Goldwater explaining his opposition to the 1964 CRA: "I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people of America, regardless of their race, color or creed, the implications involved in the enforcement of regulatory legislation of this sort. To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of the bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an 'informer' psychology in great areas of our national life--neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an 'informer' psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society."

Expand full comment

He was correct.

And that was its entire point. They never set out to help people- a people in this case laid waste by their policy. That was never the point. Power is and was the point.

Expand full comment

Do you think African Americans should not be able to vote if the local community does not agree? What if a majority African American community would ban the vote for White Americans....🤔

Expand full comment

What if the African-American community and White community had the option of governing themselves?

Expand full comment

Like Sharia law? Be very careful what you wish for when you have a imported minority that doesn't understand the original intent of western ideals.

Expand full comment

Uh...who are these "imported" people in 2023?

Think the majority of black people in America were born in America.

Expand full comment

I mean ideally those people should govern themselves in their own countries. Having them live in the west and forcing them to follow western laws only creates conflict and division.

Expand full comment

I don't believe white Americans should be living in black communities anyways so yeah I'd be perfectly fine with banning whites from voting there. if we can do the same in our communities. dont like it then move

Expand full comment

power isnt the point. Power is simply used to enforce whatever the point is. in this case fuck white people is the point.

Expand full comment

Wow.....1964, 1965 CRA were bad.

Expand full comment

This is important. The whole edifice needs to be repealed, not just disparate impact, all anti-discrimination laws. The only possible exception should be the laws as applied to government.

Expand full comment

Griggs v. Duke Power almost certainly accelerated the transformation of college from an institution of higher education to a credential mill. Which is hilarious and sad at the same time, because if I had to choose whether I were allowed to give entrance exams to law students or to power plant workers, I know which one I'd choose.

Expand full comment

Exactly. Overturning Griggs would be a first step to a much fairer world where you wouldn't need a college degree to manage a Starbucks or work as an administrative assistant. It would open doors for working and middle class people and save them and their children so much money. People could start careers and families younger. That would be a meaningful political platform, a lot better than Mr. Potato Head.

Expand full comment

Why do you think they want to open doors?

They slam doors shut.

And put armed men at the doors.

Goodness, they just walled off Congress and surrounded it with Troops, the POTUS was sworn in by 25,000 troops - overlooking of course a field of flags resembling Arlington Cemetery; if you missed the visual cue, the Republic is dead.

That was a State Funeral, not an Inaugural.

They will not overturn Griggs. They don’t open doors - they shut and bar them.

Expand full comment

You are of course right. The US has been captured by a hostile elite that overall only has disdain for average white americans - and those few in the elite who doesn't feel that way and who dare speak up in a pro-white way about the current anti-white climate in the US amnd the issues that causes for white americans are immediately excluded.from the elite and with it loses all their influence and power and thus is no longer part of the elite.

Expand full comment

Non elite whites.

This is probably a good time to post the standard Ima notta racist, although in my case it's true enough that I was notta a rayciszt when it cost me - something that will not make a dent in the woke, aka SJW, aka leftist.

This is for actual sound real world reasons: 1] it's not about race, it's about uppity white peasants who are in the way, as were the Indians before us,

2] mostly the SJW's are Trustifarian and whiter than my Irish skin can ever be...

3] It's not about Race. It's about POWER.

now as it happens color coding works. God in his wisdom gave us different skin colors, so we can color code each other. Had God not given us different skin colors we'd ....be divided and ruled by hair color, height, noses, left handed vs right handed , etc etc.

HeroS is correct that we're captured by a hostile elite.

But they're overwhelmingly White, Anglo, Post Protestant.

Frankly you dusky hued types [diverse] would be better absenting yourselves from what is yet again another White and yes very Anglo Saxon vs _________ and yes another English Civil War.

Any of you idiots who think for instance that WW1 and WW2 were about anything but Anglo-Saxon Empire crushing the Germans are well...idiots.

It certainly wasn't done to save the Jews, anymore than it was done to save the French.

To be clear if you can accept that WW1/2 was about Anglo's crushing the Germans, you're not an idiot. I would so hate to offend...

Expand full comment

So you are assuming White Americans would automatically score better on these intelligent tests...?

Expand full comment

Absolutely not. But people of all races would be able to take a test to get a job instead of spending four years of additional, expensive education they wouldn't need.

Expand full comment

This is a great article. Well done. However, small bone to pick...

I would argue that the reactions to the Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seus debacles were not "hysterical." People rightfully sense that something is afoot and that the world as they know it is slipping away. When people watch a innocuous toy or a light hearted children's book targeted by the woke D.I.E. enthusiasts they rightfully have strong emotions and go on the defensive. That is no more "hysterical" than it is "hysterical" to engage in self defense when one is being attacked.

Expand full comment

Complaining about Mr Potato Head getting its name changed when Mr Potato Head didn’t get its name changed is hysterical. Complaining that the left went after dr Seuss when the Seuss estate voluntarily decided to not publish certain old books without any pressure campaign is hysterical.

Expand full comment

Mr Patoto Head DID have his name changed until backlash forced it back. Many libraries decided to remove books and many organizations that promote childhood literacy blacklisted Dr. Sues. If you're going to disagree with me, at least have the decency to not lie

Expand full comment

The Seuss estate was pressured by these illiberal zealots. They didn't just wake up one morning and pull those titles on a fake virtue-inspired whim. At least understand the basics of issues you choose to be vocal on.

Expand full comment

Did they win either the Seuss or Potato Head war?


Expand full comment

Sorry...don't understand how your comment is relevant to mine. I was merely stating that I don't think it's "hysterical" to be angry about woke garbage.

Expand full comment

I don't think it's hysterical to be angry.

I think it is a mistake to pick a fight and lose.

Some say anger itself is a mistake, well better than nothing I'll say, it's a start.

But my point was: they lost both on Potato head and on Seuss.

The losing must stop.

As for the outraged anger that goes no farther than words; when the Left is angry is is mere words? Here is a answer we must learn.

Expand full comment

Fair point. I don't really disagree with you. I just object to the idea that it's somehow "hysterical" to point out how crazy it is that the Left wants to cancel Dr. Sues and then *gasp* talk about it out loud.

Expand full comment

conceded, the Orwellian dance would make Stalin blush.

Expand full comment

The closing observation about the appeal of conspiracy theories is an insightful one. I think there's an underappreciation of how deflating the experience of the first two years of the Trump presidency (despite a GOP trifecta supposedly poised to roll back Obama-era policies) really was for the party base. Every widely celebrated progressive advance (DACA, the Affordable Care Act, same-sex marriage) seemed utterly impervious to any kind of a roll-back. Republicans had campaigned vigorously on these issues for a decade, and then suddenly were forced to reveal that there was no strategy for implementing any of that vigorous opposition. It was all theatrics.

If the only options are "Qanon" or "hard blackpill", a range of personality types will swallow literally anything other than the latter. "You're on the losing end of irreversible transformations in American politics and all we can offer you is some kind of palliative care" can never be the philosophical foundation of a successful political movement, no matter how true it may be.

Expand full comment

I have some optimism on the grounds that work ideology is so anti reality that ultimately it has to fail. Concern is mainly about the damage done along the way - and a lot of damage may yet be done. Communism ultimately yielded to economic reality, but only after starving millions.

Expand full comment

Communism didn’t just yield to economic reality, more to it than that. After 100 million plus deaths

Expand full comment

This is a great analysis of how we got here. Isn't the real issue now that the right defends institutions and processes while the left tries to get power? This idea of accomplishing what the left wants but in a better way is everywhere on the right.

The purpose of the Republican party should not be to create fair systems that can then be subverted by the left. It should be to advance the interests of its voters. A great start to this would be to actually use civil rights law to require half of public school teachers to be male and force colleges to start hiring conservative professors, for example.. Create our very own affirmative action system.

