3,412 words
Aside from forecasting the future in terms of how college admissions will work, the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action — Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which can be read here — provides us an opportunity to analyze the current state of United States law and to pierce the undeserved mystique surrounding the legal profession. Your reading of this essay alone will demonstrate in itself that lawyering is not alchemy.
The ruling also shows that constitutionalist, civic nationalist, or “Alt Lite” jurisprudence is so uninspiring and beset with contradictions that it is largely ineffective and has no future. It may give us a few favorable rulings from time to time, as it clashes with the up and coming “woke” radicals, but it is still fatally flawed.
With the headlines screaming “affirmative action overturned!”, the Obamas complaining from their luxury yacht, and law schools offering chamomile tea and counseling to the trembling snowflakes, it certainly seemed that something important happened. But a “ruling” is not always the same as the “rule” that is handed down. Yes, Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs were struck down — but affirmative action is not dead.
The plaintiffs in this case sued under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which plainly says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
But there are major issues with the Fourteenth Amendment which are evident in the court’s opinion. For the sake of brevity, we will overlook the glaring fact that it was passed via coercion instead of consent. The next issue is its intent. The Fourteenth Amendment’s original intent was to eliminate slavery and to not allow it to reemerge under false labels. But it was overkill. Nobody thought it would one day permit blacks, or those of other races, to enjoy special privileges at the expense of their white descendants.
The Equal Protection Clause’s plain meaning is that citizens will be treated equally under the law. The government will be colorblind in its dealing with citizens. The existence of affirmative action for decades obviously clashes with this. How did this come to pass?
The Supreme Court created the test of “strict scrutiny” in United States v. Carolene Products Co. in 1938. Courts strictly scrutinize cases when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or when there is a “suspect classification,” a term coined in Hirabayashi v. United States in 1943 and Korematsu v. United States in 1944 which encompasses things such as race, religion, etc. Admittedly, courts had to develop an orderly way of dealing with constitutional litigation, but we should never forget that the entire matrix of civil rights law has been pulled out of thin air. These seemingly innocuous and even useful terms would bear bitter fruit in the so-called civil rights era.
Strict scrutiny requires a compelling government interest, which is pursued in a manner that is narrowly tailored to that interest and the least restrictive means to pursue that interest. The majority opinion claims that only two race-based classifications have supposedly survived judicial review: segregation of prison inmates for their own safety, and remedying “specific, identified instances of past discrimination.” The second exception is exceedingly rare and must fall within living memory, unlike vague demands for generic reparations.
So, given the foregoing combined with the fact that publicly-funded universities — and even private ones – must comply with constitutional law because of civil rights litigation and legislation, how has affirmative action survived for so long? There are two answers. First, constitutional law is almost entirely derived from the courts and not the Constitution, and when we say “courts,” we mean human judges. And second, despite their having good intentions, conservatives are cowardly, inept, and full of contradictions.
Affirmative action is plainly anti-white — and nowadays also anti-straight — discrimination, and no fancy reasoning can refute this fundamental fact. Previous courts — or to be more precise, factions of judges in the Supreme Court — have been wishy-washy on affirmative action. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978, the Court ruled that affirmative action is fine so long as there are no hard racial quotas. And in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, which is the case most discussed in the recent ruling, affirmative action was allowed to endure so long as it was done in a “narrowly tailored” and individualized way. The Court in Grutter also stated its hope that affirmative action would no longer be needed in 25 years — or that at least it would not be made permanent.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
At first glance, the Supreme Court in the recent Students for Fair Admissions case seems to have handed down a fair, bright line rule with a three-prong test.
First, race-based admissions must pass “strict scrutiny,” which means they must have a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest. This means they must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial review. The Court dismissed vague talk of the supposed benefits of diversity as impossible for a court to measure, and made it clear that it is not going to simply defer to colleges saying, “Trust us, bro.”
Second, the Court says admissions programs must “. . . comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may never be used as a ‘negative’ and that it may not operate as a stereotype.”
