Perspective

Anti-Racism Is Immoral

What if everything you have been conditioned to believe about truth and morality is simply wrong? It is.

“Racism” is a term with many disparate definitions. Indeed, that imprecision is very useful for addicts of the term. It is like having a nine-headed dog guarding the church of diversity at all times. The term is more of a weapon than a word at this point. It doesn’t construct so much as dismantle. It is essentially always and everywhere an underhanded attempt to end all civil debate and declare victory, by people incapable of reasoning above a very rudimentary level.

As far as I can tell the term refers to what are four largely distinct phenomena: 1) the belief that races differ biologically and that those differences matter; 2) the hatred of members of different races; 3) racial prejudice; and 4) racial discrimination.

The first definition, namely the claim about inequality between groups and the import of that inequality, is nothing more than an idea, a truth claim to be precise. Our Cultural Marxist overlords tell us that to believe it is to be a bad person. But that is not true and indeed can’t really be true. Only imbeciles and totalitarians could believe that merely believing this renders one a bad person. What’s more, claiming someone is a bad person for believing this, is what philosophers the world over call a “category error”. You see, this first definition is simply a truth claim about the world. It is not a moral act and thus is not a candidate for moral judgment. For example, if I told you the sky was green, and you told me I was a bad person for believing that, I would reply that you were clearly very confused about something. Now, I may be mistaken about the sky’s color, but I am not a bad person for being mistaken about the sky’s true color. To claim otherwise is to completely misunderstand the subject matter of the discussion; it is to inject matters of morality into matters of reality. We weren’t acting in ways that subjected us to moral judgment. Indeed, we weren’t even discussing moral issues, or what ought to be. We were only discussing how things are or how things aren’t, out there in the world. People who say things like, “racists are evil because they think the races differ in X or Y”, are stupid people. They are people, by and large, who don’t even comprehend what they’re saying, or how utterly idiotic what they’re saying actually is. This is a simple, unmistakable category error. Truth claims about physical/objective reality are not moral (or immoral) acts. They do not possess the basal qualities of moral acts. Moral acts and even moral claims belong to different conceptual categories.

The second definition, hatred, is an extremely rare phenomenon, especially in the modern West. To the extent such hatred even exists anyhow, it is situational and fleeting because hatred is sort of inherently situational and fleeting, and it is also virtually impossible to measure or observe, as hatred is itself nothing more than a feeling. Furthermore, like thoughts/ideas, “hatred” is not something that can be moral or immoral, as it is not an act directed at the outside world, but something entirely personal and internal to an individual. However, since I consider genuine “hatred” of this type to be both extremely rare and outside the knowledge of those who tend to kvetch incessantly about its existence, it is basically a type/definition of racism with minimal import. It is also not so much a valid definition of racism as a smear meant to discredit one’s political opponents. So, while I happen to think that hatred can be both useful and rational in certain instances, again, I don’t wish to harp on this definition for the aforementioned reasons.

Admittedly, racial discrimination taken to its utmost extreme can take a society to rather ugly places (think Nazism). And yet anti-racism, even in a purer, not selectively applied, not fundamentally anti-white form (contrary to how it currently exists and is currently understood), taken to its utmost extreme, is far worse. To take the principles of anti-racism to their logical conclusion is to destroy one’s people and one’s society by design, indeed by necessity. To refuse to distinguish between “us” and “them” in the context of a nation is to abolish the nation itself. To do so in the context or religion is to effectively abolish the religion. If any group wishes to survive, it must take some measures to protect the defining characteristic(s) of the group. Indeed, it must take not only some measures, but adequate measures to do so. To not do so, is to ensure its own demise. What’s more, in the modern world, punctuated by extreme pressures to migrate to wealthier areas, to not do so is to ensure the group’s demise swiftly, via parasitism and invasion. If successful groups do not protect their own interests, they are sure to be swallowed whole by the explosive population growth in populations that wish to share in their success, but which are largely incapable of contributing to it.

Extreme discriminatory racism at least models nature. It at least promotes open competition between groups and celebrates the kinds of successes that nature itself customarily rewards. Anti-racism, on the other hand, is essentially just communism as applied to genes, race, and borders. It is anti-competitive, inherently dysgenic, not progress but anti-progress, and a way for the most worthless peoples on the Earth to gradually consume everything beautiful, precious and decent left on it. Anti-racism is also basically anti-biology. It pretends that evolution magically ceased 250,000 years ago, just because. It is like creationism for leftards, but in reverse. Instead of the Earth magically coming into existence roughly 10,000 years before the present, evolutionary forces magically stopped operating on man a quarter of a million years before the present (when Sub-Saharan Africans and the rest of us split)! Amazing what zealots will believe in the name of ideology/faith.