Expand full comment

Doing this now at my spouse's workplace. They instituted a major mandatory DEI training - we immediately raised concerns this would create a hostile work environment for people based on race and religion, asked the workplace to pledge not to segregate or discriminate against employees on the basis of these protected classes, and pointed out that reprisals against us for raising these concerns could constitute wrongful termination and violate whistleblower protections.

All that said - I don't believe this is the way forward at a macro policy level. It permanently ingrains tribal and identity warfare as a central tenet of society. Worse - the disparate outcomes issue, fully embraced, is the road to hell.

Expand full comment

Tribal warfare is already being waged against whites and we could either fight back or lie back and be killed off (figuratively speaking - but only up to a certain point: genocide is as eternal as human nature).

Expand full comment

See, if I were to decide about laws, then I would ban comments like this...as they don't contribute to any rational discussion, but only try to enrage readers from the other side of the political spectrum and/or affirm support from one's own "tribe"


Expand full comment

Can you please elaborate on why this comment does not encourage intelligent and rational discussion?

If you want to argue that tribal warfare is not already being waged against whites (Ie in this context meaning that other races and ethnic groups right now are acting as collectives who try to 1 deny that white interests even exists or denies that the interests of whites are even a coherent concept since "who is really white" - to that add lots of deconstruction and 2 at the same time working aginst the obvious interests of the same white people and when this is pointed out the answer is often "you are only getting what you deserve for concquering the indians" - and that in doing so they are dispossessing whites of their historical power in both northern america and because of the US cultural sphere of influence also in almost all of Europe except the most eastern parts) is not being waged against whites right now you are free to do so.

So - I have made an assertation without any providing any pro arguments for my case and you have made an assertion without providing any pro arguments for your case.

I'll be really happy if you'll priovde youi rargumentswhy my position is faulty but I expect you'll have a hard time when whites are the only racial group that it is permissible - in fact not only permissible but encouraged and rewarded - to attack as a racial group in the overall US cultural sphere of influence.

Meanwhile whites are de jure discriminated against on purely racial, ie tribal, grounds in the Us as well as de facto and to a lesser extent de jure discrimated against in Europe.

For instance take admission to elite universities - the main way of advancing to becoming part of the elite in the US. With jews, who is a group that does not generally consider themselves as belonging to the group normally called whites - making up rougly half of so called white admissions to the Ivy league and other elite universities in about 2010 and nowadays elite colleges having POCs making up more than half of admissioins we can see that whites who make up about 55-60 percent of the US population is only admitted at a rougly 20-25 % percent rate compared to other racial groups despite having a higher IQ, which correlates very well with SAT scores, than Hsipanics and a far higher IQ than African Americans, this is cloearly a case of discrimation of whites on racial grounds.

Further whites are discrinated against if they for instance start a company that becomes moderately successful and employs more than 50 persons in which case they have to abide by government-mandated diversity standards that are totally against the interests of whites.

To take a more recent example, several states made up a racial prioritization proigram for Sars-Cov-2 vacciantions so whites that were older and in some states, also suffering from conditions that made them risk groups, were vaccinated later than blacks of an equal age and it was motivated on social justice grounds.

Meanwhile the media is straight out anti-white and blames any and all problem on whites, mostly white males, which breeds resentment among other races and which probably is a factor in that blacks perform interracial murders against whites with a rougly 1000 % overrepresentation and the media and overall culture acts like this isn't the case and itäå snot talked about at all. At the same time the FBI every year records tens of thousands of instances of interracial rape of a woman by a man where the perpetrator is black and meanwhile reported rapes of a black woman by a white man is most often about 1000 to 10000 % lower and this is something the media never discusses or thinks is "problematic" and the media instead hounds white police officers if they in the act of self-defense against a black criminal kills that crimnal, no matter the facts. Darren Wilson, who was cleared of all charges and who was obviously not guilty had to withstand a media campaign that lasted for months and then had to move to another city or town because of the threat levelo against him and he can never expect to work in law enforcement ever again.

By the way, when we are speaking about media, I might take a second to remind you of the young white catholic high school student who was on a class trip to DC and who has harassed by fringe african americans who believe they are the true isrealites as referred to in the bible and then the student was accused of smilin nervously towards an indian race hustler who stood one feet from him silently drumming and who was thus subjected to a 72 hours of hate-session in the mainstream media with every relevant institution, including his own school, denouncing him - without the facts being clear journalists and republicans and church mebers and any and all who was part of the elite was prepared to accused this young man of racism, which we know makes a white åperson unemployable today. The coverage was extremely slanted and it obviously only became a story because it fitted the ideological preconceptions that the journalist class, who are mostly white and jewish, holds.

Also, as Mr Hanania has shown in his last articles there are several other policies that favor non whites over whites, which of course is against the interests of whites and a sign of that whites are under tribal attack.

I could provide sources but at this stage it seems unneccessary.

I could go on, but first I'd like to hear a couple of relevant and true arguments from you why whites are not being attacked in a tribal way (In the sense of ethnic activist groups of basically all other races working against the interests of whites and the rest of the people that make up these ethnic groups being indifferent to the interests of whites - and remember the other races do this with the full support of every mainstream institution) - interests that are obvious to anybody, such as staying a mayority in what only 20 years ago was considered indisputably their own country.

Please answer, I would really like to have an good faith argument over this with you. Although I am fairly sure I am right I am always ready to change my position if the facts warrants it and admit I was wrong.

Expand full comment

Well I will answer with a link to a scientific article:


But I will assume that your confirmation bias will lead you to reject most of the points made in the article...

From the article:

"Across two dozen studies, black applicants were called back 36 percent less than whites with the same qualifications. Not a single study found a reliable anti-white bias. Most sobering of all, the rate of discrimination is the same today as in the 1980’s."

And also from the article...

"Confronting an opponent with facts in the middle of a heated argument has probably never changed a single mind. Back-and-forth arguments are social contests in which people are often more motivated to win than to seek truth."

So yeah... motivated reasoning is what you are doing in my view...if you could show me a similar article from a respected scientific publication that undermines your points, than I mind agree a bit more with you...

Expand full comment

Your first mistake is posting a social science article as if it were conclusive, or even reliable. Holding up "respected scientific publication" as some sort of talisman, usually means "a scientific publication that confirms my own biases". If "respected scientific publications" (of which Scientific American is not, as they have made their biases clear WRT social science) were reliable, we wouldn't have had the Surgisphere debacle.

So, to get to the article you posted, you may begin by explaining the causative mechanism in play with that "research", then, to show that you are not being biased yourself, offer some alternative explanations for the results. If you cannot, you're not prepared for an intelligent, unbiased discussion.

Expand full comment

Andreas are you in America?

Distinct EU feel here, like banning comments on substack.

Expand full comment

You have been reading and listening to white separtist/supremacist propaganda.

Expand full comment

I have gone through a DEI program, but not the aggressive, shaming ones that you see in government and a few corporations that are in essence demonizing sessions of white people.

I wonder why there have not been more lawsuits against this...because it does create a hostile work environment.

Expand full comment

Did that work? Can a white person be protected by those laws?

Expand full comment

We'll see, still in the middle of it. Technically, yes, and there is precedent, but not sure how our specific challenge will go.

Expand full comment

Dude, no.

The problem with these DEI requirements is that they create inefficiencies. For example, we can't consider math SATs when considering who gets to go to UC Berkeley to study math or physics, we get a weaker crop of students and ultimately a weaker crop of STEM professionals. That's bad.

Now as it happens, most people who want to be teachers are female and most people who want to be science professors are Democrats (this is borne out in many surveys). The former is some unclear combination of social and biological, the latter is probably because people uncomfortable with capitalism often prefer becoming professors. Also scientists are disproportionately atheists. If we had to hire large numbers of male teachers and politically conservative science professors (and why should this matter at all?) we'd just get a weaker crop of professionals. You are just going to make a bad situation worse.

Expand full comment

But we already have weak professionals who are hired based on discriminatory policies. (Affrimative action and politically biased hiring) My point is that those weak professionals should be Republican constituents rather than Democrats. The right fights for a fairer system while the left fights for power within that system. We end up with colleges that have zero Republicans in the faculty and entire career fields are closed to us.