Third, admissions programs must have a logical endpoint, and cannot last forever. Simply reviewing affirmative action programs is not enough.
But there is an obvious loophole:
. . . nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.
If you, dear reader, are beginning to see some puzzling contradictions, it’s not because you’re failing to grasp a metaphysical doctrine. It’s rather because US constitutional law since the 1960s is almost as full of contradictions as the Talmud. This is due only due to Jewish subversion, but also to the inherent contradictions of race-blind civic nationalism, which has a poor track record of opposing Jewish subversion.
Supreme Court decisions were previously made available only in massive tomes, libraries, and perhaps legal periodicals — or in summaries that were filtered through the subversive media. Today, with the Internet, anyone can read them instantly and spot the contradictions. I was proud to see that the Telegram community identified the loophole within minutes of the opinion dropping and began to ponder its significance.
The ultimate takeaway is that affirmative action will likely continue in some form, albeit a sneakier one, and in a way that helps Asians much more than whites. Lawyers try to invent loopholes where there are none — and lawyers will absolutely exploit a loophole that is being offered to them on a silver platter.
The majority opinion sternly warned that “. . . despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” But this is precisely what will happen in real life, outside the Supreme Court’s ivory tower.
The Court even seems to claim that colleges have been disobeying their previous rulings: “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.” Are we to believe that colleges will now fall in line because of a stern finger-wagging alongside a convenient loophole? Will a white applicant who writes about confronting anti-white animus, or how his German ancestry inspired him, receive preferential treatment? Asian “tiger cubs” who have been taking standardized tests since they were in diapers but who can also claim to have been “hated on” or “inspired by” their identity, seem to be the only ones who will really benefit.
This is the natural result of whites not openly and honestly advocating for themselves as every other race does. If the battle against anti-white discrimination hitches itself to, or hides behind the skirts of, fighting anti-Asian discrimination, then it is only natural that white efforts will advance Asian goals — with scarcely a single scrap disdainfully tossed from the victor’s table.
Arguing that affirmative action should be overturned because it hurts blacks due to stereotyping is also doomed to failure. It is disingenuous, because few blacks care about stereotypes if they get them special treatment and free stuff — or even if it just gets whitey. Even among the talented tenth, very few blacks advance the argument that affirmative action hurts blacks despite the growing numbers of people who are hesitant to put their lives in the hands of a black surgeon or their case in the hands of a black lawyer. Trying to advance pro-white policies in relation to concern-trolling for blacks is as ridiculous and ineffective as trying to use pro-Asian policies as a surrogate or shield for pro-white policies.
This ruling in fact backfired against whites in many ways. Spots which should go to whites because of our merit — and even more importantly, because this is our country — will continue to go to other races. And college-educated Asians tend to be as arrogantly anti-white as other races. It will simply be harder to sue colleges. In many ways, the civic nationalist Supreme Court did the far Left a favor by allowing affirmative action to continue in a more discrete form, because blatant anti-white discrimination galvanizes pro-white sentiment and is easier to litigate. White students may get a few more seats than before, but let’s not pretend that affirmative action was really overturned.
But there are other points which deserve our attention, and perhaps a laugh or two.
In discussing previous case law, the Court repeats the civil rights-era argument that “separate cannot be equal.” The Court’s reasoning is that it will hurt black people’s all-important feelings, thus giving them a mental stigma that is as psychologically damaging as touching a black woman’s hair. Separate actually is inherently unequal, but it is because the races are unequal. Similar to casual gamers complaining about how a video game is hard or unbalanced, blacks simply have a “skill issue” when it comes to playing the game of life due to low IQ and so on. The tone deaf self-own of the “equality versus equity” cartoons shows this perfectly. Blacks and other victim groups will always need artificial help to compete against whites, or they will need to cut whites down to their level. White privilege really means white genetic advantage.
