Friday, October 26, 2012

When radical is the new normal

Sorry for the lack or recent posting, work commitments are to blame. I'll start posting on the weekend again, but in the meantime I thought the following quote from Lawrence Auster worth pondering:
“In America,” Jim Kalb recently remarked, “everything is normal”—meaning that no matter how radical, extreme, and perverted things become in our society, they are and must be seen as ordinary, traditional, and unthreatening. The result is the peculiar phenomenon that I have described as the “radical mainstream.” On one hand, liberals and their mainstream-conservative enablers boast of America’s transformational progress since the mid-twentieth century; on the other hand, they claim that we haven’t changed at all. The fact that all kinds of moral and constitutional norms have been shattered, and that nihilism, gross sexual libertinism, and statism are the new norm, is never allowed into public consciousness. The liberals suppress the ugly truth of what America has become, in order to maintain the legitimacy of liberal society; and the conservatives join in the suppression, because their goal is to keep their place at the liberal table; they know that anyone who speaks the truth about the radical transformation of America will no longer be welcome in respectable circles.


  1. Why do you think it worth pondering, Mr Richardson?

    I'm quite often fascinated by the way Jim Kalb and Lawrence Auster keep on citing "The liberals" for the cause of so much of our various nation's dismemberment, yet I still don't know who these "The liberals" are.

    Who are the individuals and groups who are pushing this liberal agenda?

    If I were in Kalbs and Auster's position, I'd name "the liberals", man by man, group by group. After all, liberalism isn't something that naturally occurs, like the ocean tides, or sunset and sunrise, liberalism is a philosophy with an agenda, which is promoted by individuals and groups.

    If one were to really want to destroy this liberalism, wouldn't one name and target the individuals, and their groups, who are promoting liberalism?

    Do you have any suggestions, Mr Richardson, as to who is promoting this liberalism? What groups promoted this liberalism historically, and how did they achieve their agenda of turning the West towards a self-annihilating liberalism?

    Can you nominate organisations who set about promoting the liberal agenda please?

    I'm very interested to know, and you obviously have a great interest in the matter, so I am asking in the effort to learn.

  2. "Welcomed in Respectable circles."

    That's the problem right there, what respectable Liberal circles?

  3. Interested Observer,
    The answer to your questions can be found in "Culture Wars" magazine. It's Editor, E. Michael Jones, is the only man who offers a coherent answer to the promoters of liberalism (in all its poisonous manifestations) because he, like the early Christians before him, isn’t afraid of speaking the truth, even if that means being expelled from the synagogue of respected society.

  4. Jim Kalb writes beautifully, and I know no evil of him as a man, but I don't think much of his thinking.

    Three reasons why:

    1. As Interested Observer says, in Jim Kalb's thinking, the aggressors remain essentially invisible, identified only by the vague label "liberal". Invisible enemies are unbeatable enemies, who can do what they like with impunity. They can follow the Alinsky play-book, pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it; use ridicule constantly, and so on, and it's all one-way traffic, because there is no retaliation against invisible foes. This encourages passivity. Also, because he keeps the attackers invisible, Jim Kalb is free to ignore their real staying power and predict that "liberalism" will collapse itself; another invitation to passivity.

    2. Jim Kalb refuses to take the target seriously. He constantly defines "liberalism" as a set of principles of the most abstract kind, though he notes again and again that special exceptions point the barrel of the system at Whites and only Whites. When you have a long and endlessly extensible set of exceptions all tending in the same direction, you don't have the inherently un-targeted system as described, plus exceptions, what you have is a system that inherently goes after one set of targets, plus your own refusal to describe that system as it is. If the demand is "everybody must drink cool-aid laced with cyanide" but there is an endless set of exceptions for non-Whites, there is no system about the sweetness of cool-aid (but as Jim Kalb cleverly points out, also about the bad effects of cyanide, so that the system must collapse of itself), rather there is a system of getting rid of the Whites. That is ultimately what this is all about: White genocide.

    3. Jim Kalb also focuses constantly on principles, rather than on what matters, which is a narrative and the practical means by which it is maintained: consistent messaging, slogans and powerful words (like "racism!") and mainly practical control of the mass media, and of received language and its interpretation in academia and the law. Fortunately Svigor just wrote something about Principles vs. Narratives, so I don't have to.