We are also going to need all of those Republicans in the institutions if we are going to change them to be less woke.

Expand full comment

I have some sympathy for the view that most <noun> Studies departments are impossible for conservatives to operate in and I have some sympathy for conservatives who want to either defund those departments or force them to accept conservatives. That's very different from asking primary schools to hire huge numbers of male teachers who don't exist, or requiring physics departments (which, with some weird exceptions, are still pretty apolitical) to hire conservatives.

What's more, this is a popular view. A ballot initiative to bring back Affirmative Action in California lost in 2020 by 12 points. A lot of people want colorblind, apolitical workplaces. I don't think they want to fight quotas with quotas.

Expand full comment

Thats probably where we mainly disagree, I actually don't think it would be possible for a conservative to get a job as a physics professor or possibly any job in a university. There is a Bloomberg survey from 2018 that is paywalled where they surveyed college professors and found that in the physics departments, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 6 to 1. They found that more broadly, at least a third of colleges had zero Republicans on the faculty. In law schools I believe it was 100 democrats for 1 republican. And this is just Republicans- how many of those are old holdouts from a different era? How many are socially conservative? Probably zero.

I know a college professor at a state school who told me he never met a republican professor in his entire career. If they were there, they had to hide. And its becoming that way in corporate America now as well. We have nowhere to go.

You alluded to defunding grievance studies departments and I definitely agree with that.

Expand full comment

So, I am wary of telling too much detail on the internet, but I am a STEM professor. Indeed, I am a Democrat, albeit a moderate one who has some heterodox views. FWIW, I've experienced and seen the hiring process first hand, there's no room where they grill you about your political opinions. I'm worried about the use of "Diversity Statements" to weed out non-left applicants (see https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/) but this is a new and not yet widespread phenomenon.

I've wondered about the disproportionate left skew in STEM academia. I'd attribute it to four things:

1. People who like capitalism go do science at companies. This is especially true in applied sciences like engineering where a lot of the exciting stuff is happening in the private sector.

2. Most scientists are not religious, and very few are evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. Frankly, if you think the world is 6,000 years old, you are going to have a hard time in most areas of biology and physics.

3. Scientists frequently hop from country to country in their careers, dissuading strong nativism.

4. The culture is admittedly somewhat hostile to religious people and conservatives. I prefer people not know I am religious until they know me as a scientist. People tell mean jokes about Trump or whatever, you never hear jokes the other way. Trying to address this point is hard though, it's a little like the conservative equivalent of complaining about "hostile environment". And to be clear, it's not discrimination.

Expand full comment

Admittedly I forgot reason #5: science labs are mostly funded by government grants, often in public universities. It's hard to hate big government when you depend on government.

Expand full comment

There is the famous saying about facts/opinions and salaries...

Expand full comment

Given the results of that initiative concerning AA, we need to get to the bottom of why the state routinely goes dark blue.

Expand full comment

You are seriously saying there's massive vote fraud except for one ballot initiative? Also, the same polls that predicted a Biden landslide in CA predicted the failure of the AA initiative. There's just a lot of pro-Biden anti-AA voters out there. Moderates exist!

Expand full comment

The affirmative action system was created...to subdue us. Us, exactly.

By mostly our own of course. The others were and remain interchangeable tokens.

We’re the main group in the way of the untrammeled exploitation of America’s vast natural wealth and power. Whoever lives here will be very important and powerful. Politics is Power, thats all.

Really this is a repeat of the Indians, with the non-elite whites as the backwards savages “standing in the way of Progress.” Like the Indians were just in the way. Sure the Ivy’s and Progressives say nice things about them *now*, go back and look what they said at the time, and what they did.

Common Whites are just the next stuffed animal in the Smithsonian. Observe them in their natural habitats! Look, a “pickup truck”.

Expand full comment

Your pov seems to be based on your own partisanship and not objectivity... which "institution" are conservatives in the US trying to defend? Certainly not the CIA, FBI, foreign service or even their own party...🤔

Expand full comment

The right defends institutions and processes while the left tries to get power?

Yes, and the Right literally defends that power with cops and soldiers.

Damn sure the leftists don't man the lines.

Expand full comment

Surprised not to see Christopher Caldwell's "The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties" referenced here. The argument he makes is similar to the argument made here. The book received several surprisingly fair reviews from the media if you want get a flavor for it. The Vox interview and NYMag review are pretty good.

I think Republicans are too scared to take on affirmative action, especially in today's climate. "Racism" and to a lesser extent "sexism" are potentially career ruining cudgels that the Democrats hold over their heads.

Expand full comment

They built a vast machine and we ignored it.

Now its a machine to finish us, something Caldwell hints was the intention all along.

This is of course just human nature. Its natural that the different are enemies. We thought we rose above this, in truth this was arrogant delusion.

With hostility openly expressed and acted on - We denied it and may well to the end.

Expand full comment

Of course, this ignores the fact that "different" has been changing for the last 10,000 years. It used to be different were the people the next valley over, then several valleys over. Then a different country, then a different sphere.

The fact that your neighbours don't come over, kill you and steal your stuff is proof that human nature is almost infinitely malleable. This, even more than intelligence, is what truly separates us from the animals.

Expand full comment

We have a different view of the history of the last 10,000 years. 😂. Especially the last 100. There’s a reason the word Genocide was invented in 1944 and introduced at the Nuremberg Trials.

There’s also a reason incitement of genocide is illegal under US Law; 18 USC, s1091 C.

We could actually prosecute the Left now, if we had laws.

Don’t worry, we don’t.

We can also disagree on human nature being infinitely malleable.

Human deceit- yes.

Expand full comment

Prosecute the "left"?🤔

Not sure what you mean, care to explain?

Expand full comment

If we applied the above statutes to the American Leftists screaming ERASE WHITENESS they could be Prosecuted.

If we had laws, we don’t. The Laws don’t apply to Leftists, and in any case our laws vanished with the Constitution.

We’ll probably still see you hang, just without the lawyers.

Hope I clarified.

Expand full comment

" our laws vanished with the Constitution."?

So... I am really not sure what you are taking about here, but I guess you are arguing that the US should be returned to the UK?

Also: "We’ll probably still see you hang, just without the lawyers". Is that a threat? If it is, you are on really thin ice here...🤔😬

Expand full comment

“ 1) Eliminating disparate impact, making the law require evidence of intentional discrimination.”

This would mean any bigot competent enough not to put evidence in writing could run a bigoted company that doesn’t hire X sort of people. Not sure if this is what you want!

Expand full comment

The same argument could apply to the presumption of innocence in general. Any criminal competent enough to hide his/her crime could have a long and nefarious career. Much better to assume guilt and place the burden of proof on the defendant, right?

Government has no business policing demographic ratios of companies. Any sufficiently discriminatory company will lose to market forces for hiring by an arbitrary quality instead of merit.

Expand full comment

You don’t go to prison for discriminatory hiring practices. And intent works differently in these cases. If you pull the trigger, you intended to shoot your gun. But how do you determine intent when you hire 20 male employees? If you run a car repair shop, you might have a good defense. If you run a daycare, you probably are discriminating.

As to market forces, I think that history has proven that they don’t do a good job preventing discrimination. (See some of my other comments in this thread).

Expand full comment

Man you’ve clearly never been on the wrong side of a EEOC complaint. The government doesn’t give a fuck about anything you just mentioned. The enforcement mechanisms is a bureaucrat responding to incentives just like the rest of us. And it’s an administrative agency so you can forget about any sort of legal due process.

Expand full comment

They either don’t understand administrative government, or won’t acknowledge what they have done.

Expand full comment

So it would be bad to discriminate by hiring 20 men to work in a day care? The market will sort that out. Few will be interested, fewer will be qualified, fewer still will be hired. See? No problem.

Expand full comment

This is true, the market is politics by other means.

Expand full comment

We all know racial or ethnic nepotism is perfectly okey as long as whites doesn't engage in it. If whites do, then they will feel the boot of the state coming down swift and with force.

