I on the 11th day of the 4th month of 2016 did maliciously attack a hate symbol protected by free speech. After disturbing the vehicle and dumping rotten food into the interior I feel I have improved the community and supported our nations values by stopping a promoter of hate speech. I do not wish to have ignorant bigots in my town and in a just world the person deserved what was received. The situation is made whole. As America is far from just, I expect the bigot will want to be made whole. With this I declare he is owed nothing. But as the situation is what it is, I intent to make individual whole provided he cease to promote ignorance and hate. I do not expect the law to recognize damage to tools of hate or racism, such things need to be destroyed so good people may remain and become free.
I don’t know about you, but I find that argument entirely convincing. More weapons in the anti-SJW arsenal, I suppose, although I don’t think we’ll bother with this one.
Eventually, the Alt-Right is going to transform into an entirely alternative society. The reason this will happen is due to the totalitarian nature of social justice. Notice that I used the term social justice, and not SJW.
Social justice inherently requires totalitarianism because it demands both total convergence and total compliance. This is why SJWs are just as likely to attack Stephen Fry as they are to attack Curtis Yarvin despite the vast ideological and identitational differences between the two men. The sin both men have committed are the same: a refusal to submit to the current social justice Narrative.
The reason societies devolve into civil war, split up, and eventually segregate is because it is no longer possible for one group to live in close quarters with another group. And it appears we are rapidly approaching the point where SJWs and non serviams can no longer occupy the same social media space because the latter are not permitted, as The Ralph Retort reports:
I had been trying to spend more time on the subreddit I setup lately, which is called SJWsAtWork. After Twitter suspended the account I had made for it, due to false spam reports, I kinda got out of the habit of posting stuff over there. Last night, I made a new account (@SJWAlert) and then went to post some new stories on SJWsAtWork itself. One of those was a link to Vox Day’s new site, SJW List. I had no idea this would be a controversial move, but it ended up getting my entire Reddit account suspended.
Honestly, Reddit is sort of a shithole, so I’m not too broken up about it. Still, I’m kinda pissed for the small community we have going on over there. I’m still going to continue posting with my new account, and I will get put back on the mod team by one of the other mods, but it’s just annoying. There was no sort of warning at all, just a straight permanent suspension.
The Alt-Right is still taking shape. But unless it develops the Alt-Tech and successfully creates its own alternative technological and infrastructural institutions, it will suffer the same fate as other minority groups that have been subjugated and forced to choose between submission and elimination.
The A Voice for Men FaceBook page was unpublished by FaceBook today. No reason was given other than a generic inference that we were in violation of their community standards. I find no reason to believe that this means anything but the fact that we were in violation of their feminist based rules for speech.
This does not yet mean an Alt-Society is necessary. We can still drive the SJWs out, and indeed, their insistence on converging the organizations they infest significantly improves our chances of reclaiming control of society so long as stop supporting them and we keep them out of the new institutions and organizations. That is why they are so terrified of the SJW List and that is why they have been attacking it relentlessly almost since the moment of its creation.
Stop using Facebook. Stop using Reddit. Stop using Wikipedia. Only use platforms that play fair – say what you will about Google, but they are not in the business of no-platforming and silencing people – and start building and supporting and using alternatives to the fully converged platforms.
And by most projections, it’s only going to get worse — the U.S. could lose as many as 1 million doctors by 2025, according to a Association of American Medical Colleges report.
Primary-care physicians will account for as much as one-third of that shortage, meaning the doctor you likely interact with most often is also becoming much more difficult to see.
Tasked with checkups and referring more complicated health problems to specialists, these doctors have the most consistent contact with a patient. But 65 million people live in what’s “essentially a primary-care desert,” said Phil Miller of the physician search firm Merritt Hawkins.
Without those doctors, our medical system is “putting out forest fires — just treating the patients when they get really sick,” said Dr. Richard Olds, the chief executive officer of the Caribbean medical school St. George’s University, who is attempting to use his institution’s resources to help alleviate the shortage.