    When a crime is going on, and a very serious one, if the watchmen describes the attacker in a completely vague and abstract way, making it impossible to identify and stop him; and the watchmen refuses to acknowledge that what is going on is an attack on a particular victim rather than being a matter of abstract principles interacting with other abstract principles, but having exceptions; and if he refuses to identify how what is being done is being done, to the point of obscuring the real clash of narratives and privileged terminologies, then at best he is blowing a very uncertain trumpet, and at worst he is congratulating himself and those who follow him into passivity on cleverness while slighting duty.

  5. I do not mind that Jim Kalb does not name those who shall not be named. Every sane human being has a finite appetite for risk.

    I mind that he takes what I see as a disingenuous silence that is merely prudent, and turns that "nothing here to report" into a foundation stone of his reasoning.

    And I mind much more that he gets nothing in particular right.

    He describes something that is a lot like a right cross delivered by one man in a particular position to another man in a particular position as though it was like blueprints for a temple made to last for millions of years.

    Any corner man saying, "he's killing you with that cross, you've got to circle to your right!" does a more useful job than Jim Kalb does, saying something like, "contemplate how the concept of fist-ness itself, originating from no agency or location, traverses the thought of time-space, yet always eliding any particular object (yet making an exception for your face), and fear not, for should any violence arise the self-limitation of the concept of violence will cause itself to vanish away without your needing to take any action, not that 'you' actually exist..."

  6. Thanks Interested Observer for the dose of reality. It be interesting to read MArks's comments.

  7. In the post at VFR, and in the linked article from the N. Y. Post, the subject is the never-ending retreat of conservatives, and conservatives' unwillingness to admit that they are always retreating. Sure, we're shoulder to shoulder in our opposition to married homosexuals (sort of, for now), but virtually no one talks about rolling back liberal divorce laws. Wherever one looks, conservatives are defending the liberal positions of thirty years ago. This is not entirely the fault of the worldwide Lithuanian conspiracy.

  8. Interested Observer,

    a) It's not a question today of which groups are pushing a liberal agenda.

    The problem is greater than that. The problem is that we have a liberal establishment.

    It's a liberal establishment not only in the sense that the people in charge are liberals but that the official grounding of society is liberal, i.e. the way that our society tries to make sense of reality is liberal.

    In such a situation, it's not sufficient to point to one particular group and attack them in the hope that things might change.

    Instead, you have to work with those people who have a sense that things are fundamentally wrong and that a destructive path has been taken, and you have to clarify for those people what represents a clean break with the underlying principles of a liberal society.

    b) The question of how liberalism came to dominate society in the first place is a more difficult one.

    It's more difficult because any political philosophy ultimately has general philosophical underpinnings.

    You can therefore trace things back a long way, all the way back to the debates about nominalism many centuries ago.

    Personally, I think by the time of Hobbes in the 1600s the understanding of politics was fundamentally flawed. From this time the West was very poorly served by the intellectual class. Professor John Carroll has sketched out the general contours of what happened, but once the aristocratic and the Christian influences waned, then liberalism went it alone.

    I don't think much was left after WWI, there was just a playing out of decline (though the culture of the Catholic Church held out for a few more decades).

    c) It's true that there have been groups which haven't identified fully with the mainstream and which therefore pushed along a dissolving liberalism. There have been many such groups in Australia.

    At one time there was an Irish Catholic Labor culture which set itself against the mainstream (Paul Keating being a later representative of this tradition); there have been Jewish intellectuals and organisations; for a period of time in the 1960s and 70s there were Greeks and Italians who pushed for multiculturalism; and today you get African community groups doing the same thing.

    For a very long time (since the mid 1800s) there have been feminist groups and more recently (since the 1970s) gay groups.

    But it doesn't seem realistic to me to put the focus on these groups as "aggressor groups". That suggests that there is a mainstream political class that is somehow innocent and a victim of outside aggression.

    But it's not like that. The middle-class Anglo political class is often the worst when it comes to dedication to liberalism. The people I work with are liberal to the core of their being and yet they are nice Anglo middle-class folk. My family members are highly intelligent academics, and they too serve liberal causes.

    It seems to me that the big thing to confront is why those who really should be at the forefront of defending their tradition are instead at the forefront of the liberal assault.

    To put this another way, you might just as well term the Anglo middle-class an "aggressor group" - in fact, they have been the most influential "aggressor group" of the lot.

    Significant change will come when the cohesive attachment of this group to liberalism starts to fray at the edges. We have to push this along as best we can, with limited resources.

  9. subject is the never-ending retreat of conservatives, and conservatives' unwillingness to admit that they are always retreating. Sure, we're shoulder to shoulder in our opposition to married homosexuals (sort of, for now), but virtually no one talks about rolling back liberal divorce laws. Wherever one looks, conservatives are defending the liberal positions of thirty years ago. This is not entirely the fault of the worldwide Lithuanian conspiracy.

    It's the position that conservatives have taken based on the history of conservatism from the beginning as being something aimed at constraining and limiting the liberal disease. That strategy worked before liberalism became the establishment, as Mark points out. Once liberalism becomes the establishment, this disposition that conservatism tends to have in the West, and especially in the Anglo world, becomes self-defeating in a the very real sense that it becomes the lived history of accepting defeat after defeat but merely trying to slow down the pace at which they come.

    In effect, this aids and abets the liberal project by making the changes come more slowly, and thereby more palatably, while reinforcing them in rear guard actions that, de facto, see conservatives embracing as normal and conservative things that exist as a result of liberal changes several decades ago. Divorce is one area, but de facto feminism sans outright man hating and abortion is another. Conservatives are de facto feminists today, because if they are not they fear that they cannot win politically in a society which is utterly dominated by liberal principles.

    As for gay marriage, you can rest assured that in 40-50 years, after the liberals have established it everywhere and it has mainstream acceptance, it will be as defended by the conservatives of that era as de facto feminism sans abortion is by the conservatives of today. There are *already* conservative voices making that transition, and it hasn't even triumphed yet.

    When seen in this way, this sort of conservatism is simply a more slowed down pace of liberalism -- nothing more and nothing less.

  10. Brendan@
    Well put. To be a social conservative today is rather like being a conservationist after the last forest has been chopped down. Since a social conservative is really a restorationist, maybe we should call ourselves Jacobites.

  11. @ Brendan -

    It's hilarious how the liberal rulers paint people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as "far-right" when they are quite liberal, while positioning themselves as centrists in the USA.

    The only genuine far-right wingers are "fringe" figures like Todd Akin, Rick Santorum, etc.

    What do you think of the liberal establishment going crazy over "fringe" figures like Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin?

    Here is one of his statements:

    In 1991, as a state legislator, Akin questioned whether anti-marital rape legislation might be used “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband.”

    Conservatives are de facto feminists today, because if they are not they fear that they cannot win politically in a society which is utterly dominated by liberal principles.

  12. In effect, this aids and abets the liberal project by making the changes come more slowly, and thereby more palatably

    That's an excellent point.

    To be a social conservative today is rather like being a conservationist after the last forest has been chopped down. Since a social conservative is really a restorationist, maybe we should call ourselves Jacobites.

    Completely agree that we are restorationists. We are trying to gather up the healthier and viable remnants and to start from there.

  13. A couple of commenters claim that Jim Kalb does not dare to name names when he makes criticisms of liberalism. (In contrast, they are so brave that they post anonymously on the internet.) If they mean that not everything written by Jim Kalb names names within liberalism, then they are correct, because Mr. Kalb often speaks in terms of philosophical principles. But I wonder how much they have read of his writings. On his blog, he often engages liberal persons within the Catholic church, the academy, and government by name.

  14. The anti-White coalition includes many Whites. They aren't mind-controlled; they don't deserve a pass. In that sense, race-blindness is correct.

    But we ignore two important truths with some progression like this: "Irish Catholic Labor, Jewish intellectuals and organizations, Greeks and Italians, Africans".

    One is: non-White majorities tend to be anti-White majorities, permanently.

    The other is: White genocide, whether by direct violence as in Haiti or by mass immigration and compulsory integration, means the end of characteristically White habits, hopes and institutions. Post-White Haiti is what it is; high civilization will not be making a comeback there any time soon, nor in Zimbabwe, nor anywhere else Whites have given up power and lost out demographically to Africans.