Menawhile, when other groups does the same nobody in the elite lifts an eyelid. And the thing is that a race or ethnicity that plays as a team with an ethnocentric strategy will almost always outcompete groups that favor indiviualistic altruism. This has been proven in several studies in evolutionary psychology.

Thus, whites have lost all the power they once had only a little over fifty years ago because they have been thaught/indoctrinated into that they must be indivualistic and have a universalistic moral outlook and treat all members of every racial group the same, and almost all whites have done so (And no, jews do not count as whites in this context since they themselves most often do not want to be lumped together with the part of the poulation that is normally referred to as white). And today they have gone from elite to the only group that is fair open prey in the media and overall culture.

Expand full comment

Exactly. Ethnocentrism is an evolutionarily dominant strategy.

One of many simulations modeling this phenomenon:


Only the all-too individualist/universalist Europeans (especially Northern and Western Europeans) would agree to legally prohibit their own in-group bias. Only liberals of European descent demonstrate negative in-group preference (thereby approximating the "traitorous" evolutionary strategy described in the above study, which proved to be the least adaptive):


We are witnessing the consequences of this type of thinking play out before our eyes across the Western world. Other groups are far more ethnocentric, (see above link), so it is little wonder that they would so quickly come to domimate the European populations they come into contact with.

Expand full comment

Ok ... If that were the case, countries such as North Korea or Turkmenistan would be among the most successful...as for your views regarding "White people", this is a definition which is not universally accepted, even by "White people" themselves...e.g. the Nazis certainly didn't think that Germans and Russians were of the same "race"...🤔

Expand full comment

Race had two meanings in the time you are speaking of: Race as we use it today and meaning ethnicity, for instance people spoke of the Anglo-Sasxon racce which is clearly what we would call an ethnicity today.

National Socialistis would certainly have recognize slavs being part of the white race in the sense we use that term now, however they would not see Germans and Slavs as being of the same ethnicity.

Don't even start with this childish deconstruction of the concept of race - that position has been shown to be false in at least hundreds or more likely thousands of studies.

Expand full comment

The Turkomens and North Koreans are outbreeders (no cousin marriage) and trusting of strangers?


Expand full comment

I am not sure what your point is? That cousin marriage is good for the "genetic superiority" of an ethnic group...?🤔

As for North Korea, I don't think that they're very trusting of strangers... not sure about Turkmenistan, but it was an ethno-nationalist dictatorship ...

Expand full comment

I was being completely sarcastic.

Totally inversion.

His point earlier was that whites are raised to be altruistic, and to value individuals and judge them as they are- while everyone else plays race gangs. Gangs beat individuals.

We were suckers and we suffer for it, but we’re learning. Hard. From the others.

Expand full comment

"Progressivism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be racist."

Expand full comment

The Haunting feeling the Progressives get that they talk Martin Luther King, or Mao Luther King but live Apartheid in elite white bubbles of Privilege their entire existence.

The Haunting of their Hall of Mirrors.

Expand full comment

If there was a bigot who didn't want to hire you because he had something against your kind, would you want to work under him? Seems like the kind of law that would actually increase mistreatment of employees.

If X sort of people are good employees, then the company will lose money by not hiring them. Sin brings its own punishment.

If X sort of people are not good employees, then it's just meritocracy.

Expand full comment

Fairly recent history in this country, especially in the south, does not show that companies will be punished financially for discriminating.

Expand full comment

So if hiring X would make the company more money, and they don't hire him, then the punishment is that lost profit. If hiring X wouldn't make the company more money, well, of course they won't rationally hire him regardless of who X is. Is not hiring people who don't make the company more money discrimination?

Also, the income gap between blacks and whites *stopped* shrinking after the civil rights movement, so what's the evidence that it actually helped the people it was supposed to help?

Expand full comment

If I run a bank with 20 tellers, I don’t need the 20 most talented tellers in the world or even in town to make money. I just need 20 good enough tellers. It’s easy to discriminate when hiring and still have a competent enough workforce. The only threat to my profits would be a boycott, which we eventually saw in the 1960s but only after 80 years of segregation.

As to your second point: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Expand full comment

"I don’t need the 20 most talented tellers in the world or even in town to make money"

You don't need them to make money, but turning them down for a job costs you some amount of money.

Relevant to reparations: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2020/11/what-does-money-buy-selected-readings-from-lottery-studies/

Expand full comment

This assumes the ideologue making the decisions cares and can know this and that the countless other variables involved do not get involved. That the amount of time needed (perhaps decades) for this to take effect and that the targeted population stays upset even as the discrimination is normalized (for white Americans that is about 2 weeks, if they are well "educated" 0-15 minutes) doesn't run its course, yah free markets will fix this.

Expand full comment

It helped the Administrators.

Who are a vast body with Power.

That was Caldwell’s central point.

Facing a threat to their power they are cracking down hard as they can.

This is normal human history, normal politics.

Politics is Power, not justice.

Expand full comment

Maybe some companies would feel like they can be more successful if they discriminate against certain groups of people, and thus carve out a niche market for themselves? For example, imagine an "alt-right" company, which discriminates against "non-whites"?🤔

Expand full comment

Oh no, a niche market allowed to exist, how terrible. Much better to just force alt-right and everyone else to rub shoulders which has led race-relations to the perfect harmony of today.

Anyway, considering the current size and wealth of the alt-right compared to the progressive left, most of the discrimination would flow the other way.

Expand full comment

So you are agreeing that maybe some companies would like to discriminate against "non-whites" so that they attract more "White" customers?

As for your point about people being "forcing to rub shoulders" with those some of them might not like, well the only solution here would probably be mind upload and creating your own virtual reality...🤔

Expand full comment

citation that proves "discrimination" and not "suspicion of discrimination", please.

Expand full comment

But isnät the constant refrain from the liberal left and the hard left these days when right wing woices are excluded and cancelled that companies can do what they wantand if you as a right wing dissident wants service X you should build company X (Which has become preposterous since Right wings dissdents would have to construct aparalelle internet since every company can be browbeatenb by the media into not doing usiness with right wing dissidents.

So what does it matter if racial discrmination hurts a company or not? If blacks ore any other racial group is not employed by white owned companies, why don't they start the required companies themselves so they can gain access to services they want and find employment?

I feel there is a lot of cognitive dissonance and/or hypocracy on the left here on thi issue (I am not accusing you of it, only pointing it out, so you know).

And I am not making a legalistic argument here, ie saying the law forbids discrimination so then companies can't discriminate on a purely racial basis has no bearing on my point, since laws can be changed to whatever people feel they should be.

Instad I am making a moral philosopical argument. Just to be perfectly clear.

Expand full comment

I think discriminating against certain behaviors is acceptable, discriminating against races, sexes, religions, is generally unacceptable. If I run a bar, I can kick out customers who get into fights. If I run a social media website, I can kick out people who violate the terms of service of the website, by say, advocating for the violent overthrow of the US government. But I shouldn’t be allowed to run a bar that only hires or serves white people or only black people. I just think those are fundamentally different forms of discrimination, one of which is generally ok, and one of which should be illegal.

Expand full comment

Ok. Now I understand your position but you have given absolutely no argument why it should be illegal to discriminate (Which we all do anyway all the time in the most basical sense of the word, but let's forget about that for now) on the basis of sex, race, religion and why it should be ok to discriminate on the basis of how people acts.

I guess your pro argument in favor of your position here would be that we don't choose our sex and race but one can choose not to be violent for instance (But religion? - I'll come to that later)

First, I don't think that that barrier is as rigid as you do, between immutabel characteristics and thingsd we choose, when blacks, who as a whole make up 13 % of the US population are committing about 50-55 % of all murders in the US based on th best statistics we have.

And unfortunately it get's even worse and reality is even more "racist" than you probably can imagine.

Black women, who of course make up very close to 50 percent of the black population, although overrepresented against women of other races when it comes to murder, peform basically no murders as woman murderers are very rare.