Thus, assuming that racial equality is a self-evident truth, as the civic nationalists on the Court believe, and not a ludicrous lie, as we believe, why have victim groups not caught up to white men? The 25 years of affirmative action which the Court in Grutter hoped would level the playing field have nearly passed, and yet blacks are still failing at life. The Left has propounded critical race theory, implicit bias, and systemic racism to explain black failure. None of these stand up to statistics, history, Occam’s razor, or the fact that Obama was twice elected President by a supposedly racist country. But such facts don’t matter if racial equality is unquestionable a priori.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
Civic nationalism is cowardice, because it avoids confronting the awkward question of why supposedly equal races have such disparate outcome despite the losers having received decades of pampering. It is simply contradictory and indefensible. Hardly anyone believes in it outside of an ageing segment of the population, which — like the Court until recently — was insulated from its failures. Civic nationalism has no future, and no amount of money donated to the Federalist Society can change this.
The Court also writes that “[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” This high-minded talk does not comport with reality. As explained by Christopher Caldwell in The Age of Entitlement, the crusade against racial discrimination via the Civil Rights Act and a novel interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is of such importance that it can now infringe upon the right to private property and freedom of association. This is like an obese black woman taking up more space than her seat can accommodate on an airplane to the discomfort of the other passengers.
Private establishments can no longer racially discriminate or even segregate due to the notion of “public accommodations,” which the courts invented. But colleges have long discriminated against whites, and because the diversity tokens produced by affirmative action at the college level cannot compete against whites in the workplace, employers have also openly discriminated against whites under the cover of diversity. This is despite the fact that private businesses ought to logically fall under the doctrine of public accommodations. The Supreme Court’s lofty rhetoric does not correspond to its rulings, and to reality even less. They are willfully blind or indifferent.
Next, let us return to this phrase: “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.” Yes, colleges may have creatively interpreted or completely ignored past rulings. But there is another issue lurking here: that of the doctrine of stare decisis, which says that courts should follow their past precedents. This is a big “should.” Overturning established precedent can cause chaos and ambiguity. But this is what lawyers are paid big bucks to deal with. And more importantly, if a past court, which is a collection of smart but fallible humans, gets something wrong, is it worse to stand by it for convenience and stability, or to put things right? It depends on the specifics, but stare decisis should act like a general principle, not as a categorical imperative.
Furthermore, stare decisis usually works in only one direction: the Left. The Court in this decision badmouths not only previous courts but entire generations of pre-civil rights Americans. The Courts of the civil rights era had no compunction about stare decisis when it came to mutating constitutional law into a mockery of what was intended not only in 1789, but even in 1868 with the Fourteenth Amendment. No sooner does the ink dry on a novel judicial concept than the Left begins to sing their hymns to hallowed tradition.
In 69 pages of liberal tears, dissenting Señora Sotomayor writes:
Lost arguments are not grounds to overrule a case. When proponents of those arguments, greater now in number on the Court, return to fight old battles anew, it betrays an unrestrained disregard for precedent. It fosters the People’s suspicions that “bedrock principles are founded . . . in the proclivities of individuals” on this Court, not in the law, and it degrades “the integrity of our constitutional system of government.”
Her words ironically betray stare decisis’ ulterior motive, which is to lend the judiciary a false sense of majesty. They are nothing more than a gaggle that decides cases according to their individual preferences, except for those few conservacucks who can be seduced by the siren song of big words such as “principles,” “the law,” and “precedent” — despite the fact that the time has long since passed when those words meant anything.
Power is all that matters in a decaying multi-racial empire, and only a fool thinks otherwise. Everyone knows that Supreme Court appointments are political in nature, because presidential elections have acquired an apocalyptic dimension due to the question of who the next President might nominate for the Supreme Court, thus shaping the law to their whim for years to come — if they have the will to do so.
The Court issued a weak ruling in part because they are trying to pretend that they did not actually overrule those previous cases which allowed affirmative action. They would rather claim that colleges were not following the Court’s previous rulings, and so that what is needed is a clarification of existing law instead of a reversal. This public-relations stunt has obviously backfired, as the Left is hysterical now that they can’t be as brazenly anti-white as before. In their mind, affirmative action was overturned.