Dr. Ramanathan Raju, CEO of public hospital system NYC Health + Hospitals, goes even further, saying the U.S. lacks a basic primary-care system. “I think we really killed primary care in this country,” said Raju. “It needs to be addressed yesterday.”
Interesting. 65 million people lack primary care. There are at least 61 million post-1965 immigrants. One way to assure that all Americans have sufficient health care is to repatriate those 61 million people. Wouldn’t having primary medical care be considered in the American national interest?
But I don’t see what the problem is. Have we not been repeatedly assured that those 61 million immigrants are here to do the jobs that Americans won’t do? I’m sure Dr. Dirka, Dr. Jose, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Awolowo will do a bang-up job, despite their lower average IQ, under the guidance of Dr. Raju.
The connection may seem a little strange to you, but just as the changing ethnic demographics significantly altered the behavior of Wall Street bankers, I suspect that they have also changed the specialties pursued by med school graduates.
The most likely solution is to relax the accrediting standards for med schools, which should have been done back in the 1980s.
Mytheos Holt explains why Donald Trump appeals to so many dispossessed and disadvantaged whites, as well as why white nationalism is on the rise:
This brings me to the first and, arguably, the most important lesson that Sylvia taught me about what drives people into the arms of white nationalism: that urge comes not from economic dispossession, nor spiritual dispossession, but cultural dispossession.
No, I don’t mean the sort of “where has my country gone” ignorance that I and my fellow coastal cosmopolitans like to mock over cocktails. I mean the sorts of people who are attracted to white nationalism are people whose own communities have been hollowed out by economic and cultural forces beyond their control, and who are now adrift in a society they perceive to be universally hostile to their heritage for no good reason.
That heritage, as white nationalists in America see it, is the heritage of Western civilization. If you wonder what that means (which is reasonable), let me spell it out: It means historically Western European cultural norms. Specifically, norms like respect for agents of the law, aspirational pride in work, willingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions, disdain for laziness and welfarism, and reproductive responsibility (i.e., not having children you can’t afford to keep).
They respect these norms not merely because these are what their own communities follow, but also because they think these norms make constitutional government, liberty, and classical republicanism possible. If you have to pick between the two, defend the norms every day, since temporary cessations of liberty will naturally recover if they’re still in place, whereas the institutions without the norms will become meaningless: the Constitution will become a pointless scrap of paper to which people pay only lip service, and constitutional government will become bureaucracy hiding behind the fig leaf of a separation of powers.
Where this otherwise perfectly respectable, conservative pride in Western culture atrophies into white nationalism when the person holding it comes to believe that respect for liberal Western civilization is inextricably tied to one’s race. One particularly irreverent white nationalist YouTube songster sums this attitude up in a video mocking libertarians: “It’s not that freedom is bad/But only whites think it’s rad.”
Moreover, and this cannot be stated enough: these people genuinely believe that to be proud of the history of Western European accomplishment, and one’s own descent from the people responsible, is taboo in modern America. If you look at what cultural studies departments, much of modern media, left-wing college students, and the crazy wing of the Democratic Party says, this is probably at least partially accurate. Unfortunately, however, it’s not just leftists who are responsible for the rise of white nationalism in communities like Sylvia’s. We conservatives bear some blame too, though in this case, largely because of misunderstandings of how our own behavior is perceived.
It’s a fairly honest assessment, although I would say that it is not a misunderstanding of how conservative behavior is perceived, but rather a straightforward failure of conservatism to defend or conserve Western civilization. Conservatism is not, as Red Eagle and I chronicled in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, a set of principles or a coherent ideology. It is an attitude, and more, it is an attitude that is intrinsically incapable of holding its ground against the forces that assail both Western civilization and the various white nations that built and value it.
Now, I am not a white nationalist for the obvious reason that I am a red nationalist. Also, and more importantly, there is no white nation; only in America can anyone even contemplate the concept. When one lives in Europe, it is considerably more clear that the English nation is not the German nation is not the Dutch nation is not the Italian nation.
However, just as the Jews who historically considered themselves German discovered that it didn’t matter what they considered themselves to be, many Americans of various European descents are learning that in the eyes of those who hate and envy them, they are nothing more than “white”. And, as Holt observes, it should be no surprise that they are beginning to band together and respond to the tribalist attacks on them with a tribalism of their own.
But whether it is intellectually coherent or not, white nationalism is entirely Constitutional. Freedom of Association is an unalienable and Constitutional right. Diversity, imposed and involuntary, is intrinsically anti-Constitutional, anti-American, anti-human rights, and anti-Western Civilization.
Perhaps it takes a Jew to understand that if white nationalism is immoral, so is Jewish nationalism and the State of Israel.
One tenet of that build-a-positive-fantasy-life mental model is the clichéd notion that you should surround yourself with winners and blow off the losers in your life. It’s a simple aphorism that rolls off the tongue easy; associate with winners and that winning will rub off on you. What they don’t tell you to do is how to cut out the unhappy and unlucky persons in your life who also happen to be your oldest friends or closest family members.
This is one of those painful truths that will set you free, but still stings like a bitch.
But eliminate them, or marginalize them you must. Most guys know this, or they come to know it as the first thing once they unplug. There’s a cost to Red Pill awareness.
That being said, the cost isn’t quite as great as most people fear. While it’s true that neither liars nor those comfortable being deceived like being around those determined to seek the truth, the fact is that it’s really not very enjoyable being around either sort.
The liars constantly engage in preemptive attacks to discredit you so that they’ll take less damage in the event you call them out for their incessant shenanigans, and the deceived react angrily every time you say anything that might threaten their cherished illusions.
For most men, finally walking away comes as a great relief.
Some of you will recall that I have repeatedly urged everyone here to stop posting pictures of your children on social media. I consider it to be a reprehensible violation of their privacy and an abrogation of one’s parental responsibilities in two ways: it robs them of the ability to make their own decisions and it risks exposing them to unwanted attention and potential danger. Worse, it does so for nothing more than to feed the short-term attention-seeking fix of narcissistic parents.
Never, ever, put pictures of children up on the Internet. Not on Facebook, not on invitation-only Live Journals, and certainly not on public blogs. It’s not only reprehensibly stupid, it is completely disrespectful of a child’s right to make his own decisions about his public profile in the future. True, sometimes this is unavoidable, such as when a child happens to be in the news for one reason or another. But barring that, no responsible parent should ever upload a picture of a child to the Internet, no matter how proud one might happen to be.
Don’t put pictures of your kids on Facebook or Instagram. It’s stupid. It’s obnoxious. It’s thoughtless and self-centered. And it’s their life, not yours, that you’re putting on public display.
And, of course, there is absolutely no excuse for ever putting a picture of another family’s child on social media, for any reason. So, you can’t say you weren’t warned, as it appears the law in some countries is finally beginning to catch up to the obvious privacy violations involved.
French parents are being warned to stop posting pictures of children on social networks in case their offspring later sue them for breaching their right to privacy or jeopardising their security.
Under France’s stringent privacy laws, parents could face penalties as severe as a year in prison and a fine of €45,000 (£35,000) if convicted of publicising intimate details of the private lives of others — including their children – without their consent.
Eric Delcroix, an expert on internet law and ethics, said: “In a few years, children could easily take their parents to court for publishing photos of them when they were younger.”
Grown-ups who sue their parents for breaching their right to privacy as children could obtain substantial compensation awards, according to French legal experts.
I won’t have any sympathy for the parents who find themselves getting hoist by their own narcissistic petard in the future. They will whine and cry about their ungrateful children, who will rightly respond: “why should I harbor any concern for your financial interests when you demonstrably didn’t give a damn about my legal and moral right to not be put on display to the world like a pet or a trophy?”
A very good, very intelligent article called “What is Neoreaction” by Clark, formerly of Popehat.com, at his new group blog Status 451:
Why democracy doesn’t work
In what ways does democracy fail?
First, as noted above, many people vote as an expressive act. The typical Obama voter knew nothing of his policies, but wanted to be “part” of “something”. There are all sorts of cultural and emotional connotations associated with Team Pepsi, and people want to affiliate themselves with those signals. Team Coke is no better: many Republican voters are in favor of a culture of God, Flag, and Apple Pie, and cast a vote for the GOP as an expressive act, without knowing or caring the actual positions of the candidates they vote for.
Second, we are rationally ignorant: even if every voter chose to vote based on policy, not emotions, our individual contribution to the outcome of an election is insanely close to zero, and — at some level — we all know this. Thus, almost none of us bothers to educate ourselves about the candidates and their positions. This is, individually, a smart choice.
Third, democracy has the principal-agent problem: we voters send politicians to Washington DC for — well, for whatever purposes we have. We hope that, once there, they will do our bidding…and we expect to motivate them to do that bidding by using the threat of our future votes and future campaign donations. But a lot is hidden in that “voters hope to motivate them”. Because voters don’t have time or inclination to monitor politicians, and because they tend to vote for expressive purposes rather than policy purposes (think of all the anti-war Democrats who support Obama and his various undeclared overseas wars), politicians need only do just enough to appear to serve the voters, while actually pursuing their own policies.
Fourth, we humans are hyperbolic discounters. Given the promise of one marshmallow now over two in five minutes, we choose the one now. Is it any surprise that we, en masse, repeatedly vote for the politicians who promise us bread and circuses today, and a bill that won’t come due for … a while? Fifth, democracy has the public choice problem. There are many issues which affect each of us very little — ten cents per person in extra taxes for program X, or three dollars per person more in the price of a commodity because of trade barrier Y, or a slight bit of extra hassle in doing thing Z. These hassles, collectively, destroy a lot of value in our lives, but individually, harm us very little. However, these small barnacles did not randomly accrete on the body politic — each is placed there by the dedicated lobbying of some group that benefits quite a lot from the tax, regulation, or trade barrier. Ethanol in our gasoline harms all of us a little, but helps a small influential group quite a lot. The outrageous salaries of some tenured public school teachers harms all of us a little, but helps a small influential group quite a lot. As long as one small group benefits from a regulation, they will be motivated to secure an outsized influence on politicians. And they will succeed.
However, I would note it should be kept in mind that what the author means by “democracy” here is “representative democracy” and not genuine direct democracy of the sort practiced in Greece, US state referendums, and European national referendums of the sort in which Great Britain is presently engaged. But regardless, a very good article.
My opinion, as I have previously expressed, is that the problems of “mob rule” of which the Founders so famously warned have proven to be considerably fewer and less problematic than the problems of establishing a political elite that uses the illusion of democratic approval as a protective shield. Now that technology makes it viable for larger polities, direct democracy is a moral imperative in any society with a government that is justified by the will of the people.
It’s nice to see a woman actually reflect upon the issue rather than reacting emotionally to it. Ironically, only women who could most likely be trusted with the vote are able to do so. I’ve yet to run into a woman who is able to even try to defend female suffrage on any basis beyond a) personal feelings, b) “fairness”, and c) an appeal to the Unicorn of Equality.
I read “Mailvox: Stampeding the Sheep” with great interest. The first time I ever heard someone suggest that women should not vote was my mother when I was a child. I am 47 years old so it was some years ago. The second time I heard this was from you. I use to think my mom was just nuts, but her words left me wondering. Here’s why:
Invincible: I believed I could do everything a man could. I graduated from the United States Air Force Academy, served as an intel and targeting officer for 7 years before realizing my true vocation was wife and mother. Although my mom despised women in general, she hated the idea that I married (right after graduating) and started to have kids. She was terrified I would be completely dependent on a man like she was. Why is this important? Simply because the feminists have ingrained in my generation a complete (and unreasonable) fear of male dominance.
Vote: Why should women not vote? I thought about this for years. I consider myself more intelligent, more politically astute, and more educated/well-read than most men. However, that does not outweigh one important limitation: emotion. This is what you brought up in your post. Unlike men, women must be TAUGHT not to act on their emotions. For us, this is an immediate response to whatever happens around us (perhaps this is one of the reasons we immediately bond with our babies so it’s not a bad thing if used correctly). Men, on the other hand, hold back their emotions, but if they do not eventually act, they explode. My experience tells me women explode immediately without thought and men explode later with thought. Most women vote because of how they FEEL. Bad move. It has destroyed our societies and made us completely dependent on government.
Need: Women also have an innate need to be cared for, protected, and loved. This is why the male European inaction regarding the Muslim invasion is so appalling. The problem is the Baby Boomers are responsible for two generations (Gen X and the Millennials) that are incapable of doing anything (Yes, I blame the Baby Boomers, but I also blame the so called Greatest Generation who coddled, spoiled, and raised them). Women just replaced their men with a colder, harsher, less faithful spouse, the government. Unfortunately, while men are neutered, women think they are Black Widow.
Black Widow: I really believed I could be as strong, as fast, and as fierce as any man. I just had to work hard. Why? Because the feminists who indoctrinated me said so. I’m ex military, dabbled in martial arts, love cross-fit, and keep a personal trainer. No matter what I try to do physically, I CANNOT compete with a man (OK, I can compete with the young teenage boys). The only thing that evens out this playing field is a gun (arm up feminists because men aren’t going to help you). The feminists set their little darling daughters up for complete failure. We could not compete in this way, but our mom’s insisted our self-worth must be measured against a man’s. What did that mean? ALL women are failures by this standard. That reality hit me hard because it meant women are useless (this kind of supports the Muslim teachings doesn’t it? Thanks, feminists. No wonder you are silent with Islamic FGM)
Baby Making: Yep. This is what completes a woman. It is not to say that some women cannot succeed in careers. Many have exceptional skills and should pursue their God given talent. However, the feminists told us making babies is for stupid women (you know, the surrogates they pay to have their babies for them). That’s NOT true. The first time I felt that I actually accomplished something, was the day I first held my daughter.
Men: My fear of only men having the vote was unfounded. My man would NEVER vote against his family’s best interest. Neither would any man I know. There is a trade off, however. Men, you need to man up and demand your rights. That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you. This is what distinguishes the Christian West from the rest of the world. As life-bearers, women continue life, nurture it, and sustain it. We pass on culture, tradition, and history. This is why Islam cannot coincide with Christians: they hate, despise, and denigrate women. I believe the primary reason the Islamic world is such a hellhole is because the proper role of women was annihilated. Well, the West has also harmed the proper role of women, just not to the same degree as Islam (Islam also has the benefit of more than 1000 years to make their brain damage permanent). Men must reassert their proper place and women need to climb back onto their pedestal.
I have so much more to say, but I am grateful if you read this. Mr. Day, you are right and if more men stand up, women will be much happier. Most of my generation don’t even know what happened because we never saw what the Baby Boomers had (their moms in their proper and much happier roles in the home). I’ve seen both sides of this issue. The feminists built a very dark place for their daughters. Will we recognize what they did before it comes crashing down? I doubt it. Perhaps Islam will open women’s eyes to what they have and thank God everyday for Christianity. If we want men to protect us, we cannot vote against them. They alone must have this power.
The reality is that female suffrage can only be eliminated through despotism, most likely of the sort that comes about through societal collapse. The one possible non-catastrophic solution, which is probably already too late now that Obama and Mutti Merkel have combined to unleash a Muslim invasion of the West, is direct democracy.
And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: it is both possible as well as an improvement on a system that is clearly incompatible with societal survival and Western civilization.
Prior to the advent of mass mind control enabled by mass media technology, there was no real substantial differences between generations…at least not the sort that so thoroughly and contentiously divided us for the past century. Culture was far more static and slow changing, and influenced much more by religion and cultural traditions and norms.
But the advent of the tell-a-vision, radio broadcasting, the consolidation of print media and the popular music industry all gave those with the same agenda of societal control as the Pharisees of old, the means to “Speak” to the mass audience so as to create such artificially imposed divisions as “generations.” THEY told each different generation that the older generations were “uncool” and “old-fashioned.” With mass media and commercial consumerism, THEY were able to institute a continuous, dynamic change in music, dance, fashion, clothing, hairstyles, slang and lingo, and ultimately an ethos and moral code for each generation of youth entering their young adult years, so that THEY successfully severed the connections between generations to divide and conquer we the sheeple.
Just for one example of this, we need only look at the differences in marriage and family between the different generations. Our Grandparents were for the most part the last generation that followed the patterns of multiple generations that preceded them. They mostly dated, got married, had sex, then had children. Our parents dated, got married, had sex, had children, got divorced, dated, re-married, had more kids and often got divorced again. We (GenX) dated, had sex, had children, then got married, then divorced, then remarried. The younger generation don’t date, they hook up and have sex with a multitude of partners (or they’re incel and resort to teh Pr0n, or gay or transgendered or whatevers). Marriage is mostly out of the question, whether they have kids, use birth control, or have abortions or not.
The common cultural ethos and paradigm that drove the changes in mating patterns and family formation (and disintegration) trends are all different for each generation, and it was this artificially created division causing each successive generation to reject the former generations morality that lead to this cultural devolution and attitudes towards family over the span of a few decades.
Mating patterns are an important element in determining culture, so it should come as little surprise that altering the mating patterns would tend to exacerbate the cultural differences between the generations.
It also might help explain the way in which Boomers are totally unable to understand GenX and the succeeding generations as well as the contempt in which Boomers are held by GenX; the Boomers simply don’t perceive that anything structural has changed.
They tend to think of “change” as something that an individual does within the context of a permanent infrastructure. GenX, on the other hand, sees that there is no permanence to the infrastructure, and that the infrastructure is not only transforming, but is imposing its changes on the individual.
The Millennial doesn’t even see the cultural infrastructure, and thereby doesn’t understand either the Boomer perspective or the GenX fury at the order and infrastructure they have lost.
If your regressive, overeducated college-aged nephew (who thinks socialism is a new idea) shows up in his glitter beard and neck scarf, and suddenly starts waxing ineloquently about racial discrimination on his campus, immediately show him to the “safe space” you have created just for him in the extra bedroom upstairs, far away from the rest of the family. Make sure to outfit the room with boxes of Kleenex for his tears, some footie pajamas, an Ani DiFranco CD, and some adult coloring books and crayons. Inform him that the family will be ready to receive him back into the slightly less safe space of conversation when he pulls it together.
Emergency Vegan Meal
If your Aunt Miranda complains about animal cruelty and starts to try to convert you to veganism, grab the Morningstar frozen dinner you have stashed away for just this moment and throw it in the microwave. Serve it to her in the plastic tray. Don’t allow her to go near the homemade stuffing (it has chicken broth in it!) or the handmade pies (those migrant workers who picked those apples were poorly treated!) and slap her hand when she goes for Gramma’s awesome cheeseball (dairy cows are people too!). Make sure everyone knows that Aunt Miranda can’t possibly touch anything other than her frozen vegan tofurkey because nothing else in the house is “fair-trade” or “cruelty-free.” No one would want to force Aunt Miranda to compromise her values.
You might also want to keep a copy of SJWs Always Lie at hand. Just open it when they are talking and occasionally nod and say “check” as they are rambling on about the moral imperative of housing Syrian refugees or how global warming caused the third great wave of Islamic expansion.