    All your philosophical principles go for nothing with people of a different temperament. All your influences going back to Hobbes in the 1600s in Europe, among people of European descent, go for nothing among people who instead trace their roots to Africa or the Middle East.

    Therefore the situation is mainly demographic and dynamic. It is not mainly static and intellectual.

    Truly, there is a liberal establishment, supported by a false "conservative" opposition that conserves nothing but liberal gains. But there have been bad intellectual establishments among the European peoples before.

    What's new is White genocide - the forced wiping away of nations of European-descended peoples, in a movement that's directed against all and only White nations.

    (Why is America morally obliged to accept mass immigration, but Mexico isn't? You can draw White lines on maps; on one side are nations that are targeted for mass immigration and forced integration; and on the other side are nations that are not White enough to have the finger of accusation pointed at them, and the fatal obligations of "multiculturalism" imposed on them.)

    This is the real struggle.

  15. Clark Coleman, hi.

    I don't say reticence is cowardice, I say it is prudent and necessary.

  16. Thank you for your reply, Mr Richardson.

    I had much to say, in response, especially given that Mr Coleman has now risen from his bed, but, all I could think is:

    There is a tide in the affairs of men.
    Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
    Omitted, all the voyage of their life
    Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
    On such a full sea are we now afloat,
    And we must take the current when it serves,
    Or lose our ventures.

  17. A lesser Australian, would have said, "you dogged it".

  18. Interested Observer: "A lesser Australian, would have said, "you dogged it"."

    My opinion is the opposite.


  19. My opinion is the opposite.

    Good for you then, Day Breaker, why don't you express it then, while you can?

    Mr Coleman defended Auster whilst Auster was defending child rape, for a fellow kin member, so you may as well let it all out.

  20. All we need is a list.

    Just a little list, of names, and their associated organisations, a little list, whatever list, it turns out to be, just a list, a little list.

  21. Note how the Anglo cognoscenti mock the list, yet all of them are on the list, yes, for sure, they are on my list.

  22. Just a list, Mr Richardson, just a list of those who are the leading lights of "the Liberals" is all I ask.

    You must have at least, the very least, three names to throw up?

    Just three names is all I ask. Who are the top three Liberals who have perverted the West, and are still alive today?

    I don't think you can name any, I think you are full of shit, I think you have nothing in your armoury. I think that you cannot nominate three Liberals who are leading us astray.

    I challenge you to name the three biggest, baddest, Liberals who are leading us astray.

    If you can't, then you are full of shit, like I reckon you are.

  23. I too would like to see this list.

    Mark has been telling me for so long now about liberalism that he will easily be able to nominate the three.

    You are a divisive bastard IO, and Mark will deliver his come uppance.

  24. Interested Observer,

    I can't see this ending well. You're already losing it because I won't climb onto your hobby horse.

    If I had to name a handful of living liberals who've led Australia the wrong way I'd go with the PMs: Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard.

    But I don't see the point of such a list. A culture is made by a whole class of people, especially those with influence in academia, in the media, in the churches and in the public service.

    And as it happens the problems predate that list of PMs anyway. The decision to disband traditional Australia was first made back in the 1940s.

    That wouldn't have happened unless a hollowing out process had been underway for a signficant period of time.

  25. Thing is, Mr Richardson. I notice patterns.

    The patterns you hate to be noted.

    And when you're next at work I will bombard your threads with my thoughts, none of which you will be able to do anything about.

    I will defame your precious jews. I will harangue them, I will berate them. None of which you will do anything about.

    Until, you get home.

    See, I see your patterns, just like I see Jew patterns.

    I have this gift Mr Richardson, which frightens you. The ability to see patterns as they fall.

    I lulled you into a false sense of jew defence, just by calling you "Mr Richardson", which you obviously desire, over and over.

    Laughing at you, "Mr Richardson":

    (you just keep the jew defence up now, like a good anglo)

  26. Interested observer protests too much me think. If there are truths he would like to reveal to the world there's plenty of room on the web for another blog. As it is, he sounds like a troll trying to get Mark to make a statement that could be used against him in another setting. I'd ignore the discourteous interloper.

  27. If bad-mouthing the Jews is the way to save the world, the Palestinians are going to take care of it without needing any help from us.

    There are two reasons to remember Jewish influence. One is to be aware what biases influence important people, the law, the mass media and mass culture. The other is not to fall into errors like supposing that anti-White intellectual movements like those that make up political correctness can spontaneously vanish away. An indestructible tree brings forth this bitter fruit. Brilliantly intelligent, wealthy and networked people are going to be trying to argue, harangue, libel and legislate White people to death indefinitely (or until we have all gone the way of the Whites of Haiti), and we are going to have to argue indefinitely for our collective survival.

    But as long as we are not falling into error, there's nothing useful to add to that.

    I agree with Mark Richardson that our concern should be with ourselves. It's good to expose the faulty reasoning in our establishment and explain what would be better.

    This blog is on a good track, with the idea that a bundle of goods is better than one big good, autonomy; and with its steadfast defense of traditional gender roles and marriage against feminism.

    I just think we have to put these things in the proper context. Evils like feminism could in principle be self-correcting in time, in well-defended populations. With much needless misery, especially for children, the women willing to be indoctrinated as feminist, man-hating bad mothers would cut themselves from the gene pool.

    The really deadly effect of ideas like feminism arises from how they smash up White culture and suppress White fertility in combination with mass non-White immigration, compulsory integration and assimilation, and the legal and social suppression of any explicit defense of White identity and White interests. That is genocidal - a nation and a race-ending combination.

    And when you've allowed the race to be wiped away, and with it the civilizations and nations that are the next levels of organization under our vast extended family, first I personally don't care what comes next after that, but if you care about your intellectual and spiritual constructs above flesh and blood, be aware that anything rooted in the creativity of Whites and with a history of appealing to Whites is going into history's ash-heap with its creators and its audience.

  28. I would be happy to name names on the destructive political left, but the list would be extremely long. We could start with the early nominalist philosophers, as Richard Weaver did in Ideas Have Consequences. Then Rousseau and Condorcet, as Thomas Sowell did in A Conflict of Visions. At that point, everything else just follows logically, but leaders are still required, so I could continue to name quite a few more. Marx, Engels (Interested Observer will notice that they were Jews); Darwin; Horace Mann and other early proponents of public education in America; Transcendentalists and Romantics of Anglo-American culture in the mid-19th century; late 19th century critics of the Bible; The English Fabian Socialists; Progressive Era leaders in American politics such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson; the various members of the Frankfurt School (and here we have another Jewish clique, to satisfy Mr. Interested Observer); Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini; all those responsible for World War I; Freud, Jung, and other prominent psychologists; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Teddy Kennedy and other proponents of the 1965 immigration act in the U.S.A.; various feminist leaders from the last two centuries; and on and on. I wonder if Interested Observer even has enough of a grasp on the issues to perceive the importance of everyone on the list, as opposed to focusing on the Jewish names alone.

  29. Mark Richardson: "If I had to name a handful of living liberals who've led Australia the wrong way I'd go with the PMs: Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard."

    "Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out."

    Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)

    Guilty by his own standard.

    And not just in Australia. He did all the harm he could to White South Africans too. That's why it's appropriate to call it White genocide, and not just fatal policy within a few nations that happen to be White. Those pushing this target any White nation, even if it is distant and their own nation has no interest in doing so.

  30. well this thread went weird fast.

    I think the reason not naming individual liberals is clear: there are a set of liberal assumptions, promoted in the culture as well as politics, that an increasing number of "regular people" hold. You can therefore critique the nature of the ideology behind this without singling out a particular boogeyman.

    but apparently there's some secret nefarious Jewish influence in the mix that I missed

  31. JDP: "well this thread went weird fast."


    JDP: "I think the reason not naming individual liberals is clear: there are a set of liberal assumptions, promoted in the culture as well as politics, that an increasing number of "regular people" hold. You can therefore critique the nature of the ideology behind this without singling out a particular boogeyman."

    There's other reasons, like sheer prudence and not getting baited into saying something that will harm your credibility with people who matter.

    But critiquing the ideology without bothering too much with names is a good idea in itself. It's work that has to be done.

    However, you shouldn't go from 1. "our agenda is different from naming names" to 2. "since we don't name names I'll go on as though there were no names, and as though ethnic conflict was no part of this" to 3. "and I'll make the absence of the relevant ethnic conflict a foundation stone of my thinking, and base other things on it, like an assumption that the hostile ideology will just vanish away, since nobody important is invested in continuing to push it."

