Counter-Currents
Including Audio Version by Jim Goad!
Rich Snobs vs. Poor Slobs:
The Schism Between “Racist” Whites
Jim Goad
2,114 words / 14:01
Audio version: To listen in a player, use the one below or click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
In a 2015 article, John Derbyshire drew a distinction between “Goodwhites” and “Badwhites.” The “Goodwhites” were the well-meaning anti-racist white liberals, whereas the “Badwhites” were those who dared to differ with modern egalitarian orthodoxies.
Since everyone in Derb’s dichotomy was white and no mention was made of the often stark class differences among them — both Donald Trump and Alabama trailer-park dwellers could be “Badwhites” — the distinction was strictly drawn along ideological lines. Derbyshire called the Goodwhite/Badwhite schism a “Cold Civil War.”
For now, I’m going to ignore the Goodwhites. I see white liberalism as mostly a reaction to post-Second World War economic comfort in a country that was, until very recently, so overwhelmingly white that other differences came into sharper focus.
Now, with rampaging anti-whiteness, demographics tilting heavily against whites, and an economy that may collapse before I even finish pecking out this article, the conditions that allowed for Goodwhites to prosper are rapidly vanishing. White liberalism is an ephemeral phenomenon that will evaporate once the cushy conditions that allowed it to exist in the first place have vanished. Whether they like it or not, the white shitlibs will be forced to accept that they are stuck being white.
But there’s a different, if almost entirely unacknowledged, Cold Civil War brewing among the Badwhites — one I’ll characterize as “Rich Snobs v. Poor Slobs.”
The current elites openly mock poor whites, as do huge swaths of the current “dissident” movement. So “dissidents” are, consciously or not, walking in lockstep with the elites by trampling on “white trash.”
Politically active Rich White Snobs have spent decades holding their noses and distancing themselves from the optically undesirable Klansmen and skinheads and snaggle-toothed trailer-park dwellers. They act as openly disgusted at the very thought of poor whites, especially rural and Southern ones, as do rich urban Jews and white liberals. Why, it’s almost as if they’re unconsciously taking cues from the Goodwhites and Goodjews.
How much of the Rich White Snobs’ optics-obsessed shitting upon low-class whites is simple strategic marketing, and how much of it is class-based disdain that blinds them to the fact that the Poor White Slobs are their racial kinsmen?
Wikipedia’s “List of ethnic groups in the United States by household income” tallies 73 total ethnic groups. Although “Jews” are not listed as an ethnic group, “Appalachians” are — and, at #73, they fall at the absolute bottom of the list, behind even Haitians and Ethiopians.
And, just like the Goodwhites and Goodjews do, the White Snobs can only cackle at the White Slobs and say, “Haha, fuck you, you deserve it.” For the Goodwhites and Goodjews, it’s “You deserve it because you were too dumb to take advantage of your white privilege.” For the White Snobs, it’s “You deserve it because God made you inferior to me.” These oddball, modern-day, suited-up, Right-wing e-Christians openly despise “wagies” and “white trash losers” regardless of everything their purported savior allegedly said about helping the poor.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see this kind of snobbery toward their own kind in any other race. It’s something that happens only among white people. What happened to the idea of “no more brother wars”?
The snootiest black academic or richest black entertainer never looks down on black “crackheads.” Neither do I see super-powerful billionaire atheist Jews heaping scorn on destitute Orthodox Heebs living 20 to a cabin in some Eastern European shtetl. And yet blacks and Jews seem far more united than white people are. Funny how that works.
Can you name an elite movement currently in power that makes a habit of openly mocking poor blacks as “losers”? Can you point to one billionaire Manhattan Jew who displays seething revulsion for dirt-poor Orthodox Hasidic communities just northwest of Manhattan?
White-on-white snobbery is such an obvious divide-and-conquer tactic, I’m perplexed as to why so many people seem utterly blind to it.
For those who wonder why the white-identity “movement” seems to be crawling along as slowly as a brick of cheese through a lazy colon — if it’s moving at all — allow me to suggest that it’s because the Rich Snobs and the Poor Slobs have been unwittingly played against one another. The Powers That Be simply won’t allow white racists of all economic classes to unite, so it’s in their interests to stir resentment between them.
You can buy Jim Goad’s ANSWER Me! here.
Or maybe you think it’s just a coincidence that the modern establishment Left and Right are hyper-focused on the “Culture War,” but hardly ever mention economics anymore?
So the question is: Do White Snobs care about white people, or only the rich ones? If it’s the latter, what do they think are the chances of their movement — which in demographic terms is the size of a shrunken head — ever reaching its goals? Who’s going to be welcome in their long-delayed ethnostate — all whites, or just ones they hand-pick? Do they ever pause to consider that they may end up like the spinster who was a choosy debutante but wound up bitterly alone?
Furthermore, why do the White Snobs even care about white demographic decline? They can easily jet off to some secluded enclave that won’t be stained by diversity for another generation or two. The ones who’ve always had to deal face-first with diversity’s downsides are the poor and working whites. They’re the ones whose jobs were shipped overseas while blacks and browns and yellows crowded their neighborhoods. The Poor Slobs have to deal with diversity in real life rather than in theory. For the Rich Snobs, is it nothing more than a mildly exciting video game? If they are genuinely concerned about white demographics, what’s to be gained by shitting upon a group that cranks out far more white children than they do?
I have always existed as sort of a racial/economic tragic mulatto. In 1991, in the opening editorial to the first issue of my self-published magazine ANSWER Me!, I described myself as “white trash with brains.” I recently reconnected with someone who grew up a few doors from me on the same block where I did, and he said, “You were always too smart for our working-class neighborhood.”
So I’ve always had one foot in each world, but nowhere to call home — too smart for my working-class neighborhood, yet too working-class in experience and temperament to mesh comfortably with academics or, for that matter, anyone who emerged from the middle class or higher.
You can buy Jim Goad’s The Redneck Manifesto here.
In my 1997 book The Redneck Manifesto, which focused more on class than on race, I drew a sharp line between “White Trash” and “White Cash.” Back then, most anti-white slurs seemed to focus on “rednecks” and “hillbillies,” terms which were both racial and class-oriented.
Since then, the scope of relentless anti-white defamation has expanded to include all whites, but especially everyone who dares to be unapologetically white. First they came for the hillbillies, but even though the upper-crust whites are now also in the crosshairs, they still seem to think it’s prudent to shit on hillbillies just like everyone else does.
I spent the first part of my adulthood trying to prove to white Leftists that I came from a working-class neighborhood. Because they believed in universal white privilege and refused to concede that any white person could be “deprived” in any way, rich-kid white Leftists used to say it was impossible for me not to have grown up under comfy-cozy circumstances.
These days, I have rich-kid white Rightists saying that I’m low-class, undesirable genetic garbage for having grown up in a rough, working-class home.
What the rich Leftist Goodwhites and the rich Rightist White Snobs have in common is the condescending idea that if I still have to work hard to avoid poverty or homelessness — in other words, if I’m a Poor White Slob — it’s all my fault. One side blames white privilege and the other blames my genes, but I wind up getting blamed either way.
Regardless of their political orientation, you just can’t win with these sheltered white assholes.
Sure, the decisions one makes in life are important. What’s hardly ever discussed is that for most people, many decisions are made for them and are entirely out of their control.
Even people who actually have to work for a living, like I will probably have to do until the day I die, sometimes tend to get so immersed in philosophical abstractions about how hierarchy is sacred that they may overlook how thoroughly fucked most of us are for the rest of our lives due to economic decisions that were made without our consent.
If you’re going to be an elitist, at least be consistent about it. At least follow your elitism to its logical end. It’s tacky to worship hierarchy right up to the point where Jews and Asians come out on top, but then you start whining — just like you accuse the White Slobs of “whining” about the rich.
The problem with one-size-fits-all ideologues is that life is far too complex to reduce it to simple binaries. Sure, race and genetics account for a lot, but only a sheltered monomaniac would think they explain everything.
Being responsible is important, but it’s hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps when the boot factory was offshored to the Philippines. It’s not all nature, and it’s not all nurture.
What I’ve been saying for decades now is that the aggressive “anti-racism” push they’ve been clobbering us with has very little to do with elites being racially tolerant and very much to do with globalizing the workforce and keeping workers distracted with Tower of Babel-level squabbles.
At least for the past few generations, “white privilege” has obviously been a lie, but being born into good economic circumstances gives you a tremendous advantage over those who weren’t.
There was a viral animated video a few years about “white privilege” that showed life as basically a long-distance track-and-field race where blacks started off far behind whites and were thus disadvantaged. The video was deservedly mocked, not only because it presumed “whiteness” is anything but a liability on the current playing field, but also since it presumed that whites are a monolith and that they all start the contest from the same point. But the fact remains that if you start out in life in a wealthy family with tremendous networks of support, you are ridiculously privileged compared to someone who had to scrape for everything they ever got.
This is something that “racist” whites need to talk about, especially if you actually want to form a broad-based “white identity” movement — or, in the long run, an ethnostate.
Sure, welfare can demoralize people. But so can trust funds. The most aimlessly fucked-up people I’ve ever known were taking some kind of handout, whether from the government or from their parents.