As has been shown, the term “racism” may be applied to one of four phenomena. The first phenomenon is basically a puerile insult for those who reject race egalitarianism. The problem though, is that race egalitarianism is just patently false, no matter how rabidly leftist totalitarians enforce this pleasant Neo-Lysenkoist fiction. To enforce such a belief, by the way, constitutes nothing less than a war against the truth itself. All racial populations are not equal in their abilities. They are not even remotely equal. Indeed, as data continues to accrue regarding the genetic differences between human populations, even well-known Jewish scientists like David Reich, are beginning to reluctantly concede that race egalitarianism is just intellectually untenable. With that said, even if race egalitarianism was true, which it most certainly isn’t, it still wouldn’t be immoral to believe otherwise. Whereas the second type of racism is simply just a feeling, not subject to moral judgment, and not a particularly good subject for any kind of moral analysis.

The third, prejudice, or more specifically, out-group prejudice, is really just an error/bias in reasoning, or alternatively, a structural/systemic error in reasoning, that is more or less in-built to the human psyche and common to all races and peoples (not just whites). I should say, for what it is worth anyhow, that I do not think prejudice of any variety, properly defined, is something to be celebrated. However, our anti-white overlords don’t properly define it. They typically define prejudice as reaching conclusions about different populations that are not Politically Correct (for example: blacks are disproportionately prone to violence). This is actually an utter bastardization of the concept. “Prejudice” itself is a process-based error. It is not about reaching immoral (not even possible) or improper conclusions (outcome-based), but about employing improper reasoning (process-based) in reaching particular conclusions. Unfortunately, disparate impact jurisprudence shows that even our best legal minds don’t understand this distinction. Thus, properly understood, “prejudice” is not a moral error but an intellectual error. However, since intellectual errors are not themselves commendable or useful, they should be avoided, but not because the conclusions one reaches are somehow morally wrong, but because we should all strive to ascertain the truth via sound processes of reason.

In other words, people (often powerful people in the press and power structure) who argue that “prejudice is immoral”, are again, simply confused. Such types are conflating the bad acts that sometimes flow from prejudice with prejudice itself, as they also commonly conflate bad acts that sometimes flow from racist thoughts, with the thoughts themselves. However, only acts are properly subject to moral judgment, not thoughts or thought processes. Moreover, particular thoughts, like particular ideologies, do not necessarily entail particular acts, and anyone arguing otherwise is simply misinformed and probably reasoning prejudicially themselves. Furthermore, sometimes biases/prejudices can lead us to conclusions anti-racists favor, like false egalitarian conclusions, further elucidating how prejudice is flatly not an outcome-based phenomenon. Thus, any policing of initial truth claims must be made on the basis of their merely being correlated with particular actions or political ideologies, which, in the first place, is just silly, and in the second place, doesn’t get you around the fact that you are still policing ideas, a horrible idea and an inescapably totalitarian practice.

We must also distinguish between prejudice and in-group favoritism, the latter being nothing more than the recognition that the lives, values and interests of one’s own people are worthier of protection. Insofar as one’s own people may be more productive, intelligent or ethical, such a recognition may be based in objective reality, and insofar as like liberties are granted to competing groups, such a position is hardly necessarily rooted in any sort of prejudice (i.e. a biased/flawed reasoning procedure).

Thus, we are left with the final type of racism, racial discrimination, which is really the only type/definition of racism that is even a candidate for moral judgment. Naturally, I would submit to you that a moral value which entails the destruction of the groups that consistently practice it, which anti-racism does, is not a sound moral value at all, but a form of collective insanity.

One of the chief forms of racial discrimination, for example, is exclusion. However, a total lack of exclusion/separation is an invitation to miscegenation, to cultural disintegration via borrowing and mixing, to the rewriting and rereading of one’s history, to the complete loss of identity, etc. Without any barriers to entry into a group, the group simply can not protect itself even marginally (or protect its ways, customs, or genes), let alone survive as a distinct group. It will assimilate the surrounding world or be assimilated into it. In this way, open borders combined with comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, is not merely bad policy, it is implicitly/effectively genocidal. Racial discrimination in the form of exclusion then is a practical defensive measure against incursion into the group, which, in sufficient quantities, entails the disintegration of the traits that define it.

In the modern world, a lack of barriers in both the national and international context, means mass-scale movements of people from highly unsuccessful regions to highly successful regions. After all, why would successful peoples migrate to shitholes? Therefore, in the modern world, we are not only talking about the eradication of the group via total transformation, but also a total transformation that invariably involves moral and civilizational decline. Thus, a total commitment to anti-discrimination by its very nature is destructive, but in its current form it is also socially, morally, culturally and genetically regressive. To refuse to discriminate is to refuse to be a people at all. A people that adopts such a moral value as its cardinal moral value, and aggressively applies that moral value against its own coethnics, is actively genociding itself as a people. An absolute prohibition on out-group discrimination is to the group what poison is to the individual.