On the other hand, the dissident Right and even some mainstream conservatives are correct in identifying the loophole as a major flaw. In trying to make everyone happy, the Court made almost everyone unhappy, thereby undermining their precious legitimacy while also ensuring that affirmative action will have to be relitigated yet again in a future case, after the loophole is inevitably abused.
The Court is also talking out of both sides of their mouth by moving to affirmative action lite. They claim that race can only operate as a “plus” for a particular applicant, both in Grutter and in this ruling. But the Court also correctly states that “[c]ollege admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.” If you are bewildered by this contradiction, it is not that you are failing to grasp an arcane secret but that you are reading the case with a critical eye. This is a paradox, and one which cannot be resolved without dishonesty. In a way, the Court is lying to themselves and to us — and liars do not deserve respect.
Also, despite the Court’s fervent praise of diversity, this and other recent decisions are examples of the phenomenon of upper-class whites promoting diversity until it affects them. Sotomayor is nothing more than a diversity token who is out of her league. For example, she repeatedly confused de jure and de facto segregation. The Court’s putative swerve to the Right roughly coincided with Lil Ketanji Jackson being added as a second affirmative-action hire. Like the residents of Martha’s Vineyard when Ron DeSantis bussed foreign invaders into their sheltered bubble, the Supreme Court is undoubtedly annoyed by the ways in which diversity has finally come to enrich them. They might not consciously admit this, but the Court may have ruled as it did in part because the consequences of their decisions had finally caught up with them. There are certainly some unusually incisive comments directed at Sotomayor and Jackson in the majority opinion’s footnotes.
Speaking of footnotes, the fourth footnote all but announces an important exception to the rule. The majority says that they chose not to address military academies because none are party to the case, and because of “the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.” The Supreme Court may not defer to even the highest of civilian colleges, and even take great umbrage at the suggestion, but it discreetly does to the military. They do not like to admit this, but their entire existence is predicated upon loyal zogbots, especially officers, protecting the regime. Furthermore, this strongly suggests that even the insular Supreme Court can see that the enlisted ranks are well on their way to being filled with the scum of society as traditional white military families cease to serve the openly anti-white regime. These vibrant new conscripts will need vibrant new officers, if racial animosity is to be avoided. Legal theories take a back seat to the realities of race and power.
What this ruling means is that affirmative action will now continue as affirmative action lite. It will not help whites significantly, but it may help Asians. Thus, if the Court and our racial competitors are going to be Talmudic, white students must be prepared to be so as well. While some are concerned about the recent spike of college applicants identifying as LGBT or with gender dysphoria, it is likely that many of them are whites who are trying to game the anti-white system. It’s doubtful that colleges will demand that students offer proof, because this will open the door to harassment — but it would be wise to be cautious with one’s social media when pursuing this course of action.
This case also shows that the judiciary is wholly irredeemable, and therefore undeserving of our reverence. Civic nationalists are not loyal to our nation, and they lack both the intellectual arguments and the will to survive the woke Left’s onslaught. Thankfully, the courts have no inherent power. No judge is going to arm up to enforce his own ruling. Judges rely upon the executive branch for enforcement, and they further rely entirely upon respect to bind the executive branch to them — as if by enchantment. This is why they are so sensitive about contempt.
Delegitimizing the judiciary as comically absurd is a vital step in liberating the executive branch, such as state governors and local sheriffs, from its undue tyranny. And whether the courts are filled with woke Leftists or civic nationalists, I’m sure they will continue to make fools of themselves.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
23 comments
Whites will be squeezed out of the technical fields by high-caste Indians and East Asians. Much Eurasian hybridisation will occur. Jews, with their lock on the Ivy Leagues, will remain predominant in the managerial elite.
I love the idea of the rainbow pride flag being a Trojan horse for intrepid white dissidents bent on a university education. Could be an idea for Spencer Quinn’s next novel.
I want to make a comment about the illustration at the heading of this article.
That little cartoon doesn’t really serve the interests of the dissident right. Let me explain.
