cowpox to prevent smallpox). Well, those became divisive around about when they were made compulsory.
Highly novel genetic therapies were shown to have a poor safety profile and little efficacy at retarding spread of the virus whatever their arguable and maddeningly short-lived benefits may have been on disease severity. And yet young people, in some places, even young children, at effectively no risk from the disease, were forced, in order to work or study, to subject themselves to injections which made them feel lousy, sometimes caused serious cardiovascular and neurologic effects and have long-term effects of which the public can perforce know nothing, because they are experimental and untested.
I could go on…….
I hope you and your friend can remain as such. In my years I’ve concluded that the older one is the less likely they are going to change their views. The liberal of today is the conservative of tomorrow (in many cases they have changed little but “progress” has marched past them). People have emotional attachments to their ideology, thus one can’t expect “logic” or facts to persuade them. But being likable and kind (but not naive or a pushover) carries a lot of water and makes for a good image for any movement. When they find themselves betrayed by the worldview, your way of thinking (so long as it’s not mean spirited) has a new appeal.
Political correctness is putting up with bullshit to get rich, playing a high-low versus middle game, gaining the favor of wretched underling clients and corrupt/incompetent superiors. Take away the monetary and status rewards from being PC, and the behavior will diminish. It’s Machiavellianism in the service of upward mobility in a corrupt service economy. They act that way because it gets them what they want. It’s all about gaining favor at the expense of what benefits the group.
I know a man who fits the description of “James” to a T.
He is an M.I.T. grad & Atheist who is in his early 6o’s.
He plays the same games that “James” does when he is presented with facts that he doesn’t like or asked questions that he has no intelligent response to.
I appreciated reading this article more than you know.
Thanks.
Very true. I have met these so many times.. Especially the ones about one example somehow disproving a general trend and jumping to my intentions with stating something and not whether it is true or false.
But I think political opinions for the masses are what makes their life easiest. It’s not based on truth. It’s based on power. Truth for most people is the opinion of the powerful.
Re terrier that didn’t go after rats… That is exactly the type of response that I got back when I highlighted that crime levels of all the nomads being brought to Ireland are at a far higher level, that they’ve completely different standards particularly towards women and children. So the next day my pal sends me the closing credits to a program on TV saying that a man murders his wife every week in the UK. Absolutely no sense of proportionality in that the UK has a population of 65 million and complete disregard for stories like the Tralee woman who was stabbed 9 times by some animal who had only been in the country for 5 weeks. He locked her in the bathroom and only by some small miracle she was able to climb on to the roof and get saved. Hardly any of these stories making it to the news obviously. Anyway, pure denial and a real lack of critical thinking. The only critical thinking is on anything against the general BBC narrative.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment