Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Between a Cuck and a Hard Place.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 7:13-21King James Version (KJV)

My greatest fear for the dissident right has always been capture by Stormfront entryists. Unfortunately, this seems to have come to pass with the successful influence of Stormfront types  who have successfully able to rebrand themselves as the alt-Right.  As Ramsay Paul points out that the problem for the Rightist who finds the mainstream Right repulsive is that alternative positions or movements he might wish to entertain have become increasingly constrained by the infusion of the alt-Right into what was formerly intelligent NRx.

NRx, particularly Christian NRx, is the long term future for the Right. However it is now getting squeezed by the mainstream Right and the alt-Right. Mainstream Rightists like to label any Rightist who is outside their opinion window as a Racist, on the other hand, their mirror image, the alt-Right, likes to label any Rightist outside their window as a cuck.

As much as NRx is an intellectual movement it does need people. Not just in terms of thinking, but in terms of disseminating ideas, organising people and so on. It doesn't need to be a "mass movement" but it does need to be a real movement, otherwise it's simply pie in the sky ideas and will be without any historical relevance whatsoever. The problem is for NRx is not just diagnosis, the problem is how to move the world. The apparent current strategy, of being the last man standing, is in my opinion false.  A collapsing society produces power vacuums and that vacuum is going to be filled either by NRx grasping power or someone else doing it. Power tempered by ideas is the ultimate imperative of NRx.

NRx is going to need people. Governance is not through ideas alone, rather it needs people who are going to implement them. Not the People-of-Walmart, otherwise known as sheep in the Bible, but shepherds. NRx seemed to provide a space where intelligent ideas could be discussed freely and a rallying point for those intelligent but dissatisfied people of the right. However, with the infusion of the alt-Right, thought policing--admittedly of different kind--has returned with methods of the SJW, driving away the intelligent people.

Racist is the term used by the Left for anyone who opposes their multicultural dogma, Cuck has now become the slur for anyone who opposes the Stromfront view of Race. There is quite simply no middle ground between the two groups. It's one set of puritans against the other. Dumb and dumber; the intelligent person just wants to walk away. The role of the Alt-Right is to proletise NRx.

For the Left this state of affairs is particularly fortuitous and sometimes you have to wonder if they bring out their alt-Right hitmen every now and then to discredit intelligent Rightist through guilt by association. Nothing, and I mean nothing, would benefit both Hillary and the GOP to see the Stormfront types endorse Donald and he likewise embrace their views. They are political poison.

Nationalism does not have to be toxic. The alt-Right makes it so. The reason why Victor Orban put Richard Spencer in Jail is because Victor Orban's racial awareness is not the same as Richard Spencer. Racial realism or more better still, group identity, does not imply a malignant racism.  Yet the Left would like you to think so and the alt-Right want you to do so. They work in synergy and they're working to kill NRx.




For the record. I have no association with Ramsey Paul whatsoever. I've simply reblogged his post because I thought it was very good.

27 comments:

Greg said...

What do you think has contributed more to this state of affairs: The Left calling absolutely everyone that is non-Left 'racist' (and thus the non-Left simply adopting and/or accepting the label out of exasperation, frustration, or fatigue), or, the concerted effort (by those across the political spectrum) to avoid and/or cover up anything (esp. research) that would suggest that there are in fact race differences?

Nick B Steves said...

The role of the Alt-Right is to proletise NRx.

That shoe fits just as well on the other foot: The role of the Alt-Right is to be gentrified by NRx.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Greg

What do you think has contributed more to this state of affairs:

I think the cause is complex. Firstly, I think the debate becomes much harder with an influx of cognitive misers. Cognitive misers tend to be binary in their opinions and cannot recognise complexity in an issues. That's why as soon as the mob gets involved the argument becomes polarised.

Secondly, I do think that many people are torn on the subject of race and its relation to justice. Lots of people instinctively hate the notion of penalising someone one on the basis of their race. I think a lot of the white hate out there--especially by whites themselves--is more an expression, in the cognitive miser, of a love of justice rather than the hatred of whites. The real life discrimination against whites is seen as a sort of cosmic Karma for the sins of the past and so many leftists are prepared to accept some discrimination against the whites since they feel it's a payback for the past. Of course, punishing some one for someone else's sins is totally unjust, but intellectually consistency isn't a feature of mob logic. I think quite a few "soft" righties are sympathetic to this view as well.