That leaves 6,5 percent of the population responsible for approximately 51,5 % of all murders committed in the US (I'll remove a percent from the value between 50 and 55 out of honesty and to be generous in the course of this argument).

But that's not the end of it. When a black man commits a murder this is not done at the same frequency among each age group of the black population.

It has been noted since the beginning of the systematic study of criminality, ie the birth of criminology, that criminal behavior starts to drop of after early adulthood.

So to which age groups do black murderers in a specific year belong? FBI data for 2016 gives the following: Blacks start to murder at a higher rate in the years 13-16 as all races do (Age group decided by FBI) and 90 % of all murderers in the black community with a known age each year falls in the age span of 13 to 44 years.

So all 90 % of murders commited by the black population can be said to be committed by blacks within an age span of 31 years (If we assume that the appox 10 percent of murderers with an unknown age has the same age distribution as murderers with a known age, a wholly reasonable assumption).

And the average lifespan of blacks is 78,5 years in the US and has been the same for some time.

So what seemed like 13 % of the population committing about 55 % of murders in the US is really 13 - 6,5 x (31 / 78,5) which is 2,5 % meaning that a population cohort that can be constructed by only taking race, sex and age into account and which amounts to 2,5 % of the overall US population commits over 50 % of all murders in the US. Even worse, blacks between 20 and 29 which makes up about 0,8 % of the US population perform 25 % of all murders where the race of the hiller is known in the US.

And if we assume the same age distribution among black violent crime offenders and that black females are 1/5 as violent as black men (Which are both generous assumptions) then 3 % of the US population is responsible for 38 % of all violent crime, which is much more plentiful and a much larger danger to the overall population - ie you have a much larger chance of getting robbed than murdered?

And unfortunately we have no statistics on this but blacks between 20 and 29 would probably account for something like 15-20 % of all violent crime in the US which is just amazing.

Is it strange if people want to exclude black men looking to possibly be in the these age ranges, especially blacks arond 20-30 years of age, from their establishments or at their smaller workplaces or from their neighbourhoods - isn't it in fact completely rational to want to do so since there is no other way I know of that can so dramatically lower lower the chance of you being a victim of a violent crime except by getting a CCW permit and being good at using what you're carrying and that's a worse outcome for all if the worst happens.

Also, isn't it often a worse outcome for the criminals themselves when they commit a crime and then get caught because they are of low intelligence, have low impulse control and have a problem envisioning the likely consequnces of their actions, something that is probably to a large extent innate and something they therefore really cannot be blamed for - of course prison is the least harmful option anyway when considerng the harm criminals cause to their victims as well as to a multitude of phenomena that are important for a well-functioning society.

The big question is if a partial segregated and a more authoritarian and socially conservative society - they way that the US worked up until the 50s minus the worst excesses of Jim Crow-laws which were absolutely unjust, but things such as covenants that made neighborhoods homogeneous and segregated schools with harsh discipline even better for blacks themselves - the blacks wouldn't for instance have to be policed by white officers as long as they stay in black areas (that could be an informal agreement), the proportion of black children birthed by unwed mothers, often cited as factor in black criminality, were for example lower pre-1960s than the proportion of white children birthed to unwed white women today while around 80 %, if I remember correctly, of black children are now born to unwed mothers due to the much more socially conservative norms existing across the US.

Besides, a more authoritarian and socially conservative society would never accept the existence and widespread popularity of gangster rap and other such music that explicitly has an anti-social message and which spreads anti-social norms particularly among what would in other cases be construed as a vulnerable part of the population, and which I firmly believe contributes quite a lot to a dysfunctional black culture and to a higher crime rate among blacks.

This was of course before the madness of the 60s when suicidal norms were introduced to the common US culture by a traitourous elite.

As for discrimination based on religion that is in fact something you choose so you cannot use the above argument for outlawing discrimination based on religion.

Religion is just a deeply valued vision of the world that includes something of a sacred nature existing within that worldview. We can easily find people who deeply value a political ideology as seriously as anybody does religion and who sees something sacred in their political ideology so why should discrimination based on religion be outlawed but not discrimination based on political opinion? That becomes the obvíous question and one can feel a slight smell of hypocracy here when one get's the feeling that the liberal left and especially the hard left likes that discrepancy quite a lot now it has hegemonic power.

If you want to call me racist, you are free to do so, but I do't think you can construe it as irrational to want to shield yourself from a small part of the population that is easily reconized by just looking at them and who are so immensly overrepresented in crime. You may find it abhorrent or morally repugnant, but it isn't irrational.

And I value rationality higher than an hypocritic elites' opinion about Diversity, Inclusion, Equity while said elite is at the same time extremely NIMBY-ish. This DIE is only for the plebeian whites, the elites have decided.

Expand full comment

Here’s a policy: all men are prohibited from owning guns, only women can own guns. That would surely lower the murder and violent crime rate. Would you support that?

Expand full comment

also, it's really sad that you "like" your own comments.

Expand full comment

Accuse me of anything else, but liking my own posts? How dare you

Expand full comment

THIS RIGHT HERE. Authoritarian nannies need to understand that the market self corrects. Does anyone actually believe that a business that openly said "hey, we aren't going to hire black people because we don't like black people" would actually be able to survive and compete in the marketplace? 1) They would be at a marked disadvantage because they would be shrinking their labor pool by missing out on many competent employees many of whom would be black and many of other races and ethnicities who wouldn't want to work there. 2) They would face such intense backlash they would probably lose customers and suppliers almost overnight, most likely forever.

Expand full comment

Its power, not markets, not money, not truth. Not economics.

The Authoritarian State is asserting its authority and cracking down. They faced a populist (peasant) uprising and their cracking down.

Normal history.

Expand full comment

It is certainly interesting how so many right-wingers these days think that they are leading a kind of revolution... I guess you could describe it as a kind of counter-revolution, but the track record of these is quite bad AFAIK... 🤔😬

Expand full comment

We most certainly are not. We are being crushed, there is no counter. Indeed Mr. Hanania here is only defining the problem.

No, you Leftists have won it all - save the Army and Police ranks, and the majority of the people.

That may or may not tell.

The gloating may tell in the back end.

Now as far as Track Records- I perceive you may misperceive what’s happening; what’s happening is the ~tricky~ consolidation of power after a Color Revolution, which is what just happened. Speaking of bad track records- unless one thinks Syria, Iraq, Ukraine are a good “track record” then your period of Triumph may indeed be fleeting.

But have no doubt- you have “won” The Best Corner Offices, which is what’s really important to you.

You might need that Army, Police and People you’ve wrongfooted and wronged, but do enjoy your Triumph.

Expand full comment

First of all I wouldn't consider myself a "leftist", maybe broadly progressive...

Anyway the fact is that the right is wailing in its own victimhood, but then that's nothing new...

Expand full comment

Except the Radical Left is totalitarian. Democracy offers change and certain degrees of freedom which would disappear if the Radical Left has its way.

Expand full comment



Dear Jagger, lol the IF was THEN, the WOULD is NOW, and they are most assuredly having their way.

Expand full comment

Democracy is dead. That wasn’t an inaugural , it was a State Funeral.

Dude that is hilarious.

Did you go into a coma in 2015 and just emerge?

Lol. Seriously.

Dry humor, really.

Expand full comment

And the radical right is not? Also, what exactly is the "radical left".

Expand full comment

The business that openly states it discriminates would be illegal under Richard’s rule.

Expand full comment

That's a great fantasy but things just don't work that way in real life. The "Get woke go broke" in fact does nothing, no amount of conservative anger has changed facebook/google policy, and the "market" doesn't give a shit. This terribleness will simply become the new normal as people forget what things were like before.

Expand full comment

Well no.

That’s the market fantasy.

When you have the central banks and all the banks in a credit Fiat economy you don’t go broke, you break others with a keystroke.

This is also the Fantasy version of Civil Rights, as opposed to the Caldwell version where in the name of tokens the young managerial elites of the 60s seized administrative diktat powers.

All that’s happening is it’s being realized .

Trump and the Drama was the Bovines suddenly realized the truth and elected a Carny Barker as Tribune.