If one is capable of setting aside their own preconceptions and reasoning for a bit to challenge themselves, one might think, “well, what’s really wrong with the picture on the right? Is there anything wrong with giving the little guy a boost so he can watch the game too?”
I say this because the picture doesn’t adequately explain the full complexity of the issue. The entire story isn’t really incapsulated in that illustration.
How did the two shorter boys acquire the crates to stand on? Did the shortest guy build and stack his own crates? Did he climb up on top of them himself, without help? Did the tall guy build the crates and give them to the short guy? Did the tall guy stack them for the short guy? Did the tall guy have to bend over and pick the short guy up, and lift him to his spot on the top crate?
is the reality of this situation completely illustrated here? What if the tall guy were taller still? What if he was a full 3 or 4 feet taller, a true giant of a man, and could still see the game looking over the fence but sitting on a chair? Would the two shorter men complain about having to stand while the taller man sits? Would the taller man be expected to dig a hole in the ground and stand in it, so that his level of strain is equal to that of the others?
There is a crowd of onlookers seated in the bleachers inside of the fence. One would assume that they actually paid money to attend the game, or at the very least, took the initiative and made the sacrifice to arrive early enough to catch a seat. Are the men standing on the crates angry that they aren’t given a seat? Will they demand that a paying onlooker, or an onlooker who got out of bed early enough to get a seat, give up their seat so that the ones outside the fence can see the game? Will they demand that the stadium owner add new seats, or tear down the fence?
Will the people outside of the fence burn the fence down in protest? Will they loot the place, tear down the bleachers, and steal all the concessions?
The problem here is that the original illustration, to most people, is sympathetic. I can sympathize with wanting to give the short guy access to the game. I don’t even see anything wrong with stacking some crates so that he can view the game, as long as the tall guy isn’t having to give up his spot, or handicap himself in any way. My solution would be to drill a peep hole for him, so that the least amount of effort and accommodations must be made, so that he isn’t being denied anything completely, but also so that the entire system isn’t engineered for his interests at the expense of everyone else.
I’ve seen that illustration before. The sleight of hand here is the notion that making everyone happy will be easy like a minor rearrangement of boxes. What the “equity” advocates want is a LOT more than that.
All the details are in Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist. He and his cheerleaders are dead serious about this stuff. He also wants a Department of Antiracism that supersedes every other part of the government, which presumably means the ability to countermand the almighty philosopher-kings of SCOTUS.
How would “equity” work for real? To begin, of course this would include equal salary and equal net worth (in other words, Communism). That obviously would involve massive theft, and you can bet your last dollar that the crooked billionaires running the show would figure out how to exempt themselves. Moreover, arrest rates and incarceration rates would have to be equalized too. You can see what a train wreck that imposing racial quotas on the criminal justice system would be. Health outcomes would need equalization, including longevity, and I’ll leave it to your imagination how that one might be implemented. Potentially this is only the beginning of the totalitarian nightmare; “equity” involves equality of results in all socioeconomic indices until everyone is dragged down to the same common denominator.
The impression I have is that these cartoons represent a father and his two sons, or three people who are friends or, at a minimum, voluntarily associating on the basis of perceived shared interests. As a result the crates have been doled out by mutual agreement to maximise utility, the state and its agents not being involved one bit.
Also these people are all the same shade of brown which is lucky if they’re a family and will make it easier for them to work together if they’re not.
Why this fellow and his dwarfish friends are so anxious to follow a game of Rounders, and why they do not simply purchase tickets, is something of mystery.
The measure of our civilization is how well it enables brown people to get free stuff.
So true!
“They do not like to admit this, but their entire existence is predicated upon loyal zogbots, especially officers, protecting the regime. Furthermore, this strongly suggests that even the insular Supreme Court can see that the enlisted ranks are well on their way to being filled with the scum of society as traditional white military families cease to serve the openly anti-white regime. These vibrant new conscripts will need vibrant new officers, if racial animosity is to be avoided. Legal theories take a back seat to the realities of race and power.”
Then why didn’t they explicitly address and end affirmative action for the military? If their power is dependent upon the officers propping up the regime, then why support the radical limits on the number of white officers. The 14th Amendment supposedly applies to all institutions. Thus, this AA ruling should apply to all institutions.
Not putting a stop to the ongoing pogrom of whites in the military is going to be the worst of the legacies that are left to our posterity. What a nightmare.
Correct. Imagine when diversity finally gains full control over our [white-invented, white-built, white-paid for] nuclear weapons!
If we get a President DeSantis (and I DO NOT CARE how much he irrelevantly sucks up to Jews – a very powerful constituency in FL – he is the only acceptable candidate in either party’s primary), and if he is secretly at least a paleoconservative, if not a WN (and even if he were, how could he campaign differently and still hope to win?), he had better make de-woking the military a major Presidential goal. He cannot do this merely by getting tough in imposing “civic nationalist ideals”, either.
He must press for legislation that, though overtly done to rebuild the military’s lethality by de-woking and, much more importantly, de-affirmative actionizing it, has the ulterior, motive of re-whitening the Armed Forces as well as “re-conservatizing” them (by making it more attractive to conservative as against progressive whites). This can be partly accomplished by Congressional legislation eliminating any trace of racial favoritism in the Armed Forces, which will have the effect of increasing white soldiers and decreasing nonwhites, while also eliminating any DEI garbage in necessary combination with passing aggressive [and covertly prowhite] “1776” initiatives (even if these will inevitably be accompanied by a civic nationalist gloss).
There might be other, ‘harder’ ways of accomplishing our macro-goal of filling up the military with more conservative whites, and fewer progressive whites and nonwhites. Cognitive qualifications, along with basic pay and benefits (to attract the bright), could be raised, especially wrt the Navy and Air Force. The Army and Marines could also be downsized in absolute terms (which would have the additional advantage of forcing our ‘leaders’ to be more circumspect about dragging us into useless foreign wars, which become very expensive and prolonged when involving land forces), while the more merit-based (and thus whiter) Special Forces could be expanded. If the military comes again to be associated with the vocation of warrior, as opposed to being seen as a provider of “job opportunities” “to acquire commercially useful skills”, this will naturally work towards reducing its non- (and thus anti-) whiteness.
An “ounce of prevention now” in this matter could be worth “a ton of cure” if and when the “American Experiment” finally fails and fissiparates.
Question for you when it comes to DeSantis versus Trump.
Both have made 3 signature promises (Deport all illegals, finish border wall, end birthright citizenship) so do you think when they’re both on the debate stage, the way one of them will topple the other for the nomination is to add a 4th and 5th promise? In other words, if both are offering the same 3 signature promises, they’ll have to add at least one more to appear to be “even more and better than the other.”
If Trump says he supports all 3, and he’ll top DeSantis by “I’ll also support a moratorium on all legal immigration and send current visa holders home after expiration” DeSantis would have to also agree to that and then some in order to oust Trump.
If Trump goes above and beyond the 3 signature promises and DeSantis more or less only sticks to the 3, do you believe that White Nationalists should still get behind DeSantis over Trump? Do we need to wait and see the debates, or are you ultimately convinced now?
Good questions. How nice it would be to see such a “race to the top”, in a nation where all I’ve ever seen in 60+ years were “races to the bottom” – followed by the discovery (and eventual reaching) of new “bottoms”!
I support DeSantis because he has proven himself a “doer”, whilst Trump has proven himself an “over-promiser + under-deliverer”. I wanted Trump to be reelected for mostly selfish reasons (I knew he would be vastly better than Biden, who in the event has far exceeded my worst expectations). Merely looking at the enormous increase in scale of the illegal immigration invasion at the border under Biden confirms my hunch that Biden would prove far worse for whites than Trump 2 (and for me, too, personally: the economy and stock market would be doing far better had Trump been reelected; both the market stagnation and the huge inflation of recent years were almost wholly caused by Biden policies [there was some contribution by the Fed’s continuing ‘loose’ monetary regime in 2021-early ’22]).