This is where the alt-right gets it completely wrong. I think there is a large middle that want racial homogeneity but they also want it to be a just homogeneity, not one which disenfranchises another group of people. Decent people think screwing other people over is wrong and this is where the alt-Right loses support from the mainstream when it implicitly advocates malicious solutions to racial problems. The problem with the alt-Right is that it is so focused on race that it is completely deaf to justice.

The choice for the Leftist who wants to escape from the mutli-cultural view of the world was either NRx or the alt-Right. Now that the alt-Right seems to be "blog bombing" the dissident right and racial hostility has become much more prevalent, there is less and less space for the person who is not an arsehole and rejects multiculturalism to find a home in.

@Nick

Nothing is going to change the 1488 crowd. There may be some peripheral orbiters who can be saved but the core is never going to be gentrified. The accept its principals is to virtually admit one's proledom.

Nick B Steves said...

Well, SP, I certainly hope you are not equating "1488 crowd" with "Alt-right". The latter being a rather wider tent. In my view "Alt-Right" is so broad a term it hardly can be characterized fairly at all. (BTW, my domain: altright.org is coming up for renewal.) It is certainly true that most men, of any "crowd", will find the path of virtue difficult, and therefore regress to chimp politics, false collectives, and moar chaos.

NRx will always be the narrow path, and few will enter it. I don't think we should be quick to bar the door to serious applicants on the sole basis of insufficiently pure past associations.

Hoyos said...

The motivations behind being a 1488er are primarily psychological in nature, as much as I genuinely hate to play that card. Some of it is reactive pride, some a desire to "look hard", and some a genuine fascination with evil.

You can see it clearly with the focus on Jews as a stand-in for "bad white people" (from their perspective). Doesn't matter that the vast majority of the enemies of freedom are apostate Gentiles, they'll keep searching for a Jew until they find one. They don't even notice that the left hates Israel more than they do, they assume Jew must mean pro-Israel.

They are only among us because of a categorical error, we are an alternative to the left, they are an alternative to the left, therefore they are us.

Shoot, most of their reasoning begins and ends with, "Do you even Nazi, brah?"

The Social Pathologist said...

@Nick

Well, SP, I certainly hope you are not equating "1488 crowd" with "Alt-right".

You may not equate the two but the 1488 crowd certainly do. Nick, I think we're in a serious situation at the moment. The dissident right is growing both in popularity and legitimacy and I'm afraid the influx of the 1488'ers is going to destroy both. Apart from a vague overlap on the subject of racial homogeneity, how are they even "Right" at all. Pro abortion, Pro Homo, Eugenics, strong anti-capitalism, Anti Christian: how the hell are they even considered right at all? Yet they're meant to be wayward kindred spirits?

I think their ideas on "racial solidarity" are really crude but I'm prepared to give them a sympathetic hearing on the subject. It's the other shit that they bring to the table which really does my head in. Especially since nearly all of the other shit is Leftist in nature. Once again, how are they Right at all?

Accepting that the alt-Right is a Rightist movement is playing into the frame of the Leftists who see everyone who disagrees with the mainstream Left view as Rightists. I want to ask you a question: What makes a person right wing? This is a really important question since many people seem to accept the notion that anti-Left=Right.

What seperates the 1488-ers from the radical Left,is the subject of race, not much else.

@Hoyos

You can see it clearly with the focus on Jews as a stand-in for "bad white people" (from their perspective). Doesn't matter that the vast majority of the enemies of freedom are apostate Gentiles, they'll keep searching for a Jew until they find one.

I'm so sick of the "Jew Obsession" on the Right. Not because I have a particular love for the Jews but because it is an irrelevancy that distracts from the real issues affecting our society. I think about Israel with the same frequency as I think about Bolivia, which is never. Focusing on them stops us focusing on ourselves and asking ourselves what are we doing wrong, but it's far easier to blame them than ourselves for our misfortunes.

They are only among us because of a categorical error, we are an alternative to the left, they are an alternative to the left, therefore they are us.

Bingo. The same "logic" was used in the West, during WW2, with regard to Soviet Russia. They were our "friend" because they were helping us fight Hitler. Their true friendship being revealed after the war ended. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Greg said...

"Secondly, I do think that many people are torn on the subject of race and its relation to justice. Lots of people instinctively hate the notion of penalising someone one on the basis of their race. I think a lot of the white hate out there--especially by whites themselves--is more an expression, in the cognitive miser, of a love of justice rather than the hatred of whites. The real life discrimination against whites is seen as a sort of cosmic Karma for the sins of the past and so many leftists are prepared to accept some discrimination against the whites since they feel it's a payback for the past. Of course, punishing some one for someone else's sins is totally unjust, but intellectually consistency isn't a feature of mob logic. I think quite a few "soft" righties are sympathetic to this view as well."

In the US, and in many other First World countries, affirmative action (and similar) laws and practices often benefit people who have no connection to past occurrences (e.g. slavery) and penalize people who also have no connection to past occurrences. Frankly, reparations for slavery would have been cheaper, simpler, and more just than the current system.

Do you think that affirmative action is just an excuse to justify government dependence of large portions of the population (who, often, struggle regardless of past or present events or situations)?

The Social Pathologist said...

Do you think that affirmative action is just an excuse to justify government dependence of large portions of the population

No, I think a lot of white people want to helpt he minorities which had been disadvantaged in the past and they feel by giving them an advantage they're righting the wrongs of the past. I know it doesn't make logical sense but people feel this "intuitively".

Dystopia Max said...

"Lots of people instinctively hate the notion of penalising someone one on the basis of their race"

Lots of fatherless or insufficiently-fathered people have never had their parents judge them more (or less!) harshly than the neighborhood kids based on:

1. Shame it might bring to their family
2. the father's remembrance of his own genetic intellectual and emotional capacity at that age
3. a desire to maintain good standards, practices, and appearances for other people's sake.

But since this notion-hating generally fails for hwhyte people as a whole based on a stereotype increasingly created out of whole cloth, I don't think it works as anything but something akin to the libertarian "well, let's just enforce a few common-sense laws as they're plainly written, then!"

Libertarians have never, ever, ever, done this, which is the first clue that 'just enforcing the laws' or 'just not discriminating' isn't a tenable long-term position.

"I'm so sick of the "Jew Obsession" on the Right. Not because I have a particular love for the Jews but because it is an irrelevancy that distracts from the real issues affecting our society. I think about Israel with the same frequency as I think about Bolivia, which is never. Focusing on them stops us focusing on ourselves and asking ourselves what are we doing wrong, but it's far easier to blame them than ourselves for our misfortunes."

Bit of a switch there. The Israel problem is comparatively tame compared to the very real Jewish question, as America's problems vis a vis Israel are next to zero compared to their problems with entrenched Jewish ethnic networks in media, academia, and governance (primarily of the financial type.) Zuckerberg, Soros, Adelson, Ginsburg, and Kagan are far more threatening to America than an occasionally opportunistic Netanyahu, and failing to mention them and their mindset as primary antagonists in any improvement project is approaching malpractice.

I can see how people who see the generalized perfidy and rank destructiveness of these types can be easily pushed into going all-out on Israel as well. However, we should be Zionists if only for the fact that Jews do better in their own nation and Israel gives us useful story after useful story each day about how to do nationalism right (i.e., when powerful Jewish organizations aren't legally concern-trolling over your shoulder constantly.)

"Accepting that the alt-Right is a Rightist movement is playing into the frame of the Leftists who see everyone who disagrees with the mainstream Left view as Rightists."

Saying nice things about the patriarchy or negative things about the capacity of females for choice is playing RIGHT INTO THE FRAME of feminists, who don't support women nearly as much as we do! We need to continue the wildly successful program of talking about how we're so much more pro-woman and pro REAL CHOICE than those feminists, who are the REAL woman-haters!

Ous said...

Well, I’ve looked into the ‘intelligent’ Nrx and what I’ve seen is nothing more than posers giving each other cranial massages whilst cooing how intelligent they all are; the opposite of intelligence where I’m from... Nrx is nothing but a reactionary nerd yoga class. You mainly rely on the ‘alt-nat-right’ as the sole proof, you are ‘intelligent’, without being able to take on their ideas in an open forum... completely transparent to everyone but you.
What has ever gone on in any Nrx forum but status signalling? Answer: nothing of account, except for the predictable stealth pandering to the established neocon right.
The same as this article Bruce - read this article again - nothing here... just the same... assertions... based on nothing, that it’s Nrx or the deluge. People can spot posers and fakes and Nrx is both.
Nrx is ‘NEOCON’ redux lite. This has become so apparent you might as well take out a page in the NYT. The same ‘us or the deluge.’ The same pretensions, the same uselessness, the same mediocre people flattering themselves how exalted and elite they are, with the same mediocre exaltations and promises. You have gone far beyond losing the trust of anyone who believes intelligence is the quality of ideas, not the quantity of fog you can disperse. You are at the step now where you become a bad joke - tell us how you can’t release your best ideas because the masses aren’t ready for the ‘quality’ of those ideas - that will be good for a laugh - (oh that’s already been done....)
Ok, tell us that there are no herd of fat, dumber than average, cubicle geeks behind the curtain - don’t look behind the curtain! - so much intelligence there! We don’t have to look behind the curtain Bruce... there is nothing behind the curtain worth wasting one time on.

Mark Citadel said...

With each passing week, what sparks of populism within me are being extinguished. Listen, I have met great and intelligent people within the very broad 'AltRight' that Nick mentioned, but I am seeing the same warning signs among others of EXACTLY the kind of thing that drove me from the Counter-Jihad movement.

Among the amazingly erudite discourse I've had, there have been swaths of people either so sociopathic they should probably be put down for the safety of everyone, and others so dimwitted they shouldn't be talking about anything other than the price of snickers bars and how to find Chipotle on Google Maps.

I'm sorry to say, this does come with youthfulness. Believe me, many if not most young people, are retarded. And it doesn't matter if they know the truth about dindus or they make such beliefs fancy with appeals to Neitzsche, self-aggrandizement, edginess signaling, or appropriating the history of groups they have literally no tangible connection to.

I do still think the population ought to be loosened from their tetherings to the Modern mindset, and yes, memes and in-your-face political incorrectness can do that, but let's be serious: any change that does come will be entirely elite based, it will have to be aristocratic, and will have to reject all the facets of Modernity, even the ones that angsty teenagers who had a black guy call them cracker at the park one time, wish they could keep.

There is a large contingent of people today who say "The values we have suck. The values we used to have suck. Let's just make up new values." In this sense, many in the AltRight are repeating the same mistakes of the 1930s, and whether your goosesteps are ironic or not, Liberalism is still going to crush your little 'movement'. What good thinkers can be taken from this Trump-inspired buzz should be taken, Nick is 100% right about that. The others, I certainly have no use for.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Mark

Among the amazingly erudite discourse I've had, there have been swaths of people either so sociopathic they should probably be put down for the safety of everyone, and others so dimwitted they shouldn't be talking about anything other than the price of snickers bars and how to find Chipotle on Google Maps.

The problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of the Alt-Right though the sociopaths want to claim it as their own. This is a real problem since what one person means by alt right is not what someone else does. Practically this creates concept conflation amongst others who have no detailed knowledge of the situation and thus the sociopaths get mixed in with intelligent but unsociopathic. Nothing would better please both the Left and the mainstream "right" than this state of affairs, and that's why some conceptual clarity needs to be enforced as to what it means to be right.


And I'm afraid it's not just the youth, there are people out there who are down-right sociopaths and who want to develop an ideology based upon their sociopathy. They need to be purged. The purging process is not meant to be an exercise of power, but a process that comes from an understanding of what exactly constitutes "Right" membership. Like I say, how can you be "right wing" if you call yourself a National SOCIALIST?

@Ous
Well, I’ve looked into the ‘intelligent’ Nrx and what I’ve seen is nothing more than posers giving each other cranial massages whilst cooing how intelligent they all are;

You either haven't looked hard enough or its obviously above your pay grade.

@Dystopia Max

Accepting that the alt-Right is a Rightist movement is playing into the frame of the Leftists who see everyone who disagrees with the mainstream Left view as Rightists."

Completely missed the point, didn't you? The right is a proposition in itself not defined as a reaction to the propositions of the Left.

Mark Citadel said...

That's not exactly how I'd approach it. To be honest, I don't care what the left would or wouldn't like. If a narrative doesn't exist, they'd create one anyway to demonize us. The issue that I've talked about before is, we are interested in appealing to useful, intelligent people, who actually have some grounding. Those people might be rightly scared off by some of the infantile trash being pumped out right now. That is where I think the division has to lie.

I mean, I don't think this upsurge will last. It's a flash in the pan that will probably shrink by 50% or more after the Trump phenomena passes. Prole-tier should be kept at a distance, alongside dreams of a Nietzschean Reich that features Gattaca roleplaying, laser guns and moon battles with spear throwing quadroon children.

Dystopia Max said...

"Completely missed the point, didn't you? The right is a proposition in itself not defined as a reaction to the propositions of the Left."

As a 'proposition', maaaaaaaaaaaaybe?

As a movement, it most definitely is. Liberal/progressive projects and memes, as a rule, advance against the 'right' (more properly defined as 'stable/lasting institutions and knowledge') by attacking those particular elements of it that are weak or unpopular given the current conditions. Anyone with a working memory of what those conditions used to be, or how they fit in in the past, is going to be offended and reactionary. His success at translating that offense into productive action will be directly related to how quickly he can reverse the particular leftward action.

Joining a party of loosely like-minded people with a mantra of "if you really think about it, we're the REAL progressives" is not a recipe for quick reversal, or indeed any reversal for the most part. The populist right is best as a posse, not a party.

"I think there is a large middle that want racial homogeneity but they also want it to be a just homogeneity, not one which disenfranchises another group of people."

Nobody who uses the term 'disenfranchisement' on a regular basis is worth taking seriously as a rightist ally. Maintaining racial homogeneity without "disenfranchising" or "marginalizing" the heterogeneous is a contradiction in terms.

"Decent people think screwing other people over is wrong and this is where the alt-Right loses support from the mainstream when it implicitly advocates malicious solutions to racial problems."

The only "screw-over" in this proposal is proclaiming a racially heterogeneous meritocracy exists for other people while practicing a racially homogeneous ethnic network and its benefits for yourself. You know, like lots of Jews and amoral whites do. Rectifying names by saying "we will NOT prosecute racially homogeneous networks/businesses/countries among anyone" might screw over some people invested in the myth of meritocracy, but far less than are continually screwed over by the openly malicious lying of the current arrangements and its (((masters))).

"The problem with the alt-Right is that it is so focused on race that it is completely deaf to justice."

"Justice" is currently a term too commonly loaded with poor and conflicting definitions to be used by anybody other than the left("No justice, no peace!")

The Social Pathologist said...

@Mark

I too, would like to see more useful intelligent people. The problem is recognising when intelligence strays and becomes stupid. Having the Ten Commandments as guiding principles, for instance, helps us delineate good thought from intelligent, but ultimately bad, thinking.
Intelligence alone is not enough.

Look at this comment from Dystopia Max.

""Justice" is currently a term too commonly loaded with poor and conflicting definitions to be used by anybody other than the left("No justice, no peace!")

If you can "intelligently" rationalise the disposal of justice, just what type of "Right Wing" ideology are you actually espousing?

Greg said...

Do you think modern perceptions of Nazism are to blame? That is, nearly everyone today would call the Nazis "right-wing" even though such a categorization comes from a decidedly left-wing academia. I mean, the Nazis executed actual members of the German right (that is, German nobles and their supporters). People refuse to believe that the Nazis were considered (and considered themselves to be) the progressives of their day.

Mark Citadel said...

@Greg - What me and Nick B. Steves discussed recently was that the left's constant holiness purging of anyone who disagrees with them and fails to keep up, has caused some of those exiles to think they are right wing, when really they are just unfashionably left wing.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Greg,

I think a big part of the reason why the Nazi's are seen as a right wing phenomenon is because of the historical influence of the Soviet Union on the thinking of the Left. Communism saw fascism as a competing ideology which it wished to align with the class enemy of the workers i.e the Bourgeois. This line was parroted by a surprising number of intellectuals became the default academic groupthink. Jewish Scholars, in particularly, given the both the malignant attention Jews were given by the German fascists, and their historical proclivity for Leftist thought, found it inconceivable that such a malignant ideology could have roots with their own, so they emphasised the distinction.

The other thing at play here is that Hitler's socially progressive social policies have been actively downplayed. Very few people hear about the fact that the Nazi's were one of the first to recognise the dangers of smoking. Their strength-through-joy program gave some impoverished workers their first real holidays, their environment and animal welfare policies were distinctly progressive but this stuff is downplayed to demphasise the overlap with the mainstream Left.

Greg said...

@socialpathologist:

Have you seen this book: http://www.amazon.com/Whitey-Moon-Politics-death-Program-ebook/dp/B00M2766EI/

What are your thoughts on it?