Woke revolt is Partly because the current crop of elites brats can’t wait for college to end and work their way up into Daddy’s and Mommy’s office.

I can agree college is a waste of time.

Anyone who still thinks this was about Civil Rights ...😂😂

Expand full comment

Government bailouts, over-regulation and red tape are the reason the market is dying. The CRA is part of that, it adds to the problem of low competitiveness under the excuse of... low competitiveness. The end result is exploding debt, outsourcing and wealth differences - they're now much worse than any other point in American history. The CRA played a major role in achieving this sorry state of affairs.

Expand full comment

To Horseshoe Left: The CRA was a modest program under Jimmy Carter that got picked up by the neoliberals under Clinton and turned into a Government Sponsored criminal Enterprise. Part of the entire era of Big Government is over, Reinventing Government. In other words privatizing it and since the Clintons were career criminals who specialized in politics Piratical Priratizing government.

The GOP was only too happy to go along of course.

Bush expanded it to Hispanic newcomers in a vote buying scheme, the GSE et al et Fannie et Freddie et tu Brute until it exploded.

And no I don’t blame the Mexicans. As if they had any idea what was going on. They probably thought American socialism was great!

The market by the way ceased to exist with the 2006 ARM reset, as price discovery ended then, except for a couple of months in 2008. We won’t be seeing Mr Market again, no.

Expand full comment

“ While the categories of white, black, and Native American make sense in the context of US history, later arriving groups have had their “official identities” constructed in Washington.”

I agree that AAPI is a funny category, but ‘white’ has changed its meaning over the years. People in early America often talked about the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race, now white also means ethnic Irish and Poles. And what makes someone Navajo and someone Seminole more the same than someone Vietnamese and someone native Hawaiian? My point is that all of these categories are silly constructions and accidents of history, and the government creating a new census category is no less silly than Columbus calling Taino people Indians. And of course today, many Native Americans are proud to be Indian!

Expand full comment


Maybe because Navajo and Seminole come from the same continent and are more closely related to each other than to the other groups?

Expand full comment

What about Vietnamese and Chinese? Bordering countries with different languages. The immigrants to the USA tend to have different socio-economic status and political views. They tend to get grouped together in the USA because they look ‘similar’ according to some. And we often don’t call people from Pakistan Asian Americans, although they get called Asian in the UK. Any sort of genetic relationship seems to me to be irrelevant; language, culture, and patterns of immigration shape those immigrant communities in the USA much more than genetics. But the overall categories we use are just historical accidents that don’t mean a whole lot.

Expand full comment

"they look ‘similar’ according to some."

As opposed to others who think Chinese look more like people from far away?

"And we often don’t call people from Pakistan Asian Americans, although they get called Asian in the UK. Any sort of genetic relationship seems to me to be irrelevant"

It's almost like these are two different types of Asians genetically, West Eurasians(Caucasians) and East Eurasians(Mongoloids), and people intuitively resist using the same word to the refer to both of them regardless of what the census says.

"But the overall categories we use are just historical accidents that don’t mean a whole lot."

I agree, the US-census race categories don't make a lot of sense, but I don't think regular people pay much attention to census categories. People aren't mixing up Pakistanis and Chinese, not even the brain-dead types who go around punching Asians because of the virus.

Expand full comment

Maybe all "races" should then be classified using genetic testing?

Expand full comment

Genetic testing for race corresponds with the self described race of a person in a about 99 % of cases of persons tested. Several studies have replicatd this result. I can find the links if you want hem.

Contrary to common belief race is not the same as skin color. Imagine that! Medical doctors have to adjust dosage for many medications when considering to which race they are giving a drug because different races metabolizes or disposes of different drugs more efficietly and some races get other side effects than others.

Also, does somebody really honestly think that during natural selection there was selective pressure that affected the color an dtype of hair on the skull, the color and some other properties of the skin (Oilyness for instance) on the skulle, the bones of the skull which basically lies directly under the skin of the head where blacks have a higher bone density overall than whites do but then Evolution, this quirky little creature that likes to conform to liberal ideology and the idea of the blank slate, in it's infinite wisdom decided somewhere from the way on of the dura mater which lies proximate to the bone of the skull and then onwards to the Arachnoid mater which is the middle membrane of the CNS and then onwards to the pia mater that is proximate to the brainthat Evolution should probably leave the brain alone and be done with it with this organ, in Evolutions' sense not different fron any other organ such as the skin or the bones, and thus Evolution decided to leave the brain alone and stopped acting like it has done for billions of years on any part of the body?

A really great idea that of course nobody would take seriously and would be considered ridiculous if humans living in the west wasn't indoctrinated/socialized into believing in the central tenets of liberalism such as such as the blank slate and that all races are the same except for unimportant external features such as color and texture of hair.

Expand full comment

Exactly! Good point, that I made above... the "racial" definitions change all the time...

Expand full comment

Of course that’s what we want. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Expand full comment

Some call it 'bigotry,' most others, Freedom of Association.

Expand full comment

No. That’s not what’s wanted. Much more is wanted. Much more.

Expand full comment

Change the law...sigh.

I'm sure if I look I'll find 1933 Jews hiring lawyers to protect their rights from the new Government in Germany...

Change the Law. The Laws do not apply to them, the laws rarely in history apply to power.

They who are sovereign decide the exceptions, in this case they've excepted their entire apparatus of power.

We have to change the government, and as far as cancellation we need to cancel those who would cancel us, or as they put it 'Erase Whiteness." ERASE WHITENESS is pretty clear.

It's openly genocidal. Against the law 18USC s.1091 C- Incitement of Genocide- but clearly there are no laws that apply to them.

This is past a matter of laws or culture; this is an existential conflict.

Now the ERASE WHITENESS crowd are merely hired thugs doing their master's bidding.

A tiny number.

A larger but still very small number of a few thousand to a few tens of thousands drive the entire 'culture' and certainly the government.

Interestingly enough mostly elite whites and their charming spawn.

The idea of changing laws or even more ridicule worthy elections is patent fantasy.

We cancel those who wish to Erase us by any means available and all means necessary.

In survival any means are justified by the end- survival.

Expand full comment

Nobody wants to kill you

But it sure sounds like you would jump at a chance to kill others

Expand full comment

Maybe because "whiteness" isn't something that is objective and real? It is an academic concept, refering to US "white culture", which might or might not be a thing...

Expand full comment

No, its a skin color.

And as it happens being color blind is now the worst racism, per Comrade diAngelo.

Keep up Comrade.

Expand full comment


I think this is meant by "whiteness" in the academic context.

Expand full comment

So conservatives just want to go back to the 1950s? I knew it

Expand full comment

We want to live.

We want to make it to 2050.

The other side wants to kill us.

Their desire may outweigh our will.

The children's toys are just a distraction, and boy does it work.

Expand full comment

The fact that this comment got the most likes of any reinforces exactly my fear of the current right. Fed enough kool-aid, you decide that you can only protect yourself via pre-emptive violence.

Expand full comment

Tom; we’re listening to Leftists. We respect their positions- like ERASE WHITENESS.

Like 2020 all year.

Like the 50::1 interracial murder rate, not in our favor. Like the quote below Ty put up about kill everything white in sight, like CRT.

Tom you need to stop hanging around right wing sites, and start reading left wing sites. Respect them and take them at their word. And deeds.

That’s all we’re doing.

Expand full comment

50:1 interracial murder rate? See, this is what I worry about. FBI stats indicate the ratio is less than 2, and given poverty rates and crime, that doesn't particularly surprise me. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls)

But I'm going to bet you'll be back to quoting 50x within a few days because your fear is what rules. The facts can be adjusted to to fit the fear. That's how our brains work.

By the way, before you point at 2x and gasp, may I point out that the inter-gender murder ratio *is* a factor of 10, and no doubt you would consider it absurd for women to live in absolute fear of men, despite they're *vastly* more murderous.

But no doubt that will be forgotten as well. After all, fear consumes all.