    JDP: "but apparently there's some secret nefarious Jewish influence in the mix that I missed"

    It's not so much that it's secret as that there are taboos that say it's extremely rude to talk about, ask about or even think about Jewish power and conflicts of interest between Jews and Whites in the construction of culture.

    And when people are forbidden to talk about X, they start to think and act as if X did not exist. And they build structures of aggressive nonsense based on that.

    For example, it's rude to say that Blacks on average have lower IQs than Whites. So people forget it. Then the lower success of Blacks in a lot of areas that call for high IQ calls for explanation, and the explanation is White bigotry against Blacks. And then structures of anti-White handicapping are built up to fight that.

    For another example, Asians are now more successful than Whites, in White countries. Generally one doesn't talk about that - it could come off as complaining that "they are taking over!" But you should talk about it enough that you remember it. Because if you forget, there is no answer to talk of "White skin privilege!" The facts demonstrate that if brains are irrelevant and it's privilege that leads to results, actually we live in societies with Yellow skin privilege.

    And so on.

    If you banish discussion of Jewish power as rude, everyone who notices the obvious fact of Jewish power is dismissed as an antisemite, and Jewish power effectively becomes invisible. What happens next? All its results have to be explained by other causes. For example, America's foreign policy fixation on Israel can't be explained by the wealthy and well connected Zionist lobby, it has to be pinned on poor White Christian Zionists - who, oddly, can't get their way on a single other issue that they care about.

    When you bar discussion of a big, important fact, or just make it rude, you invite people to build up fantastic structures of ideology, and to push though destructive policies based on it.

  32. Examples of the phenomenon can be multiplied endlessly.

    It's rude (or hurtful to the self-esteem of young girls) to talk about women being the weaker sex. --> It's a good idea for women to be in the ASAS, and anyone who objects hates women.

    It's racist and taboo to talk about the aggressive violence of many non-White groups. --> It's a good idea to import huge numbers of hostile Africans to countries like Sweden, where the naturally beautiful women are used to decent, law-abiding Swedish men and have little sense of danger; that won't lead to trouble at all.

  33. The man who delivered the benediction at President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration said that he believes, as he once did in his “militant” youth, that all whites are hell-bound.

    The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a patriarch of the civil rights movement and close ally of the president, said at a weekend rally in central Georgia that the “level and hatred and bitterness” borne of this election had made him a believer that whites were going to hell.

    The American President's own pastor of twenty years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is of course also passionately, formally and theologically committed to anti-Whiteness, as is his entire Church.

    President himself routinely appoints people with anti-White attitudes to important positions, and confers honor and approval as well as power on them.

    The Rev. Joseph Lowery has the highest level of official, formal approval. "He was awarded the Medal of Freedom in 2009 by Obama and was elected earlier this year to lead the state’s delegation to the Democratic national convention." The Medal of Freedom is America's highest civil honor.

    "Two icons of the civil rights movement visited Forsyth on Saturday to campaign for the reelection of Barack Obama. Andrew Young and Rev. Dr. James Lowery spoke at St. James Baptist Church as part of a Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) tour across Georgia to encourage black voters to cast ballots for Obama.

    Lowery, who turned 91 on Oct. 6, founded the SCLC along with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1957 and has been a national leader and the recipient of many honors since that time. Numerous celebrities praised him at a celebration of his 90th birthday at Atlanta Symphony Hall last year."

    Of course Martin Luther King is himself the subject of unique honors. There is never any end to the glorification and the cultural enthronement of anti-White "crusaders" and the demonization of those who defend White identity and interests.

    Anti-Whiteness is an established, empowered, honored and viciously intolerant dogma.

  34. How can this be explained away plausibly as really being about abstract, race-neutral issues like "statism"?

    How can it be plausible to deny that this is at root about an anti-White coalition demonizing and genociding the White race?

    Given that the policies, such as mass non-White immigration onto all and only White countries, and forced integration and assimilation point to the end of the White race and of all White nations, and given the attitudes that receive approval and support by the highest levels of political and symbolic authority in the most important historically White nation, how is it possible to pull the wool over your own eyes here?