The White Snobs are hilariously blind to the specter of fey, spoiled, sheltered, digitally-raised, accelerationist midgets talking about how Poor White Slobs — rather than Rich White Slobs — wouldn’t have survived in primitive societies. Trust me: If things fall apart, it’s the White Snobs who will be picked clean to the bone before the lunch bell rings. The White Slobs will be swinging wooden clubs and cracking heads long after the Sun sets.
I’ve known far too many inept, effete, lazy, and flat-out dumb White Snobs for the eugenic argument to be foolproof. It’s not exactly an accomplishment to have had it easy. Not everyone comes to wealth through hard work and talent. Sometimes it’s acquired by treachery, and other times by pure luck.
White Snobs will admit that environment may negatively affect outcomes if you’re talking about degeneracy or single-parent households, but not if you’re born poor or at any point in your life find yourself with the bleak choice of either having to work at some soul-crushing job or being homeless. In that case, the blame lies squarely on your shitty genes, and you deserve everything that happens to you.
Either we’re all in this together, or we’re not.
Refusing to acknowledge that poor and working-class whites have been cannon fodder for the globalist diversity project is such a basic-bitch, libertarian, Chamber of Commerce Republican take, I’m surprised that such people can call themselves “dissidents” without vomiting blood.
What do you call people who blame a simple inborn lack of gumption for all the alienation, anomie, addiction, and suicide that has resulted from lower-class whites being fed for generations to the global meatgrinder like so many useless corpses to make Soylent Green crackers?
In the old days, they would have been called race traitors.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- 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, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
99 comments
Excellent article Jim. I find myself re-reading The Redneck Manifesto every 2 or 3 years. Such a good book man
Excellent essay Jim. Let me throw out a question. Does anyone here personally know a “snooty black scholar “ or billionaire Jew? I’m almost positive the answer to that is no. However I have had conversations with working class blacks that will mercilessly trash dumb low class black people worse than we will. Of course we’re not too fond of the working class ones either.
As far as Jews go, the ordinary run of the mill Jew always warns that “watch those Hasidics, Dey be da worstest.”
Most white snobs I meet are economically no better off than I am. They’ve just been sucked in by the contemporary culture. Their arguments are easy to combat and they’re far more fun to ridicule than poor whites.
Great article as always Jim. We’re both hillbillies at heart.
At one time comedians such as Chris Rock would point out the dysfunctional behavior of other blacks.
Hi Fred, my job is in fundraising and I personally know several multi-multi-multi millionaire Jews (billionaires are harder to come by in my town), and more snooty black scholars than I can possibly count. Both groups firmly hate Whitey, but they can openly hate poor Whitey a little more. Hating rich Whitey requires more restraint, for now, but they still do it.
I work in the highest of ivory towers in academia… so yes.
Give ’em hell Jim! I actually commented something similar on one of your YouTube videos a while back. As a lifelong white slob this was amazing to hear someone say what I’m thinking in my head like this. I feel this site in particular is guilty of the things you say. CC is goid enough to take donations from pieces of shit like myself as long as I don’t leave “anodyne” comments like this one. I have donated in the past bu I refuse to do so now. Because of this white snob attitude from CC. These guys should be kissing Goad’s ass for bringing in all the eyeballs he draws to this site. The main reason many of us frequent CC is Jim fucking Goad! Thank you Jim for this excellent essay.
What do you mean by “white snob attitude”, specifically? It’s not immediately apparent to me (anymore than exactly what Goad was talking about in this essay). What “white snobbery” is there here at CC? Is recognition of eugenic reality “white snobbery”? Is an interest in philosophy or classic literature a sign of “snobbery” (certainly, many morons would think so)? How about a belief in the Constitution, or the free enterprise system (which, as literally many generations of political economists have demonstrated, is the very best antidote to poverty, at least on a society-wide basis)? Is speaking and writing properly a sign of “snobbery”?
I come from an upper-middle-class economic background, and Ivy League educational one. But I’ve often been accused (by members of my class) of being “blue-collar”, or of having a “working class sensibility”. I don’t like rich assholes, and I’ve come into contact with so many of them. I separate character into “moral” and “martial” aspects. WRT the first, there are virtuous rich people, and virtuous poor. There are rich white scumbags, and poor white ones. But the working class is (or, perhaps, was – in the Age of Fentanyl and Porn, I’m not so sure of this anymore, at least among the young white poor) far superior in martial character. My biggest condemnation of wealthy whites is that they tend to be disloyal – not only to their race, but even to their friends. Whether that has just been my personal experience, I don’t know.
” Is speaking and writing properly a sign of “snobbery”?
I come from an upper-middle-class economic background, and Ivy League educational one. But I’ve often been accused (by members of my class) of being “blue-collar”, or of having a “working class sensibility”.”
Those who accused you of being “blue-collar” and of having a “working-class sensibility” were almost certainly protesting your rootedness with the wider White Christian community; this surely is something to be proud of at their expense. Also what you say in one of your other postings in relation to this essay as regards the moral transience of upwardly mobile Whites rings true in my own personal experience – once they’ve done with you, they’ll just discard you like a candy wrapper, and you’re also right about Whites from more humble backgrounds being more loyal and martially orientated.
Aged 58, I’m from a working class background, but particularly during my late teens and throughout my twenties, would be accused of being upwardly socially pretentious by some and considered by others to genuinely be from a higher social category. This both opened and shut doors for me. At the top end, I’ve been invited to many a fine soiree; at the bottom subject to verbal insult and obscenity, and in a couple of extreme cases physical violence.
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth either. Peace.
Crumps brother, you mentioned donating in the past. Presumably at that point you felt like you had some degree of kinship with CC. What exactly was the turning point, and around when? This is not a “justify yourself” question. Honestly, maybe you have some valid points that are worth considering.
I’m glad you’re a reader, even if it’s just of Mr. Goad’s work.
I’m curious what specific instances Mr. Goad was referring to regarding his “These days, I have rich-kid white Rightists saying that I’m low-class, undesirable genetic garbage for having grown up in a rough, working-class home.”
If anything, I don’t have the links, but I recall there being articles on here about rust belt and the dying white middle class.
I understand that there is social stratification and hierarchy but I don’t get the disdain many wealthy people have for the working class. I think it was Rockefeller who would take prospective employees out to lunch to see how they would treat their waiter, someone in a lower social caste. I didn’t have to work food service but I’m glad I did. It taught me some very valuable lessons and skills. I think most importantly it made me appreciate the hard work people in this industry have to do and for a pittance. My work in food service was for beer money back in college whereas for most of my other coworkers probably a quarter to a third of the month they were working just to pay the rent.
Even though I grew up a northeasterner who was convinced that the northeast US megalopolis may as well be the center of the universe, talking down to and making classist remarks about other white people always struck me as a profoundly unhealthy attitude. It is pretty much an implicit rejection of oneself, or at least the handy country version of oneself who goes hunting, fixes things, and actually produces the food.
But the issue really goes beyond class or even race because American citizens of all types deserve to have their government officials look out for their interests, not import millions of migrants yearly, inject us with mRNA goo, and lead us to the brink of war with Russia. These are the things Biden should be impeached for, which some in the liberal press seem to fail to comprehend. And then the whole establishment should be thrown out as well for allowing the deindustrialization and the export of jobs to go unchecked for generations. And then once all those issues are addressed we can focus on pro-natal policies and address the crime and familial breakdown that causes poverty. These are goals that should be perfectly reasonable for even the most mainstream of conservatives. Once we actually have a modicum of physical security back, much like during the first several Trump years (mass shootings notwithstanding), only then will healthy pro-white metapolitics have an environment to flourish.
This is a great article.
Every white person is at most a few degrees of separation from white trash in their family. I am a class traitor not just as a dissident but as someone who is actively involved in doing all I can to help my family pull itself up. I am doing all I can to get my family’s youngest generation to see the world as theirs and have the ability to make it so.
At one point in time Christianity and its idea of charity, uplift and outreach bridged the class divide. Urbanization and upward mobility based on quantitative rather than qualitative measures has nearly destroyed this. Your opening salvo about the goodwhites impending situation and the realizations of the realities that will come with it can’t come soon enough.
Do not abandon your people. Some day, you will need them every bit as much as they needed you during bygone days. The dissidents in good straits who will be a resource to white folk will find themselves leading a group of people in real life someday – people who will be grateful and some of whom will be very capable friends and allies.
Rich white guys blew into town, bought a long-time family owned small factory and fired all the old dudes working there. They used the lock-down as an excuse. Then the hired temps — nothing but Guatemalans and Mexicans. All of whom have hardship housing benefits the white dudes do not have.
Hard to love your race when the rich pull this. And they do. Constantly.
It takes poor white guys years to grasp the fact that Matthew 10:36 is the only part of the book that addresses them: “And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Swap race for household and it fits.
Who needs a racial enemy when are own are such toxic insects?
One of the reasons that corporations such as Amazon want a diverse work force is because they are less likely to unionize.
I haven’t even finished the article. But I want to say thanks. It was about time someone wrote something like this. Recently a lot of “pro-white” people have been shitting on poor whites. Particularly in the wake of the Oliver Anthony debacle. Andrew Anglin wrote an entire article implying that whites from Appalachia were dumb and disgusting. Which is doubly Ironic coming from an Ohioan SEA expat.
The now dead William Pierce was also guilty of fierce classism. He often talked about people with degrees as being “serious” while passively implying working class people weren’t or couldn’t be. Even in his book “Hunter” the main characters is a conventionally successful and wealthy government contractor. He even directly uses the term “slob” and “Joe six pack” because I guess poor whites just haven’t gotten enough of a beating.
Your observation about E-Christians is also on point. No group among the entire right wing is as hateful toward working people as E-Christians. Groypers tend to be virulent classists despite what their fictional rabbi said about poor people.
When you say E-Christians, I assume that you mean evangelicals. I believe that part of that is due to the fact that they view the working classes as engaging in decadent behavior and other vices, which many evangelicals are guilty of.
No, I mean Electronic Christians—ones who follow insipid online trends and have probably never read The Bible nor appear to understand anything about the faith in which they profess to believe.
Ok, I see what you mean.
What is an “E-Christian”?
Old School Christianity stressed compassion for the virtuous poor (the cripple; the widow; the orphan); but the lash and workhouse for the unvirtuous ones (the drunkard {today, junkie}; the vagrant; the gambler). Is there something wrong with that view? I can’t help suspecting Goad thinks there is – but then Goad routinely mocks the Church, so his pleas for the poor ring a bit hollow.
My family were always compassionate (and generous) Christians towards the deserving poor. I was never much inclined to snobbery anyway, but my dad made sure that I was always respectful towards all (including racial minorities), saying this was a “mark of a true Christian gentleman”. OTOH, he disliked “hippies” (his term of abuse for slovenly and disreputable whites, especially leftist ones), and he would have hated today’s surly, sullen, heavily tatted, “entitled”, often thieving, fentanyl freaks. How did one of American sociology’s founding fathers, William Graham Sumner, the great defender of the “forgotten man”, put it? “A drunk in the gutter is where he ought to be.” Is that snobbery – or reality?
What is an “E-Christian”?
I already explained that to “Bigfoot.”
Old School Christianity stressed compassion for the virtuous poor (the cripple; the widow; the orphan); but the lash and workhouse for the unvirtuous ones .
You’re free to cite one New Testament passage that specifies that the poor must be “virtuous” and “deserving” to receive empathy or that encourages the “lash and workhouse” for “the unvirtuous ones.”
And the idea that somehow because I point out Christanity’s countless logical inconsistencies, I don’t care about the poor is such a startlingly illogical leap, I’ll just let it hang out there to rot in the sun. It’s equally as nonsensical as saying that because I don’t like hypocrites, I therefore must agree with everything that Christ allegedly said.
The ones who provably inconsistent are the Electronic Christians who say “Fuck the poor” while ignoring everything the Bible says about helping the poor…the same ones who boast about their wealth while ignoring Luke 18:25: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
From my evangelical days I recall the following passage factoring heavily in the “deserving-vs-undeserving poor” question:
“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’ We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)
How one applies it probably depends greatly on what he is inclined to do already: severe types figuring they might as well crack the shiftless guy while they’re not feeding him, the compassionate ones, looking for loopholes, noticing it specifies shiftless believers* (allowing them to be generous to nonbelievers, on the other hand, of any disposition).
Besides that one, I can’t think of others.
*evident in the longer passage
Rich Whites who live near blacks can be very racially aware. Just as poor Whites who live in all White areas often become very negro-centric. It all comes down to familiarity with blacks. It’s almost impossible to be pro-black if you spend any time near them. It’s why Southern Whites are usually so much better on White solidarity and many Northern Whites aren’t. I grew up in a White part of NYC, but we were surrounded and often had to fight blacks. My suburban cousins who never came in contact with negros, thought we were “racists”. We were all about the same financially, ethnically and religiously. We just had more experience with negros, they had more experience with safe streets.
People are different, even within races. To make a society work, you start with a group of people that are compatible in basic values and genes — people compatible enough to share a public space without envy or grievance. You could do worse than ask “would you personally go to war for the other people in the society?”
Then, you acknowledge that there are elites and labor, and allow freedom of association while insisting that each group is made agreeable _enough_ to the other. For the labor, that means that physical crime gets you put in jail, and labor pays less well than white collar work. For the elites, that means mental crime, excess rent-seeking, and attempts to use labor other than your own people gets you put in jail, too.
“Not everyone comes to wealth through hard work and talent. Sometimes it’s acquired by treachery, and other times by pure luck.”
These two sentences hit me like a sledgehammer in the cojones; there’s so much truth in them it’s painful. As a middleclass White guy, I don’t relate to the rich or the poor. The rich resent my “bourgeois” status and are contemptuous that they can’t ride roughshod over me, while the poor envy and covet the dwindling economic assurance I possess. That being said, I know quite a few people whose cash flow is not commensurate to how hard they bust their ass at work. By the same token, I know more well connected goldbricks living high off the hog than I wish I did. It’s been my experience that nepotism and sexual manipulation will get you much further than hard work will.
Two relatively recent examples of this are Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos and Sam Bankman Fried of FTX. The financial analyst fawned all over them. Federal prisons are full of people like that.
I agree. In my experience, most people don’t come to wealth through virtuous hard work (many high level parasites – those, like trial attorneys, M&A and IPO specialists, various white collar government contractors, many types of “consultants”, who work in areas that would not even exist in a pure, consumer-driven free market, or a classically conservative society – do nevertheless work very hard). It’s hard for most to get rich without putting in the sweat (of course, most people who work hard don’t get rich).
This is a great point. This is yet another example of the degeneracy of this corrupted plebian-merchant age. The quantitative rule over the qualitative. I know many who are affluent based on working within the fiat money printing regime. They work very hard. However, the net result of their work is at best just wealth transfers that are not productive and in many cases are counter-productive in creating a net detriment rather than a net benefit to the society at large.
This idea of hard work as a virtue must only be seen as a virtue if the work itself is virtuous. You may have worked 20 hour days for 2 years on that movie, but if it normalizes white erasure, contributes to cultural destruction and cuts off and dries up European/Euro-Diaspora roots then it would be better had you not worked at all. That is just one of many examples.
Been thinking about this recently. Part of it comes from self-righteous regurgitation of years of anti-white hatred in the media and mainsyream culture, for rich people to ostensibly distance themselves from ideologically ‘unsound’ whites, so they’ll be spared as ‘enlightened’ in the never-coming race war.
Part of it comes from rich people being obnoxious insensitive shits whose interactions with the working classes basically come from paying them to to menial labor for them. And part of it comes from simple terror of poor white people, because they fear that that could be them someday if they lost it all.
Pure spitting poison at unconscious economic terror. Yet at the same time the young rich think working class people are cool (especially blacks) and mistakenly, insultingly dress down to be more like them.
Their confused worldview always reminds me if the dead, vastly overrated, solidly middle class comedian Bill Hicks. Here was a man who would give kumbayaesque sermons-cum-comedy-shows about how humanity should all come together – yet would spit and piss on people working as waitresses, or living in trailers, or lacking education. A real confused, hypocritical prick, jn other words. He’d have loved being alive today, be in his element insulting the poor.
I didn’t know that about Bill Hicks, although that doesn’t surprise me. What’s ironic about that is that he is buried in his relatives cemetery which is a rural cemetery in Greene county Mississippi. The community that he is buried in small and sparsely populated.
Bigfoot: Hicks’ father was an exec with General Motors. His whole career was basically him rebelling against his daddy. If you ever wanted to hear hatred towards, and vicious mockery of poor people, here’s an object lesson for you:
https://youtu.be/bGKUc-equnY?feature=share
I listened to it. One of the things that sticks out about that is that back during the BLM riots of 2020, one of the producers of “Cops” admitted that they filmed a lot of footage of blacks in similar situations, but didn’t air it because they didn’t want to perpetuate any stereotypes of blacks. The area around the cemetery where Bill Hicks is buried doesn’t resemble the trailer park he envisions. It’s nice looking wooded countryside.
Being a slob or a snob are primarily character deficiencies in my view. Both are to be ridiculed.
Once again, like the douchebag, I think you can use fashion as an indicator of which type you’re dealing with :
Think of the retarded outfits you see celebrities wearing at any fashion show, gala or even in public in general. Now picture the typical land whale waddling through Walmart in sweatpants and a xxl tweety bird t-shirt. Scorn both freely in my opinion.
One group thinks their shit doesn’t stink, the other group doesn’t care if they stink like shit. In my opinion, both need to get their shit together.
“Furthermore, why do the White Snobs even care about white demographic decline?”
This is the killer question to ask next time some dweeb with a chip on their shoulder pipes up about how terrible the simple folks are for living their simple lives.
Elites have their place and so do “common folks”. It takes both to have a well functioning society. It’s obvious which camp hasn’t been holding up their end of the bargain though. So the only logical thing to do is to rotate them out. But no snobs this time please.
Great comment. But without some more specifics, Goad seems to be protesting too much. Are there any well-known persons out there who are white nationalist snobs? Richard Spencer obviously c0mes to mind. The brilliant Revilo Oliver certainly would come across as “snobbish” t0 99% of readers, but that was part of his charm (to me, anyway). Many Racial Right thinkers had low opinions of the “masses”.
I think most of these snobs are actually middle class.
While, every class has its issues, I think holding groups to a standard is fair. I won’t crap on people for being poor, but I will be critical of their face tattoos and quasi-ebonic speech.
I think when most people ridicule others for being trash, it has more to do with behaviour than status. That said, judgemental l, anti-poor bastards exist, too.
I married into a working class family. My wife is incredibly grateful for what I do and is also a very hard-working woman. She clearly hasn’t been spoiled all her life and thus, has a lot more character and integrity than the upper and middle class women I’ve met. And yet, her family carries many traits which have led to severe dysfunction at times.
I should write an article about it.
You should. I would certainly read it. I wish I could have found a woman like that. In my particular part of the country, there are very few white working class females (or males!) with good traditional values left – and I would have made this same statement 30 years ago. The straight white females here are overwhelmingly liberal, over-schooled, and unbelievably shallow and materialistic gold-diggers. Exactly NOT my preferred type. I still recall decades ago, when I could get the “digits”, no matter how ideologically innocuous I would strive to appear, females would still say I was “so conservative”, or even “extreme” (for sounding like a Mitt Romney Republican!). I wish my parents had never moved here.
My very best advice to young nationalists, especially ones in Blue hellholes, is to migrate to the whitest Red States you can while you’re still young. Even if the country does not eventually fracture and crumble (as I think it will, though not necessarily primarily for racial reasons, at least initially), you will have a happier personal life the more you pass your days among your own people (and “your own people” are not just whites, but prowhites) .
There is a problem with snobbery in the movement. It operates in all kinds of ways, but chiefly its an ambient culture of elitism that is reinforced by ‘right wing values’.
Denying the existence of snobbery in the movement doesn’t make it less of a problem.
People find any excuse to look down upon – or dismiss – others.
I have a century-old American book in my collection called ‘The Evolution of The Snob’.
This isn’t a new problem for Whites.
Yeah, whites do need to unlearn an aspect of their modal genetic nature: this tendency towards excessive individualism and lack of racial team spirit. Individualism was an element in past white civilizational success, but in a too small world, it is an ever more deleterious racial liability.
You’re a snob. Or an elitist. Same thing. That’s why you think you can judge everyone by your own set of standards.
“One group thinks their shit doesn’t stink, the other group doesn’t care if they stink like shit. In my opinion, both need to get their shit together.”
Well said.
In the UK, the situation was somewhat different in that, up to fairly recent times there were no blacks or browns present on British soil, and both the rich and poor were white.
Also, up to recent times, the poor, that is white people, were generally looked upon with sympathy, perhaps because of the massive influence of Charles Dickens and other Victorian era writers, but also out of a sense of racial kinship and the fact that the labor of the ‘salt of the earth’ working class kept the nation running.
Indeed, the Labour Party was formed wholly and solely as the vehicle for the working classes to achieve political power.
But, as darkies poured into the country, and the stink of American politics pervaded in, things changed. The Labour Party hates whites and hates poor white even more. All it wants to do is to coddle darkies, coddle the rich, and ramp up immigration to the highest level possible.
A writer who’s tremendous at documenting the British elites’ seething hatred for the British peasantry is Michael A. Hoffman II. It’s a phenomenon that predates Dickens, or else the Brits wouldn’t have shipped so many white slaves to Oz and the New World.
And while the British elites were thinking nothing of enslaving white children in factories or shipping undesirables to the New World as indentured servants — in many cases slaves in all but name — they were fretting over the poverty of blacks in Africa and outlawing the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. So Jim’s point is well-taken.
But I wonder how many race-realist WNs actually express contempt for poor whites. I certainly don’t get that vibe from the main dissident sources I read. Then again, I’m not online as often as many, so, what do I know?
And while the British elites were thinking nothing of enslaving white children in factories or shipping undesirables to the New World as indentured servants — in many cases slaves in all but name — they were fretting over the poverty of blacks in Africa and outlawing the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
Charles Dickens noted how upper-crust English society matrons would have Cockney children sweeping their chimneys as the ladies all sat around bemoaning the fate of African children thousands of miles away. Dickens called this “telescopic philanthropy.”
It seems that a consensus is forming in the comments that this is a peculiarly English trait.
Yes. In Bleak House, Dickens characterized this double standard.
Hoffman’s book opened my eyes to a lot of things. Great (and quick) read. I highly recommend it.
The so-called “Labour” Party should change its name. Over the years, it has become more & more anti-labor. It has “evolved” into its opposite: an ethno-masochist party that agitates for degeneracy, disease & death.
I understand the other parties are the same. They are all “woke”. The Scottish National Party, for example, is anti-Scottish. The Conservative Party is anti-conservative. And in Ireland, the so-called IRA is anti-Irish.
The social class divide between the dissident whites who oppose the transformation of their homelands through mass immigration from the non-white world seems to be confined to English-speaking countries. There do not appear to be any antagonisms pertaining to levels of financial income and educational attainment among those who make up the indigenous resistance movements across mainland continental Europe. Has anybody else noticed this? or can they point to any evidence indicating the contrary?
Seriously? There are any number of English speaking countries with anti-mass-immigration movements or parties or both. Italy is one.
Please read my comment properly – and carefully. Some people on mainland continental Europe may speak English – in fact quite a few do; some of these people may be ex-patriot Britons and other Anglo-phones who have moved over there. In my initial comment, I am referring to countries where the majority of inhabitants speak English as a first language; are majority White and where you have this social class-based antagonism between White Christians who are aware of being replaced in their own countries and who should really be allies but currently will not co-operate. These countries are as follows:
The United Kingdom and its Crown Dependency – The Isle Of Man.
The Falkland Islands.
The Irish Republic (as it now is).
The United States of America.
Canada.
Australia.
New Zealand.
Yes, some native Italians speak English very well. But Italy is not a country where English is the first language.
I’m based in the United Kingdom and a very large part of the reason why political progress in favour of the White majority here has been so slow is due to the acute class antagonism that exists between Whites. As I visit this site more and more I’m coming to the conclusion that North America is not so very different from The British Isles and The Antipodes.
You’re right. I misunderstood you. My apologies.
Is it possible that ‘class warfare’ in the anti-immigration groups is mitigated by the extent of – and access to – the ‘social welfare state’ in Europe?
Thank you for your reply. Ease of access to the welfare state is just as available in Britain as it is on mainland continental Europe – perhaps even more so, given that the fleets of rubber dinghies choosing the UK as their favourite ultimate destination; the migrants bypassing other countries in favour of mine because of its generous benefits system. A similar thing is currently happening on the US/ Mexican border. The “Rich White Snob/Poor White Slob” antagonism issue that Jim Goad has illustrated appears at least to me to be an Anglo-Saxon/Celtic matter in origin and has spread from the British Isles to all corners of its currently still majority White diaspora.
In the meantime:
Rich White racially aware snob plus Poor racially aware snob/slob = yesterday has gone
Rich White liberal snob v. Poor White racially aware slob = current consensus
Rich White liberal snob v. Poor White racially aware snob = passive/aggressive
Rich White racially aware snob v. Poor White racially aware slob = divide and conquer
Rich White liberal snob plus Poor White liberal slob = Antifa
Rich White liberal slob plus Poor White liberal slob = Antifa
Rich White liberal slob v. Poor White liberal snob = 1789
Rich White liberal slob v. Poor White racially aware slob = passive/aggressive
Rich White liberal slob v. Poor White racially aware snob = temperature rising
Rich White racially aware plus Poor White racially aware = positive progress
Victory is on the horizon
I think the reason for that is that countries of continental Europe have faced revolutions or even occupations by foreign powers, so old aristocracy was repeatedly uprooted. Britain for better and worse has preserved the same social order for close to a millenia. I read somewhere that Norman families that conquered Britain in the 11 century are still vastly overrepresented among its elites.
Yes, you’ve put it a nutshell! Good explanation and you’re almost certainly right. It had been a puzzle to me for some time. Thanks for your reply.
Question for anyone who would care to answer. What would you call a white person who’s neither a goodwhite or a badwhite? For instance I do not shop at Whole Foods or go to microbreweries or wineries or listen to NPR. But nor do I hunt, drink commercial beer or go to NASCAR events. Where do I fall?
As long as you don’t criticize me for hunting or drinking commercial beer, I will call you a decent person. As far as NASCAR goes, I gave up on them when they caved into to BLM extortion and the Bubba Wallace hoax during the summer of 2020.
I don’t frown on any of those activities. The possible exception being listening to NPR
That’s a good way of looking at it. 🤔👍
What would you call a white person who’s neither a goodwhite or a badwhite? ”
Friend
Brilliant article. I could pick any paragraph. Here’s one: ” … the aggressive “anti-racism” push they’ve been clobbering us with has very little to do with elites being racially tolerant and very much to do with globalizing the workforce and keeping workers distracted with Tower of Babel-level squabbles.”
The Uniparty is a tool of the donor class & its lackeys. They finance & control both sides in every election. If they lose a referendum, then they get a federal judge to overturn it.
I’m from somewhere in the middle and advocate welcoming all. In the optics battles the underclass are easily blamed for unite the right and Jan6. But it could be said that the single worse misstep in front of a camera was Richard Spencer giving a raised arm salute and shouting, “Hail Trump!”… didn’t he graduate from fancy pants Duke University? Hopefully some lessons have been learned as you only get so many chances making the same mistakes over and over.
I also advocate showing some patience and kindness to normies and libs… be someone they would aspire to be. Many here were once tangled in those webs.
The Wikipedia page on income by ethnicity seems to constantly be edited with certain groups being removed…. Here’s one such iteration
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income&oldid=1059850183
The Pew Research center has an interesting list by religion… curiously, atheist and agnostic are included as religions but you get to see their numbers.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
Great essay, Mr. Goad.
A pro-White movement that does not start in love for each other and end with love for each other is going nowhere. I am not a Christian, but I often find nuggets of value within the history and documentation of the faith. One activity of the early church was the ‘agape meal’. This was a regular meal open to all the members of the faith in a given area and would be what my momma would call a ‘pot luck’. It was sponsored by the wealthiest members but everyone was encouraged to bring a dish to share. ‘Agape’ is one of the many words for ‘love’ in ancient Greek. Specifically, the highest form of love the involved seeing the spark of the divine in others and loving ‘the other’ as one loves God.
The world will never be perfect. The relations between Whites will never been perfect. But, to have a truly pro-White movement worthy of the name, we need to stop finding reasons to hate each other and start finding reasons to care about one another.
That’s fair. I’ll never be rich, so whatever money I have at death will be split probably 50/50 between any (long-time) female companion, and a prowhite organization (as I’ve never been married, nor have any children, I once had the split going half to my parents, the other half to be divided between the Rockford and Mises Institutes; after my dad died, I did a codicil, with half for my mom, the other half to AR; as my mother has enough given she has very little time left, and I’m for now completely single, I need to make another change, leaving it all at death to CC, which for some time I’ve liked much better than AR).
But if I were rich, and wanted to do something charitable with my money in addition to funding prowhite activism, I would focus on helping poor whites. I admit to feeling almost nothing at the sight or thought of poor nonwhites (I do feel bad for anyone who’s severely handicapped, regardless of race). But white poverty, especially when it’s undeserved (I dislike white junkies, especially the entitled ones who intersect and overlap with leftwing activists – visit Portland OR or Berkeley/San Francisco and you’ll see exactly who I mean), or when elderly or disabled whites are involved, bothers me greatly. I wish more of the billionaire whites would feel this way, instead of being indiscriminate with their philanthropy. There are a lot of whites who could use a helping hand (and would undoubtedly be far more appreciative than the sullen and morally undeserving blacks upon whom so much white wealth is showered).
If you do find yourself with money to spare I would ask you to consider helping poor, intelligent children go to a private school.
It doesn’t always neatly correlate that blue collar = poor. Appalachia was decimated, but construction, contracting, welding, high precision machining, et al pay a lot better than people who got degrees in art history or gender studies. I know plenty of folks who look down their noses at such work, deigning it unfit for their kids… then they receive the sticker shock poetry of a contractor bill.
A great piece of furniture made by someone with no college diploma winds up in museums centuries later for the art history major to gawk upon. People increasingly shifting away from colleges and universities, especially the ultra left liberal arts departments, is a good thing. I’m not saying such liberal arts programs should be eliminated, but like the national waistline, they ought slim down such indoctrination camps and train fewer students, commensurate with the number of jobs available.
It is mostly a state of mind depending on where you live because most people dress casually and speak with the same dialect. You cannot really guess anybody’s income for the most part. If you live in Scandinavia, people dress very elegantly, so it is a constant arms race. I don’t see how difficult it is to not do drugs. You can’t be that bored with your life. It’s like a decade ago when the Duck Dynasty guys LARPed as backwoods hillbillies by growing their beards/hair out. Phil Robertson was backup quarterback to Terry Bradshaw at Louisiana Tech. So he is very educated. Same deal with Larry the Cable Guy. Completely put on affectation from a well-to-do midwesterner. Mike Judge is another poor white trash profiteer with a degree in physics. It’s like we have our own bastard version of transracial fraudsters/carpetbaggers pretending to be good ole boys because clearly there is an audience for it. There is something inherently poor about folksy Americana because it was forged in hardship. Johnny Cash genuinely grew up impoverished in a strange earthquake zone. There is a lot to not like about poor whites because so many of them seem to not even try. It is enraging too see only indigenous Europeans rooting through the garbage while nonwhite immigrants have nicer clothes.
It is mostly a state of mind
This comment, as well as many others, demonstrates what I was talking about with this passage:
Or maybe you think it’s just a coincidence that the modern establishment Left and Right are hyper-focused on the “Culture War,” but hardly ever mention economics anymore?
It’s much more than just a “state of mind,” unless you think we’re all living in some kind of aboriginal Dreamtime. There are material realities that precede and often generate cultural attitudes, and that was the point of the article.
I think that people are too focused on the “snobs/slobs” part and not the “rich/poor” part. Life is far more than fashion and grooming choices. The economy has been savaged, and the lower classes are the ones who’ve borne the brunt of it. The question is whether they “deserve” it or whether part of their situation and general sense of despair are things that have been chosen for them.
As far as people LARPing as rednecks go, it’s something I predicted long ago in The Redneck Manifesto. But it’s not the theme of this article, and it’s a very tiny “problem” compared to the looming economic disaster. Again, people seem to have skipped over rich/poor in their haste to focus on snobs/slobs.
I don’t see how difficult it is to not do drugs.
I don’t see how difficult it is not to drink—haven’t had a sip since 1982—but, despite how many lives are lost to alcohol each year, drugs seem to have a much worse rep than booze among “right-wing” circles. Again, these things don’t happen in a vacuum, though. Is it possible that legal drugs—which include alcohol, antidepressants, painkillers, anti-anxiety medication, opioids—were purposely dumped on people who, as luck would have it, are trying to escape desperate circumstances, or are we back to some boring mid-1980s Dennis Prager fantasy land where it’s ALL “personal responsibility”? Is it ALL the fault of the pillheads, or do people such as the Sacklers bear some of the blame? Hence the passage:
Being responsible is important, but it’s hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps when the boot factory was offshored to the Philippines. It’s not all nature, and it’s not all nurture.
For what it’s worth, I don’t do drugs, either, Not even caffeine. Sober and cranky for a while now.
At the risk of being chided for stupidity, where do you go with this view? What are its political implications, strategic and/or tactical, for the cause of white preservation? Leftwing on economics, along with rightwing on race and (I assume, though with you, am not sure) morality and culture?
People’s circumstances are wildly different, and a lot depends on luck. I’ve seen and lived this (though my life has not been a fraction as interesting or accomplished as yours – and we’re the same age). I made some stupid (not evil, not reckless, not particularly irresponsible) early professional choices (my ruinous “geographical choice”, however, was made for me by my parents), and the result is that most of my friends who opted for the more conventional route are wildly more successful than I am, despite being comparable in basic intelligence, and similar in education (and none of us are criminals, junkies, gamblers, etc).
But group condemnation is based on statistically significant aggregates. When we speak of black criminality or low IQ, we’re not talking about Dr. Ben Carson or Justice Thomas. If the data sets are large enough, clear and predictable differences in intelligence and character visibly emerge. The same applies to non-racial aggregates. The “rightwing snobs” are correct that the class of white fentanyl addicts will be inferior in character (and probably IQ) to the class of white non-fentanyl users. Of course, the possibility of extraordinary circumstances accounting for individual cases must always be considered.
But maybe I’ve misunderstood the thesis of your essay, which was provocative and well-written, as always.
Where do I go with this? First, it’d be helpful if people discarded the ideas of “left wing” and “right wing”—which are uselessly divisive distractions and, I suspect, were purposely constructed to be so—and focus on the biological reality of race along with the material reality of economics. If the economy collapses and the AI Zionist Killbots take over, they won’t discriminate among people of European ancestry based on class. Neither will the mobs in the streets, nor the mobs who break into the gated communities.
Based on the responses, I clearly didn’t hammer home enough the idea that the “public conversation” has, for quite some time now, been almost entirely shunted away from the fact that some people start with economic privileges that others simply don’t have, and I suppose that unless one was born into the “don’t have” side of that equation, it’s a topic that never seems to need addressing, so everyone reduces things to “culture” and “behavior.” I’ve long said that people choose the politics that most justify their personal existence, so of course people who were born into comfier conditions will skew toward the “I earned it” side of things even if they’re dumber than rocks and never lifted a finger or did or anything of worth for anyone else.
The “rightwing snobs” are correct that the class of white fentanyl addicts will be inferior in character (and probably IQ) to the class of white non-fentanyl users.
There are outliers and other factors in all of this. As I said in the article, sometimes pure chance plays into it. Other times, it’s the decisions that elites make for everyone and that the “everyone” rarely have a say in.
“Character” is something just like “left wing and “right wing” that cannot be quantified. As I said in the article, I’ve encountered way too many dumb, lazy, shallow, soulless, addicted, parasitical rich kids from across the ideological spectrum to ever buy into the idea that character skews differently across class lines. I don’t think character is correlated to economic class at all. Substance abuse might be, but that might correlate more to hopelessness and despair far more closely than it does to some uptight, priggish notion of “character.” But boy, is it easy to judge when you’ve never been on the brink of homelessness or hunger. That’s another point about the latter-day spoiled, effeminate, never-been-in-a-fistfight e-Christians: I guess they never read the whole thing about “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
There was also a heapin’ helpin’ of passages where I attack the idea that people largely “deserve” their economic conditions.
At the very least, if you’re going to take a purely Darwinian approach to all this, shut up about the Jews, because they’re clearly out-competing you, especially with such paltry numbers. It’s beyond pathetic to say “survival of the fittest” to those below you while crying foul about those above you.
If you don’t want to go Pure Darwin, maybe ponder for just a moment that nonwhite elites have successfully divided whites along class lines. And think about what I said regarding how blacks and Jews see ALL of their kinsmen as kin, whereas whites have this unique tendency to shit on their poorer blood relations. Maybe that’s part of the problem?
“I’ve encountered way too many dumb, lazy, shallow, soulless, addicted, parasitical rich kids from across the ideological spectrum to ever buy into the idea that character skews differently across class lines.”
Vices and antisocial traits are distributed bimodally in the population. They disproportionately afflict both the bottom 5% and the top 5%. Traits like psychopathy, irresponsibility, promiscuity, susceptibility to addiction etc. have a strong genetic component and are not conducive to leading a middle-class or even traditional working-class lifestyle. People with those tendencies tend to weasel their way into the upper class (if intelligent) or join the criminal underclass (or they become artists/writers/musicians).
Pointing out that there are lots of dumb rich kids isn’t a gotcha either because that’s simply regression to the mean at work. Regression to the mean is one of the main causes of downward mobility, which is what assortive mating exists to prevent.
Like Lord Shang, I’m a lot less conventionally successful than my peers despite coming from a comfortable background. I blame this on social isolation/being disconnected from society and having autistic traits as opposed to a lack of intelligence. I wouldn’t blame your situation on “bad genes” either because you obviously have had a hard life and having a nonconformist/autistic streak makes it hard to have a normal job.
Still, this doesn’t change the fact that when you zoom out, trends begin to emerge. The correlation between IQ and social status is one of the more robust findings in the social sciences. It is just that, a correlation, and doesn’t mean that all poor people are stupid, that they “deserve” their situation, or that environmental/societal factors are irrelevant.
If anything, the fact that the poor tend to be less intelligent on average means that they need more structure and guidance. And elites are to blame for depriving them of stability and removing the cultural guardrails that held society together. So while genetics are partly to blame, I don’t blame poor whites entirely for their situation and I doubt most white nationalists would. It’s undeniable that ordinary white people have been fucked over by elites and I have a ton of sympathy for hard-working white people who have fallen into poverty through no fault of their own.
Also, if anything, the view that genetics plays a large role in life outcomes ultimately should breed humility. We did not do anything to “deserve” our genetic inheritance; it was handed to us. So it is unseemly to brag about it or to mock others for traits/outcomes over which they have had little control.
I think you overestimate the number of people with elite backgrounds in the “white identity” (as opposed to HBD/NRx) movement. There simply aren’t that many rich people in the movement, let alone rich snobs. The vast majority of WNs fit the mold of Sam Francis’s “middle American radical.” And insofar as WN elites exist, they are likely to be less financially successful/well adjusted than other elites and will readily acknowledge that income is not a measure of human worth. That’s why we were able to countenance white nationalism in the first place—we weren’t able to function normally in the system or fit in with our elite peers.
Is the “haha, fuck you, you deserve it” mentality present in any white nationalists who aren’t edgy teenagers? Snobbery abounds in HBD circles and the NRx sphere, but I haven’t seen much of it in WN. It would be useful if you could provide concrete examples. Is “haha, fuck you, you deserve it” something that white nationalists have actually said, or is that merely your interpretation of the statement that IQ and status are correlated? Lord Shang never said that poor whites “deserve” their fate or advocated a “survival of the fittest” mentality. You put words in his mouth. Relatedly, I thought it was very curious that Michael Lind went to great lengths to “debunk” the existence of racial differences in IQ in his “Eugenicons” article. In effect he was reifying the notion that human worth and dignity are derived from IQ. But the fact that the poor tend to be less intelligent does not mean their fate is “deserved” or that they should be held in contempt and trampled on.
some people start with economic privileges that others simply don’t have
Be mindful that this is exactly the argument made about structural racism, effects of red lining policy, generational wealth, etc. that are used against whites as a group.
But citing Appalachians as being poorest (including relative to sub-Saharans) is a good way to reframe the usual debates
Yes, it’s the same argument. But it’s used for a different purpose.
It’s a mistake to think that ‘facts’ control how one ought to think or how one ought to morally reason about things.
Pro-White racial solidarity is a moral choice and ought to take precedent over every other aspect of an issue.
You can use your enemy’s methods and tactics against them as long as you don’t succumb to the siren’s song of ‘universal values’ or ‘eternal truths’.
Such things do not exist.
The practical question is whether a WN that is hostile to the White working class can advance very far with any part of the White working class currently supporting our enemy.
Even if you were indifferent to the morality of racial solidarity, it seems to be that on pure political pragmatics, WN ought to support the aspirations of the White working class even if it positions WNs against the White ruling class (such as it is).
A study of history strongly suggests the White ruling class betrayed the White race to our racial enemies in order to have their assistance in resisting the demands of the White working class.
This is really what the ‘labor strife’ in the US was all about: Our racial enemies were able to make in-roads into both the ruling class and the working class by promising to help each side defeat the other.
I don’t see this argument as one of “use the enemy’s methods and tactics against them”. If you are trying to convert the middle to support white identity with this, they will simply say, “Sure there are poor whites… but there are plenty more poor blacks and Hispanics. They should be the priority because that’s where the numbers are. And don’t forget everyone trying to enter illegally. They just want a better life by undercutting salaries of jobs held by the working class.” Appalachians have my sympathy, but unfortunately the only pragmatic short-term solution I see is to move to where the job market looks better.
Discarding ideas of left wing and right wing makes no sense to me. It tells you which audience to start with, but not necessarily where to end – try to frame some topics into an acceptable Overton window for the soft progressive. I don’t find left/right necessarily ‘divisive’, they are descriptive of where the divisions already exist. Left and right can help us all understand what makes people change from one to the other. The left understands that youth are a great place to start with propaganda, and know acutely which topics will get their sympathy. The enlist the media to suppress any inconvenient events that vary from the ‘narrative’ and one of these youthful leftists will remain as such for a few decades… until they have enough time to see how reality does not look like the narrative and it hasn’t been serving them well.
Responding to Alex Graham because the “reply” function taps out after a point:
Is “haha, fuck you, you deserve it” something that white nationalists have actually said, or is that merely your interpretation of the statement that IQ and status are correlated? Lord Shang never said that poor whites “deserve” their fate or advocated a “survival of the fittest” mentality. You put words in his mouth.
“Haha, fuck you deserve it” was a passage from my article, not from any replies to him. You’re putting words in my mouth about putting words in his mouth. If you’re referring to this reply…
At the very least, if you’re going to take a purely Darwinian approach to all this, shut up about the Jews, because they’re clearly out-competing you, especially with such paltry numbers. It’s beyond pathetic to say “survival of the fittest” to those below you while crying foul about those above you.
…I thought it was clear I was referring to a collective “you” and not LS, since he didn’t mention Jews at all. I used the same collective “you” in the article:
If you’re going to be an elitist, at least be consistent about it. At least follow your elitism to its logical end. It’s tacky to worship hierarchy right up to the point where Jews and Asians come out on top, but then you start whining — just like you accuse the White Slobs of “whining” about the rich.
But yes, it’s something people have both said and implied, and I’ve seen it expressed in all age cohorts. Like I said, I believe that people choose the politics that justify their existence—those below them deserve it, while those above them only got there through cheating. It also has nothing to do with “my interprestation of the statement that status and IQ are correlated.”
As I implied in the article, I’ve consistently viewed the “optics war” as an unnecessarily divisive and ultimately destructive class war among people who are OK with being white.
You wrote:
Still, this doesn’t change the fact that when you zoom out, trends begin to emerge.
Pretty sure I also covered that in the article in this passage:
Sure, race and genetics account for a lot, but only a sheltered monomaniac would think they explain everything.
It seems that no matter how many times I say, “But it’s not only genetics,” the tendency is to reply with the “gotcha” of “But what about genetics?”
Also:
Traits like psychopathy, irresponsibility, promiscuity, susceptibility to addiction etc. have a strong genetic component
Would you deny there’s also a strong situational component at work here as well? Excessive comfort on one end and excessive disappointment on the other? This is why I said I’ve seen no evidence that character disproportionately skews across class lines. If your situation isn’t extreme, your response to it probably won’t be extreme, either.
I think you overestimate the number of people with elite backgrounds in the “white identity” (as opposed to HBD/NRx) movement.
You miss my point that an “elite background” is basically a matter of perspective. It’s not something for which there is an undisputed scientific threshold. For example, I’ve never met someone who would statistically come from the top one percent of the income bracket who didn’t refer to themselves as “middle class.” And of course that’s my anecdotal experience. I presumed it was clear that my article came from personal observations, not Excel spreadsheets. If you have any hard data about the economic backgrounds of those in the “white identity” movement—I’m not sure how one would verify whether one is “in” or “out”—that come from verified tax returns and bank-account statements rather than anecdotal testimonies and your own observations, I’d be interested in seeing it.