Hells Hound said...

Some clarification is in order here.

What counts as "disenfranchisement" of other groups of people? Ending AA? Reintroducing ethnic immigration quotas? Returning to the immigration policy before 1965?
Which solutions to racial problems count as "malicious"? What are "racial problems" in the first place?
"Penalty" on the basis of race? What is that? Does the stop & frisk policy count? What about police stopping and checking young black male motorists and pedestrians more often that other social groups? Is that also a penalty?

The Social Pathologist said...

@Greg

I've seen the book around but I've not had a look at it. I had a quick look at some of the reviews and it looks interesting. Hopefully I get around to it some day.

@ Hells Hound.

I) Disenfranchisement strictly means taking away the right to vote. More broadly speaking though, it means the removal of political or civil rights from individuals purely on the basis of their race.

2) Affirmative action on the basis of race is thus also wrong.

3) Immigrants, by their very nature, don't assume the rights of citizenship until they become citizens. You can't take away what you don't have. Every country has the right to determine who it lets in, even on the basis of race and culture.

4) "Penalty" on the basis of race?

It means being treated unjustly or unreasonably solely on the basis of race. Frisking is not harassment. It would be if black crime rates were the same as white, though, The coppers don't frisk Asians because their crime rates are so low. If black leaders are concerned about the disproportional attention they get from police then maybe they should concentrate more on understanding why there is so much crime in black communities than being outraged at the police being prudent. Frisking groups who commit more crime is likely to be of greater reward to the police and the community than frisking groups who don't.

Does that explain things?

Hells Hound said...

Who actually argues for "he removal of political or civil rights from individuals purely on the basis of their race"?

" Every country has the right to determine who it lets in, even on the basis of race and culture."

"maybe they should concentrate more on understanding why there is so much crime in black communities"

The social consensus is that these are 14/88 ideas. And that doesn't just include the Left and white liberals. You won't get far with such tenets.

Mendoza said...

"You either haven't looked hard enough or its obviously above your pay grade."

Yeah, great answer to Ous. He's right, you guys are simply a bunch of poseurs. Same with "Moldbug" (sheesh, what a handle)--long turgid vaporings, leading nowhere.

If you are unable to identify the single most damaging source of degeneracy in this country, or are simply afraid to do so, I would refer you to Queen Isabella, circa 1483-1492, tasked with her husband Fernando with finally eliminating the Moslem presence in Catholic Spain, and (oh my!) definitively getting rid of the indwelling traitor. Read Thomas Walsh if you like, he spells it out pretty clearly.

Or don't. Stay in your little pathetic petri dish, accomplishing nothing of merit, and watch as Western Civilization, ie. Belloc's 'Christendom,' perishes because of the inability of men to stand up its defense.



Unknown said...

Why are you conflating the Alt Right with the 1488 Crowd? I am a white nationalist, and I have no interest in the latter. "America should be a white nation" doesn't mean "And then we should conquer brown nations." Indeed, I'd wager many if not most on the Alt Right are isolationists.

Dystopia Max said...

"If you can "intelligently" rationalise the disposal of justice, just what type of "Right Wing" ideology are you actually espousing?"

I'll assume you meant 'can't' instead of "can." You can intelligently rationalize the disposal of punishment according to the law.

You cannot, now or ever, intelligently rationalize the disposal of "justice" according to anything but personal or collective feelings. Treating an emotive and easily-politicized term as though it's a timeless concept that must always be defended is a primary foolishness that leads down a path of much more serious secondary foolishness.

I can take great joy in celebrating the divine and human justice in the destruction of Gawker by a great wrestler, and take joy among those who can see it, I cannot generally rationalize a greater principle from that event, beyond the simplest of platitudes.

And...Trayvon Martin's death is even now an UNACCEPTABLE INJUSTICE among a representative population of black America. The emotively efficient use of the word 'justice' among the black population is going to be qualitatively and quantitatively different than the use of the term by white folks, and people who very much want to be white folks. Smart people will thus avoid making such politically hazardous terms integral to their movement, or conditions of its acceptance.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Mendoza

If you are unable to identify the single most damaging source of degeneracy in this country,

That's easy, to quote Solzhenitsyn, " Men have forgotten God".

@Unknown

Why are you conflating the Alt Right with the 1488 Crowd?

Where is the dividing line? Help a brother out.

Hậu Nguyễn Văn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.