So no, I won't listen to what the fringe of *any* side says, because at best, it will make me a less effective, less rational, more destructive citizen that is going to be grifted my someone happy to exploit my fear. Because that's what fear always does.

Expand full comment

Perhaps you should take the population ratio of the respective groups into consideration? Blacks make up 13 % of the population, whites make up 60 %.

What we have is an 1000 % overrepresentation in interracial murders commited by blacks against whites. (And the source you are citing does not by a long shot include all murders, it only includes murders when there's one offender and one victim and we for instance know that blacks are overrepresented in mass shootings as well, contra the mainstream narrative which nowadays by the way is unabashedly anti-white and breeds resentment among other racial groups, primarily blacks, against whites which in turn make blacks more likely to assault and kill whites).

What happens when whites make up 15 % of the population, or 10 %, or 5 %, which is the obvious endpoint for a neverending mass migration of non-whites into the US at a pace where the low nativity of whites (A racial trait, presumably at least partly genetical in origin and shared by Whites and some East Asian ethnicities) can never make up for the constant immense influx and where a sizeable proportion comes from Africa. Somalians in Minnesota doesn't do to well for themselves, and that's just a fact, and they are not alone among the africans that are hugelt underrepresented income and overrepresented in crime although some africans such as certain ethnicities from Nigeria are very successful, but they are not the mayority of black migrants to the US.

Expand full comment

What should we do about the male trait, that men commit the vast, vast majority of murders and violent crime?

Expand full comment

A lot of talk about rationality but you're not controlling for the ratio of each group. Also the poverty argument is lazy as there are 20 million whites under the poverty line (who aren't eligible for minority only benefits) while only 8 million blacks are under the poverty line.

Maybe you can make a case that the average population density for each demographic plays a factor but it's doubtful this can explain even the majority of variation. At best, this is a case of a culture that glorifies violence.

Expand full comment

I notice no one has taken on the challenge of the male to female murder rate, or apologized for lying about statistics.

Expand full comment

Black males are over-represented there as well, so solving the racial end will help the sex disparity too - it's a good starting point. The next step is education - get rid of public schools, they create criminals. Too much red tape and government regulations deprive people from livelihood and create crime. Reduce immigration and drug traffic, put a leash on opioid pharma - all that contributes to high male criminality. Uphold the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense - these are the most potent crime reducers. A lot can be done and you should be supporting all of the above

Expand full comment

I actually think race is an enemy diversion that is becoming the main attack, and don't believe in the entire race eschatology. I think politics is power and that's all. Perhaps I'm a not racist Machiavellian?

however...privileged little white shit trustifarians and apparently some hapless negroes DO, so we can make a note of it.

The truth is if you were born and raised here you're almost certainly American in outlook and the ability to get along.

Almost.Certainly. Until you go to college at least...

Now this is nothing less than divide and rule by color coding, and the overwhelming majority of the rulers are WEIRD - white, Educated, Intelligensia, Rich, and Democratic party. As were most of the Trustifarian Tifa [antifa] protestors, most of the Dirksen building we guarded except for the nice black people working as guards or plant staff.

The Dirksen building is the real Congress if you don't know how our government works, we had the dubious orders to guard them and their rather flimsy Green Zone ala carte. I should mention here Tom that in a matter of days the Black soldiers noticed that the only Black people were in livery as were we [soldiers being seen as armed butlers, yes....] and any racial enthusiasm vanished. This ties into my main point here Tom...the Racial Conflict in America [TM] is overwhelmingly Elite Whites vs Peasant, er Populist non-elite whites...

So Tom, unless you are indeed African American would you mind not waving *someone else's skin* at us? Now if you are African American, Black, Negro, etc we can talk on those terms.

If you're White Tom kindly leave those poor people [blacks] out of it....and lets talk like a couple of white men who have a problem with each other.

Because White people having a problem with other White People is the great Racial Divide / Racial Conflict [TM] in America.

The core American Political Conflict is our Elites have an World Empire, but their own people do not Kneel.

Both sides of this conflict are White. The rest of you can step aside.


Expand full comment

You should be a "racist" Machivellian - i e thinkninh about whatäs good for your race first and using every lawful method to achieve what is good for your race.

Decades of increasingly anti-white rhetoric from the media machine has made the representatives of every race (With the possible exception of east Asians, but I think that is changing fast) inte exactly these "racist" Machiavellians you name.

And we know from evolutonary psychology that you can only beat or even compete with ghroup sthat practive identity politics, ie politics based on strong ingroup feeling such as for instance ethnocetrism in the case of race, with identity politics.

That seems to be the main reason why the mainstream media shifted from covering real rightwing dissidents to the so called Intellectual Dark Web which was oresented as an alternative by being given extremely flattering coverage in the New York Times by Bary Weiss (the IDW consisting of the all leftist clique of people such as Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Clahre Lehmann and similar people). the IDW being the most "right-leaning people" (Which is ironic since they are with maybe 2 % exceptions all leftist and the rest are mdoerate conservatives) allowed a voice in the mainstream because they speak almost exclusively to whites and they preach individualism and anti-identity politics even going so far as calling white identity politics uniquely disgusting.

So what the mainstream, who is undoubtedly your enemy, wants you to do is be an atomistic individualist consumer who never feels you are part of a white collective and that never acts in it's own interests because of prinicple - If you are white, that is.

Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews and every other group are very much allowed to feel as an ingroup and act as an collective for their opwn interests and play the identity politics game.

PPS. Identity politics, as I guess you understand, doesn't have to be stupid and hysterical such as the left wing's version of identity politics is. Identity politics only means that you are doing activism and/or voting for the representatives that are the best and most effectively advances the interests of the collective that you feel part of because of your identity - and race is the most fundamental identity.

Expand full comment

Yeah I agree... this is why I consider the right-wing parties in the US and Canada to be more dangerous than the left-wing parties. In some European countries (e.g. Germany, I think it's the other way around...). So don't call me an ideologue.

Expand full comment

Andreas; what is this US right wing party you speak of, so I can join?

A controlled and supine, bought and paid for captive opposition is not a party. If you mean the Republicans, but I repeat myself.

Stalin would have wept to have the GOP, the USSR could have been a multi party democracy. Sheer revulsion at the sight of the Republicans would have allowed the Communists a safe democratic system. Its not as if the GOP would have been a threat to Stalin or to anybody.

Expand full comment

There are parties in the US that have as their main focus "the protection of the White race" ....if that's what you mean... and I am very confused about your Stalin analogy... I mean the GOP literally votes against many of the democrats' proposals, such as the new voting rights law... and even have some democrats (e.g. Manchin on their side)....so I doubt Stalin would like the GOP if he were a democrat... though the most recent GOP president was in some ways closer to Stalin than any democrat since at least the 50s ....

Expand full comment

What is this party? That is pro- white,?

Certainly not the dems or GOP.

Expand full comment

Nobody wants to kill you, man!

Expand full comment

Doesn’t make sense a lot of black people have white or white Hispanic family members at least that I know.

Expand full comment

Those things were either said or they weren't. Since we have video evidence that they were said it would seem to contradict the claim that "Nobody wants to kill you, man!"

Expand full comment

You must not believe your lying eyes, Citizen.

Expand full comment

He was using "nobody" rhetorically; he more precisely should have said "no significant proportion of the population". You chose to misinterpret "nobody" literally.

Expand full comment

Doesn't make sense? What do you mean? Are you saying the people on the video who were recorded saying those things were in fact NOT recorded saying those things???!?

Expand full comment

They’re demanding you don’t believe your lying eyes.

Expand full comment

A lot of Germans had Jewish family members, look up the intermarriage rate.

Expand full comment

Yeh, you know back when America and her institutions actually functioned.

Expand full comment

I found your article from a link at Revolver.news. I'm very glad I did, because you hit a 3-run homer with this article. I have thought a lot about how to combat "wokeness" and was as baffled and helpless as you described Tom Cotton (I saw that interview and even thought the same thing, he had no idea what to do about wokeness.) But I didn't have any idea either. Individual resistance is indeed futile. Your premise that the entire woke movement is based in laws passed over the years is brilliant, and I think you are absolutely right. This article is the first one I have ever read explaining the origins of wokeness. You also layout concrete, albeit long term, measures to dismantle it, which I have also never seen before. I subscribed to your newsletter and will go back and read your earlier work. I'm glad I found you, and you can thank Revolver.news.