You make a lot of good points Jim. One thing I would say is that the opposite of class snobbery is class resentment. It seems a number of the commentators here don’t seem to hate the rich because of what they do but rather because of what they are. I’ve also noticed that the people who are seething with class resentment also seem to be the same people who complain that they are social outcasts, unsuccessful with women, suffer from a variety of mental disorders, etc. It seems to me that such people are attracted to dissident right politics not out of real ideological conviction but because they feel abandoned by society. I come from a wealthy family but I’ve never harbored any class snobbery. All of my friends are either working class or middle class whites. Imo class divisions pale in comparison to racial divisions. A true nationalist movement seeks to unite rich and poor in the common defense of their race and nation. That’s not to say that poor Whites don’t have legitimate grievances. In the old days a working class white man could easily afford to own his own home and comfortably take care of his wife and children which is simply not the case today. What has been done to the white working class by the judeo-globalist establishment is a vile crime and I have nothing but sympathy for white men who have been put out of of work thanks to offshoring and immigration. I think fascism and national socialism did an excellent job of overcoming class divisions for the common good of society. There will always be rich and poor but the rich shouldn’t be egregiously rich and the poor shouldn’t be egregiously poor. As far as Jews and Asians go I think this is a fallacious comparison. I don’t particularly care how intelligent, wealthy, or successful a particular Jew or Asian is in his own country but that doesn’t give them a right to rule over us. It is simply against our ethnic genetic interests to even let Jews and Asians into our countries let alone permit them to rule over us. This is the equivalent of abandoning ones own child and adopting the neighbor child because he is more intelligent then your own son. Such an act would be not only monstrously immoral but it would also go against your basic genetic interests. The same is true when it comes to race. I’ve also seen a lot of commentators bemoan nepotism but frankly I think nepotism is only considered a dirty world in the Anglo Saxson world. Why wouldn’t you put your own children first and try to give them every advantage possible? To me putting one’s children first is as natural and logical as putting ones race first. Indeed a big problem with the middle and working class is they kick their children out at 18 and tell them to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” which is impossible. Families should live and act as clans within the broader nation. In a homogeneous anglo-Saxson society there may be some societal advantages to this type of system, mainly extreme individualism which fosters creativity, but even in those circumstances I still find it to be a perverse phenomenon. And in a multiracial context such individualism is tantamount to suicide. The Jews in particular have used extreme nepotism and ethnic networking to seize control of western societies. Whites who bemoan nepotism are setting themselves up for defeat as much as whites who bemoan “racism”. I consider myself entitled to the wealth my father accumulated not because I have “superior genes” but simply because it is my birthright. Just as I consider myself entitled to the legacy of western civilization not because I’m “genetically superior” to other peoples but because it too is my birthright. I think this is the point we need to hammer home to white people. The white race is one large extended family and we need to start acting like it. We must overcome divisions of rich and poor, young and old, male and female, etc. if we have even a snowballs chance in hell of surviving.
“It seems a number of the commentators here don’t seem to hate the rich because of what they do but rather because of what they are. I’ve also noticed that the people who are seething with class resentment also seem to be the same people who complain that they are social outcasts, unsuccessful with women, suffer from a variety of mental disorders, etc. It seems to me that such people are attracted to dissident right politics not out of real ideological conviction but because they feel abandoned by society.”
Yes you are right. I’m nobody special and I’m certainly not perfect, but whilst in this movement I’ve had first hand dealings with individuals from both ends of the social spectrum who can be best described as undesirable and as bad as each other. At the bottom end facial tattoos and piercings which make them unfit for conventional social interaction let alone employment. At the upper end, one particular individual I knew during my late teens and early twenties. This person was the son of a retired senior army officer and had been privately educated. Twelve years older than me he lived on benefits in public housing and had been fired from two previous low-paid jobs for harassing female co-workers (“you will go out on a date with me or else!”); he also had a habit of eating his own bogies (boogers to you in North America), wore the same clothe for days on end and had a very self-entitled attitude.
These are my own offered real-life examples of the types of people we don’t need in our movement.
Snobbery is class resentment. It’s just class resentment from above rather than below. The difference is that the upper class can make their resentment have effect on the society far more intensely than can the lower classes.
“‘Haha, fuck you deserve it’ was a passage from my article, not from any replies to him.”
I know…your response to LS (which was a reply to him after all) sounded like it was prompted by his comment (even if it was addressed to a broader audience) and made it sound like you associated reasonable hereditarian arguments with snobbery and a “survival of the fittest” mentality, so I wondered if the sentiment you attributed to white nationalist snobs in the article was a similar thing.
I brought up the role of genetics because you denied that fentanyl users could be innately different from non-fentanyl users on average, and overall you seem resistant to hereditarian arguments even though the vast majority of hereditarians acknowledge the role of environment and the existence of extreme circumstances. Even the most extreme hereditarians posit that no more than 85% of variation in IQ is caused by genes—most put that figure at 70-75%, and they put most traits at 30-50%. I wouldn’t deny that there is a situational component to antisocial traits as well as a strong genetic component.
I think it’s more useful to argue for discarding cognitive elitist and related arguments altogether instead of debating the nature/nurture question. At the end of the day we’re all white and anything that undermines racial solidarity should be opposed. So we’re on the same page there.
you denied that fentanyl users could be innately different from non-fentanyl users on average
Where?
Me: “You miss my point that an ‘elite background’ is basically a matter of perspective.”
You: Doesn’t this contradict your resistance to describing class as a “state of mind” instead of in terms of material reality?
Not at all. There are mathematical realities regarding relative incomes, which is why I mentioned “top one percent.” That’s objective. Then there’s whether people “consider” themselves to be “elite,” which is something I’ve hardly ever observed. Compared to a quantifiable threshold such as ” top one percent,” there is no such scientifically established and universally agreed-upon standard for exactly what an “elite background” is. It’s subjective.
By far, the most frustrating thing about discussing anything with people online these days is having to distinguish between the objective and subjective.
At the end of the day we’re all white and anything that undermines racial solidarity should be opposed. So we’re on the same page there.
Good.
“Very few WNs are rich elites”
“Um ackshually ‘elite’ is subjective”
You are splitting hairs and dodging my point…I consider myself an elite, or at least a former elite, based on objective criteria/material reality. It’s not entirely subjective. I grew up in an affluent family and went to an elite prep school in a coastal city and my parents attended elite universities. I was expected to attend a top-ten university. These are objective facts. The number of WNs who have a background like this (rich kids, elites, whatever term you want to use) is tiny. Which makes sense because comfort and stability shield people from reality. Who are all of these “rich snobs” in WN and if “rich” people consider themselves ordinary middle-class folks then why are they snobbish elitists? Your thinking on this is muddled.
Alex quoting Alex: “Very few WNs are rich elites” … (doesn’t provide a single stat to buttress his assertion, nor does he bother to quantify “rich elites”)
Alex misquoting me: “Um ackshually ‘elite’ is subjective” … (doesn’t contest whether or not the term “elite” is is a “matter of perspective,” which is what I’d said, just misquotes what I said while tossing in a passive-aggressive “ackshually” and referring to my thinking as “muddled.” Apparently he edited his “you’re being a smartass” comment after being called on it.)
Who are all of these “rich snobs” in WN and if “rich” people consider themselves ordinary middle-class folks then why are they snobbish elitists?
As I’ve already stated, they are people whose household income would qualify them in the top 1% of households. That’s something measurable. That is, in strict terminology, someone who makes more than 99% of all households. But people who make $650,000 or more a year might not consider that “elite” or even “rich.” I’ve seen ones who describe themselves as “middle-class.” That’s a matter of self-perception and social signaling. There’s no contradiction there, no “muddled” thinking at all.
“Top one percent” is something measurable. Whether that’s “elite” is a matter of subjective editorializing. The world is full of millionaires griping about billionaires. And there is no universally accepted cutoff point for what’s “elite” and what isn’t.
Apparently you think that clarifying and qualifying things is “splitting hairs.” If being able to clearly distinguish between facts and opinions makes someone “autistic,” then call me Rain Man.
I haven’t dodged a single thing. But since you brought up “dodging,” why did you dodge this question from my previous comment?
you denied that fentanyl users could be innately different from non-fentanyl users on average
Where?
So again: Where did I “deny” that, and why did you dodge the question the first time around?
Your whole “critique” so far is based on a straw man, since you keep harping on “white nationalists.” They weren’t mentioned once in my article.
I am sympathetic to both sides, and see this argument as both sides reaching increasingly similar conclusions the longer it goes on (a very good thing).
As for Alex’s comment:
“Even the most extreme hereditarians posit that no more than 85% of variation in IQ is caused by genes”
Simply not so. Richard Haier in his Neuroscience of Intelligence claims that intelligence is “100% biological.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. He cites twin studies that show up to a 0.8 correlation in intelligence once the subjects reach adulthood. So there’s that. I also agree with both Alex and Jim that when it comes to things like addiction and other ills, a mixture of situational and genetic causes are to blame. Just like how some smokers can live to 90, while others develop heart disease, emphysema, or lung cancer and die at age 50, some people are just not biologically suited to resist addiction (or obesity or other problems) and some are. This is absolutely no reason for the lucky latter group to look down on the unlucky former group–especially among WNs and white advocates. We do need to team up by race and try to change things for the better for us. At the same time, however, bad behavior and vice among whites should be discouraged, and it does not matter if the person in question is rich or poor.
Ok I stand corrected. Interesting. He is an outlier, though.
Ok looking at this again I see I could’ve been more precise, and I apologize. (And I apologize for the “wise ass” remark, which I removed right after I posted it.) I see you didn’t technically deny the correlation between substance abuse and inborn traits, you merely downplayed it. I brought up genes in part because I wanted to emphasize the point that hereditarianism doesn’t automatically entail snobbery or preclude racial fellow-feeling.
I failed to clarify that I was using “rich elite” in the conventional sense and wasn’t talking about, say, billionaires. (I thought I had, but I didn’t.) My mistake. I shouldn’t write comments on my phone. My point stands regardless of whatever definition one uses, even the broadest possible one, but I should’ve stated that.
Since you said the “white identity movement” and referred to people who are concerned about white demographic decline, I assumed you were referring to WN types.
I agree with pretty much everything you said in the article. I think what set me off is the notion that seeing antisocial subcultures as being bad optics is snobbish, and I’m oversensitive and respond emotionally to that accusation because the thought that I could have anything in common with the people I grew up with makes me vomit. I want nothing to do with the milieu of my childhood.
Used as a stand-alone concept, ‘inborn traits’ aren’t as useful as it might seem.
For example, in Old Europe, alcohol was a significant means for the sterilization of water.
Fermented beverages didn’t have a particularly high alcohol content, but, even so, most people mixed their ‘wine’ and ‘beer’ with water.
Distillation appears to have been an unknown practice.
What this means is that nearly all White Europeans have – at some level – an ‘inborn trait’ to be attracted to alcohol because to be indifferent to alcohol wasn’t an option if you wanted to live a long life.
You got a little bit drunk every day or you died.
Fast-forward to the present and this very useful inborn trait becomes a problem because now (a) alcohol is abundant, (b) much of it comes in a powerful (and unnatural) distilled form and (c) the cultural memory of ‘mixing’ one’s beverage with water has been completely lost.
As a consequence, the expression of the trait for attraction to alcohol has shifted from a benefit to a detriment.
Every trait expression occurs unevenly due to the how much of the ‘inborn trait’ you’re born with and how much your environment facilitates its expression.
For humans, there’s almost no point of talking about ‘nature’ without ‘nurture’ because we so adept at creating ‘nature’ for ourselves.
All true. But impulsivity/self-control and time preference also play a role in addiction, as does the extent to which one values being mentally sharp and nurturing one’s offspring.
Obviously despair plays a role too. I have turned to the bottle occasionally during rough patches, so I’m not going to judge anyone who has done the same.
Ran out of thread with J. Webb.
Discarding ideas of left wing and right wing makes no sense to me. It tells you which audience to start with, but not necessarily where to end – try to frame some topics into an acceptable Overton window for the soft progressive. I don’t find left/right necessarily ‘divisive’, they are descriptive of where the divisions already exist. Left and right can help us all understand what makes people change from one to the other. The left understands that youth are a great place to start with propaganda, and know acutely which topics will get their sympathy. The enlist the media to suppress any inconvenient events that vary from the ‘narrative’ and one of these youthful leftists will remain as such for a few decades… until they have enough time to see how reality does not look like the narrative and it hasn’t been serving them well.
Let’s imagine for a moment that thinking someone is ‘left’ colors your perception of their motives at least as much as it sets up assumptions about their policy preferences.
Then imagine that you’re wrong about motives and their policy preferences.
How did thinking White leftists are ‘different’ from White rightists actually help you?
The ultimate political question in our time isn’t ‘Are you Left or Right?’.
The ultimate political question of our time is ‘What do you want?’
By asking this question of yourself, you learn how much your desires have been colonized by capitalism and individualism.
By asking this question of others, you find out how much their desires have been colonized by capitalism and individualism.
Once you realize that your surface response to ‘What do you want?’ presents itself as largely unsatisfactory choices from the perspective of what makes you actually happy, you’re on your way to understanding why ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are largely irrelevant.
Many ‘leftist’ Whites lead 90% White Nationalist lives.
White male leftists are constantly on the defensive within their own communities and have to depend on their mothers and sisters and girlfriends to provide them with protection from the misandry of other women in their own communities.
It’s gotten so bad that even the 90% White Nationalist liberals have become worried.
And the pro-White movement ought to be able to offer them back their self-respect while allowing them to not reject their entire personal history and political sympathies all while moving them closer and closer to a separatist and consciously pro-White position.
Speaking of objective data…you never provided proof that people who advocate good optics are motivated by snobbery and are rich. How were you able to discern their motives and their economic situation? And you didn’t answer the question of who these people are specifically. You didn’t provide any citations and your assessment is based on subjective “vibes.”
I can’t provide empirical data on people in the movement but neither can you. But we know that being well-off, comfortable, and well adjusted are huge barriers to becoming a white nationalist, so the onus is on you to prove that the movement has a rich snob problem.
You also never addressed whether the “rich snob” position on optics is true or not, you just accused people of having nefarious motives, which is what you’ve previously (rightly) derided as “crystal ball argumentation.”
“So I’ve always had one foot in each world, but nowhere to call home — too smart for my working-class neighborhood, yet too working-class in experience and temperament to mesh comfortably with academics or, for that matter, anyone who emerged from the middle class or higher.”
This passage describes my experience also, and is the reason why, through thick and thin, I remain a fan of Jim Goad when many other writers I used to care about no longer interest me.
Comment by Christopher Columbia, September 16, 2023 at 6:48 am
Well said, Christopher Columbia.
Capital is a rootless thing and those who learn how to live capitalistically become rootless themselves. It is a siren song, because not only does it incentivize people to become rootless, it also defines success by how rootless and globetrotting one becomes. Women start selecting for it, desiring travel, globetrotting and surfing the international waves of capital, with men by their sides who are expert surfers. This perpetuates the rootlessness as entire families are founded upon it. And what’s more, those of our race who would be part of the “elite,” who are energetic, “go-getter” types with great energy, high IQ and the ability to make something of themselves, are snatched up in this rootless life, which is a necessity for great personal success. This is what makes the rich whites not act in their racial interests – because they’re acting in their financial interests.
“This perpetuates the rootlessness as entire families are founded upon it. And what’s more, those of our race who would be part of the “elite,” who are energetic, “go-getter” types with great energy, high IQ and the ability to make something of themselves, are snatched up in this rootless life, which is a necessity for great personal success”.
Above average material wealth can facilitate greater opportunities for both social and geographical mobility. This perhaps helps explain why a noticeable number of academically gifted white western males, particularly those with highly sought-after scientific know-how quite often emigrate to far-eastern countries and start families with the upper social level women of those countries ( unless of course those young white males are the genetic dead-end of homosexuality, a life-style that prizes the luxuriousness of immediate personal comfort and advancement, heedless of its long-term consequences on both themselves and others ). The resultant mixed-race offspring more often than not identify with the maternal side of the family.
This upwardly-mobile rootlessness observable at the higher levels – intelligent white male plus intelligent Asian female, stands in stark contrast to inter-racial sexual relationships at the lower levels of society – usually unintelligent white female plus unintelligent black/brown male currently taking place in the homeland nations of Europe and its global diaspora of North America and the Antipodes.
Europe and its diaspora exports high ability, compliant a-racial young white men; Europe and its diaspora imports racially envious, low ability, non-compliant young men from Africa, Western Asia, Central America and the poorer countries of South America.
While we’re debating this, the Left already has a solution to propose to Whites. Of course it’s one that can only be accepted if you embrace race-mixing.
https://quillette.com/2023/08/21/hereditarianism-and-economic-redistribution/
Late to the party, but I thoroughly enjoyed this essay. I feel very similar to Jim as a misfit with a foot in both camps.
I was raised as a lower-middle class Midwestern white kid with a liberal, NPR-lovin’ mommy and a bible thumpin’, conservative steelworker dad (don’t ask me how they’re still together), and friends both poorer and richer than me. I was always just a little too conservative and rednecky for the higher class types who couldn’t fathom the simple pleasures of fishing and blowing stuff up, and a little too bookish and artsy for my sports obsessed lower class friends with no interest in history or philosophy, or classical art…
But I never got off on hating people above or below me. I always look for the good in people, because if I only focused on the bad things and associated with people who think like me… I’d be completely alone.
I am reminded of the great film The Breakfast Club, where a bunch of white kids from different socioeconomic classes are forced to associate with each other and as a result gain some empathy.
“We think you’re crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. What do you care? You see us as you want to see us – in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. You see us as a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal. Correct? That’s the way we saw each other at 7:00 this morning. We were brainwashed.”
I think more white people should watch that movie.
Nick Fuentes says he’s not despairing poor Whites that he’s just wanting White people to aim high and not celebrate their poverty or to make excuses for themselves which is a understandable position to have but he will say just moments later about how much he does hate the poor and it’s to schizophrenic and back and forth to get a real read on a message he wants to push. I’m from southern trailer trash that’s my family and I love them, the whole reason I got interested in politics is because I was tired of seeing the society shit on them and I wanted to be successful and advocate for them. If Nicks going to turn around and say nah your whole family and community are garbage and fuck them then it kind of defeats the purpose of me supporting him in the first place.
Support the movement that gives positive meaning to our people. Support our people – the most creative and innovative race on the planet, and not some infantile individual trapped in an ever-lasting present, craving superstardom for the ‘Twenties that will then turn into the ‘Thirties, then the ‘Forties…etc…etc.
‘Til eventually… “Mirror, mirror on the wall, whose the most shriveled one of all…….?!!”
The Hero of the Twentieth Century wrote that “the laurels of victory in the here and now are for the brow of the dying hero”.
Remember! The brighter and more twinkly the star……the faster…. it…. burns…. out!
All that glitters is not gold.