But that was 2020, this is 2023/4. Trump was not a very good President for white (or even just conservative) interests. His ‘accomplishments’ were nearly all negative: he didn’t do a lot of the bad things done by Biden. He was spectacularly ineffective at advancing his own, or any other rightest, agenda. Question I always ask my Trump-supporting friends and extended family: where is The Wall?! Two years of an all-GOP Congress, and Trump couldn’t get his signature issue legislated and funded? A real leader could have had it built in that time period. What reason is there to expect that an older, deeply unpopular, probably still heavily (if unfairly) indicted, second term ‘lame duck’ will get anything more accomplished than he did in the first term?
Moreover, even if Trump could get elected (which I strongly doubt; I believe the objectively more conservative DeSantis would actually have an easier time winning the general than Trump, so great is both the dislike of Trump and general “Trump-fatigue”), he would almost certainly cost the GOP at least one branch of Congress (and he could lose us both, if applicable). Both WNs and the very different libertarians like to pretend that the differences between the two parties are beneath notice compared to their alleged fundamental similarity, but this stance is silly.
If any Republican were President, we would not be having the 10,000 aliens per day invasion at the border. We would not be experiencing anything like the lawfare war that the Biden-empowered radical legal Left is waging against nationalists, conservatives and patriots of all kinds. Ditto the unbelievably costly assault on the economy, especially the energy sector, under the aegis of “fighting {unproven, and very possibly non-existent} “climate change”. We would not have come within a Senator’s hair’s breadth of suffering massively destructive tax increases, specifically including those aimed at destroying Middle American inheritances via horrendous changes in capital gains-after-death tax laws pertaining to real estate (let no one here fantasize that any political movement in the USA – including nationalist ones – can succeed without “persons of [at least moderate] means”; just imagine how much more effective we would be if all WN-activists were “independently middle class” {ie, worth $2-4 million}, such that we either didn’t have to work at mere “money jobs” at all, or had zero fear of doxxing-related employment loss). I could go on for several more paragraphs about damage Biden has done that Trump 2 would not have done.
In summary, I believe DeSantis would be 1) more electable in November 2024 than Trump; 2) more effective for us than Trump, both in terms of what he would get legislated (as well as what he would do via Executive Order), and in what he would not do in the pursuit of cheap, transitory popularity (eg, Trump’s huge increase in funding for Afro-racist colleges, as well as his evil “Platinum Plan”); and 3) much less likely to lose us one or both houses of Congress due to (Trump’s now proven) political maladroitness. A final benefit of DeSantis is the possibility (indeed, I predict, probability) of 8 years in office, whereas the person who succeeds a Trump 2 Presidency will almost guaranteedly be a Democrat.
Trump had 4 years of promises and fulfilled close to none. He did facilitate supreme court nominations but that was more Mitch McConnell and would have been achieved with any Republican president. DeSantis has an actual track record of policies rejecting various woke initiatives. Trump has a track record of tweets.
delete
Agreed. First a giant echo about DeSantis. Perhaps another interesting candidate will come along, but I scratch my head in disappointment hearing people whine that he got behind an anti-hate speech bill towards Jews (like every other politician). Is really too much to ask that some of you not throw bacon at a synagogue? Try a BLT. If we are a supposedly thoughtful and intelligent cohort, it’s nice to occasionally see some well thought out ideas and details for gradual progress instead of pining for a rocketship that will take you to a white utopia.
The military is a complex issue. I’ve heard generals and other brass speak sensibly that unity and following orders is a key component of keeping it running smoothly, and thus troops need to be tolerant of each other and not have various racial/gender factions for what they have. Something only carefully touched upon is that standards for military recruitment have dropped quite a bit since the days of recruiting heavily from universities. Is there an issue of recruiting more people with personality and psychological issues, e.g. people who have trouble holding a job and then think the military might a good way to straighten themselves out? Does this relate to leaks of military secrets, ala Chelsea Manning, nee Bradley.