Expand full comment

This is an outstanding article and it is gratifying that a writer with an audience has correctly blamed the parallel Constitution created in the 1960s and the vast academic, corporate, and governmental bureaucracies enforcing it, which every Republican now seems happy to defend as "progress."

Expand full comment

This isn't true - Griggs v Duke Power ruled that IF an employment test resulted in disparate impacts among minority groups, the court must evaluate whether the employment test is "reasonably related to the job for which the test is required". In this case, the court ruled that the company's employment tests were unrelated to applicants' ability to perform the jobs at issue. It's empirically false to state that Griggs v Duke Power was only about disparate outcomes.

Expand full comment

One more thing to add to Richard's list. The courts need to rule that subjective harm is insufficient for an institution to take action against the accused. Currently, if a student claims that certain language instigates trauma, a school will take action against the speaker. The court needs to create a standard where damages have to be proven, and can't just be subjective to the person making the claim.

Expand full comment

Interesting analysis. I would add one more "litmus test" on the wokeness front, although I believe this would have to be done at the state level. Many states mandate that each town in the state needs to have a certain amount of their housing set aside for low income families. I guess this was originally meant to be a way to address affordable housing issues, although I don't think there are many rural areas where this is really an issue. But at least in the woker (or more woke?) areas it's come to be a way to foster diversity. My small college town is very excited about these initiatives as a way to import poorer people and increase our racial diversity. And of course I have no problem with anyone moving into the town, and I'm glad laws prevent racial discrimination in this area. But I have no idea why it's widely accepted that we want to encourage poorer people to move in, who by definition will pay little in property taxes but require more in services and perhaps have adverse effects on crime and school performance statistics. It's the exact opposite of what normally functioning towns would want.

Expand full comment

Jesus and the prophets spoke a lot more about the poor than they ever did about “people of color.” Current housing prices are affecting ALL the poor. And many say if we put more housing on the market, period, we wouldn’t have such need for subsidized housing! A community is not a truly inclusive community unless all wage levels paid in the community can live there.

Expand full comment

Despite my earlier nitpicking I should also have said that this was a very good article and that you have a fine analytical mind and is refreshingly intellectually honest, Mr Hanania.

Expand full comment

I share your picture of the GOP as a completely ineffective institution in the sense that the GOP either cannot or don't want to (And I think it's the latter 'cause the donors has the last say on any issue while voters can only rubber stamp an individual for a number of years) take issue with one thing you wrote very early on "...And it makes sense because his voters don’t really care either but want someone to say the right words.”

This is absolutely not true for the most part of the voters, I would readily make an exception for the most slavish devotees of the Trump personal cult, but white average americans hasn't had somebody who has genuinely represented their interests since at least the cold war ended (And one could easily argue since before the 70s ended).

So in a sense average white americans, who make up 90 % of the GOPs electorate, are like starving children hungry for anybody that seems to take their side and seems to care about their interests and the problems they are experiencing - the media certainly doesnät - and the first sign of somebody doing that is of course their talking about the problems that affects you. This is of course not all it takes, action is necessry, but any sane man who hasn't given up on the system would still vote for the person who at least says he will take care of your interests before the candidate that is completely oblivious to your interests.

If a presidential candidate in the srtyle of Tucker Carlsson got involved in the next race and took the average americans intersts in stride verbally and then delivered on the promises Trump would be forgotten in an instant and it would become apparent how lousy of a huckster Trump really was.

Now, the dispicable GOP-politicans have understood this and always give lip service to what the voters care about when it's election season, but somehow those promises made by the GOP representatives, att all levels of government, never turn into highly prioritized policy issues - because in the end it's the donors - who are overwhelmingly socially liberal, fiscally "conservative" - ie they favor low taxes for the very rich, woke or at least not not-woke arte the one's who decide what the agenda should be when it comes to policy priorities when the electionis over. And this goes for every level in the GOP, I would say.

The best thing for white amercicans would be if the GOP was utterly destroyed and the despicable narcisstic hustler Trump was sentenced to a life sentence on Saint Helena - what election promises did he make good on: Building a wall? Stopping Migration? Making sure jobs returned to the US? Upholding Law and Order?

No, it was cutting taxes for the rich, giving Israel carte blanche for their expansionist policies and their ethnic cleansing of the West bank - something only the lunatic christian sionist fringe, an ever smaller part of the GOP electorate, cares about, and prison reform which means that ever more danceropus criminals are now out on the streets and to boot letting the worst riots for at least thirty years, arguably 50 years, just pass by with 36 people killed and billions in damages, all because a robber who had put a pistol to a pregnant womens belly and demanded her money were killed by a fentanyl overdose and how he's Saint Floyd, actually bigger than Jesus.

And for this Trump lost the white working class and suffered a well deserved defeat in a few key states (Although I wouldn't be surprized if there were election fraud involved - every part of the elite and it's institutions wanted Trump gone - but good riddance I say).

Expand full comment

Why do you assume that White Americans have to a large part the same interests...? This doesn't make any sense, as they are the biggest group in the country, living in various states and of various socioeconomic status... Republicans might have 90% of their voters being White, but that doesn't mean that 90% of White Americans vote Republican...

Expand full comment

Of course not all whites have exactly the same interests, but there are clearly some things that can be described as interests that are common to all whites, such as staying a majority in a country that is a democracy or republic where the majority of the population chooses the representatives that make the laws in this country.

When whites are no longer the mayority - in fact in the year 2100 whites will be small minorities in almost every western country that is in the US sphere of cultural influence and which only 25 years ago unquestionably was seen as countries which whites or the different ethniticites that belong to the racial group white was the natural owners of, by heritag and custom.

So, if presen trends don't change drastically and nothing implies they will - the minority groups of whites' fates that live in former completely white countries (Except the Us which hd a 88 % white mayority as late as the middle 60s) will be in other racial groups' hands and if we look at history minority groups tend to not be treated well with one sole exception.

And the only exception of minority groups not being treated well has been how liberal white societies have treated other races from the 19th century beginning with the abolition of slavery not just in white societies - but whites were sent to fight other whites and other racial groups to make them give up slavery that did not affect whites - so white blood was spilled to enhance the fitness and reproductive capcity of other racial groups, somewhting which as well is clearly not in the interests of whites, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint which is all that matters as all groups naturally want to survive (unless they have been exposed to heavy indoctrination as whites have been in the US sphere of cultural influence).

These policies which lowered the fitness of whites and enhanced the fitness of other racial groups continued and has in the approximately 60 last years been accelerating towards today's policies which can without exaggeration be called suicidal policies (suicidal for the white race, that is) - where diversity, which is now a sacred value, in practice means less whites represented in culture and in positions of power.

For instance a group of 12 black women can be described as diverse in the mainstream culture - without anybody but dissidents pointing out the incosistency - and diversity is as our elites tell us constantly something to be strived for by all decent humans.

These suicidal policies were beginning to be seriously implemented by the elites of mostly the US when they decided how the post-WWII liberal world order should work (And the countries that were in the US sphere of cultural influence naturally followed along).

May I suggest you read James Burnham's extremely prescient book, written in 1964 if I remember correctly, that is called The Suicide of the West if you are seriously interested in a succint representation of the decline of the white race and how this have been championed by elites in the US (Which have since sometime in the middle of the 20th century not been as white in composition as is commonly imagined).

Expand full comment

We'll just keep fucking until we're all the same color.

Expand full comment

Well it is obvious to me that you are an American white supremacist, since your definition of "White self-interest" is not something that most people in Europe and other "White" places would agree with... anyway you are not offering any sources for your claims, do I will ignore the nonsense you wrote...

Here's an article that succinctly shows why people like you and others who think that way act like you:



Expand full comment