Blacks have both dramatically lower IQs and higher rates of psychopathy. And that pattern probably holds to a lesser but significant degree in hispanics.
This means that not only is it much harder to recruit blacks who meet the minimum qualifications — 90 IQ or so for the most basic gruntwork jobs — but when those recruits do manage to meet initial recruitment metrics they will, all things being equal, score vastly lower on measures of character.
In practice, this means that when a black officer candidate is selected, it is vastly more likely that they will have a criminal record, gang affiliations or the plethora of wildly dysfunctional and institutionally fatal traits that make up the Psychopathy Checklist.
A military made up of mostly blacks and hispanics would be a lethal threat to nonviolent civilians but would be Margarita Tuesday at the beach for a serious force like Russia or China to gut like a lame horse.
Good article by a new voice to CC. All that really needs to be said, however, is that nothing positive about America will be preserved, nor will we arrest our perpetual arc of national decline, unless and until whites develop a completely new, sociobiologically realistic understanding of racial reality, as well as the will to fight for their own 100% legitimate racial interests with at least as much vigor as nonwhites fight for their respective illegitimate ones.
It always comes down to this, doesn’t it, to the deep question, what is wrong with white people? I’ve been asking that for 45 years, and with vehemence for more than 20. I’m still awaiting the definitive answer.
There was a time when our instincts were quite healthy. This changed after a decades-long deluge of demoralization propaganda. This is why the mainstream media is Public Enemy Number One; they’re at the forefront of holding up this tapestry of lies.
Even if Trump wasn’t a great president you have to hand it to him for the Supreme Court nominees. After more than half a century of Cuckservatives jerking us around with these stupid political footballs, holding the right wing hostage in this middling position, Trump alone finally settled all of it once and for all. Yes, it’s too little too late when it comes to abortion, Affirmative Action and the rest of it affecting demographics or power, but even symbolically it means the center-right jackals have no talking points anymore. They got what they wanted and now it’s our turn to lead the rightists.
The dirty little secret about the SCOTUS is that it was never meant to be the final word on the Constitution. It has become the final word on it due to the power that it gave itself in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and some other early cases. In fact, there is explicit language in Article III of the Constitution giving Congress fairly broad powers to limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Of course, this is largely ignored and was sort of set aside by the Marbury case, but the language is still there. Quite candidly, I’m not sure it’s something I’d ever want to see given any teeth, depending on who’s on the Court and, more importantly, who’s in Congress.
That’s quite true. They were never meant to be infallible oracles with miraculous interpretive power to twist words if they feel like it, but they did grant themselves the final word long ago. The potential was there since that time, but they didn’t abuse their power on a large scale until the Warren court.
Was Trump responsible for John Roberts?
No
This is a really excellent essay. Absolutely outstanding breakdown of the situation.
“…college-educated Asians tend to be as arrogantly anti-white as other races…”
Exactly. The anti-Asian realities of affirmative action would lead one to assume they’d side more with us than with our enemies. One would think they’d embrace their status as the ‘model minority’ in the United States and push back hard against the negro violence they’ve been subjected to in cities since the 1980s. It’d be in their best interest to be pro-White. Yet the majority of them vote Democrat (62% per Pew) and subscribe to the standard Establishment narrative.
This seems baffling, but is explained by the fact that they’re the most feminine – that is to say conformist – race. (I believe I learned this from the work of J. Philippe Rushton by way of Steve Sailer, but it might’ve been a different scholar of intelligence; it’s been probably two decades since I studied it.) If you’ve spent any time among groups of Asians, it is quickly apparent that rocking boats is anathema. They simply do not make waves.
Still, stoking what little anti-Negro resentment exists in the Mongoloid population can’t hurt us. Like trans v. feminist, Jew v. pro-Palestinian leftist, and moslem v. any moderately civilized human, it’s a wedge issue we should be constantly hammering.
I hope we can look forward to more of Mr. Livius’ writing in future, because this was a knockout piece!
Comments are closed.
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.