Now, if you think turning prosperous, mirthful, and peaceful parts of the globe into miserable hellholes is a righteous, wonderful, and moral thing to do, it is certainly your right to be a retard, but it is our position in the Alt-Right that you are woefully deluded. Some degree of racial discrimination, in some contexts, is not only morally acceptable, but morally mandatory. Out-group discrimination is the nourishment upon which peoples and civilizations survive, and dare I say, thrive. Any group which refuses to engage in it, is simply not long for this world. Such a group is destined to be replaced by groups that do take their own group interests seriously, and enthusiastically discriminate against out-group members, like non-white, anti-white leftists and Mohammedans. Indeed, this is precisely what is happening in the West today. Our Cultural Marxist overlords go further of course, and inform us that whites aren’t even allowed a racial identity! But pray tell, how could a group possibly survive if its members must remain wholly unconscious of their own membership in it?

Thus, of the four variant types/definitions of the term racism, only one is really subject to moral judgment at all, and as we can see, it is not an easy intellectual task to defend the wholesale rejection of it (i.e. to advocate for absolute and unqualified anti-racism), unless you think peoples don’t have the right to remain peoples. We can thus rather comfortably conclude that a complete ban on racial discrimination is simply not morality or coextensive with morality. Morality proper must lie somewhere between racial discrimination in all contexts and racial discrimination in none.

158 Comments

  • Interesting read. However, I do not get why group achievement protection entails leaving other races out. Seems to me that success is measured based on values such as safety, freedom, agreement on moral values, prosperity, willingness to learn and to contribute and maybe amount of personal living space. If those are the traits that made a society successful than those should be protected and a barrier erected against their deterioration. Race does not come into the picture directly. Now from some races there might be a larger percentage of people not matching the barrier criteria than from another, but that is not because of skin color, but because of cultural influences. While we can not blame the individual for being influenced by his culture, we can still identify barrier mismatch and not allow entry till the mismatch is fixed.

    Thus, anti racism is actually moral – in the sense of keeping people out that are of another race but otherwise a perfect match for the values of in in-group. However, it is immoral to forbid any type of success preserving barrier.

    • 1) Are values the only thing worth preserving? Not really. What about genes, aesthetics, spirit, etc? And anyhow you can’t “preserve” the values of a people whilst demographically transforming that people. This is an absurd notion.
      2) Even if a tiny % of certain out-group populations are a good cultural fit, will their offspring be a good cultural fit? Not likely. People are drawn to the cultures of their tribes. This is a direct consequence of out-group bias. It will always be a minority of blacks & Arabs that accepts & adopts white culture.
      3) “That’s not because of skin color but because of cultural influences.” That’s just cultural determinist / Neo-Lysenkoist nonsense with almost no basis in the available data. The primary reason for differences in intelligence, temperament, crime, etc. between racial populations is not culture, but genes. “Race” is not skin color. This is a pernicious piece of Marxist propaganda. Skin color is merely a proxy for populational/genetic ancestry. It is not the defining trait of a “race”, but a simple, somewhat superficial, but very helpful tool for distinguishing between peoples.
      4) A case-by-case analysis of the “values” of a person is impracticable in many contexts (like immigration contexts). You often can’t get good information. And this all presumes that “values” are measurable or observable anyhow, which they’re basically not. It’s virtually impossible to know what people really think or value, deep down. You’d need to observe them closely & at length for a great deal of time. How is a government going to do that? Race is a great proxy (shorthand) for values, a great proxy. If you look at the polling data, you’ll discover that there are vast differences between populational/racial groups as to the ideological norms of those populations. Non-whites simply do not value free speech, democracy, guns rights, etc. like whites do. They will not preserve our values.
      5) None of this gets you around the fact that in order to preserve a people, some amount of out-group discrimination is necessary. That’s going to mean racial discrimination, it might mean ethnic discrimination or religious discrimination as well. You simply can’t have a people without it. So, at the end of the day, if you don’t believe in racial discrimination you don’t believe in the right of peoples to remain peoples at all. There’s really no way around this. Even if you argue for a utility-based or value-based morality or something, & thus place group preservation somewhere lower down on the hierarchy, you still have to concede that you don’t believe in the rights of peoples to remain peoples. And if you believe in absolutely no racial discrimination at all, you not only don’t believe in the right of peoples to remain peoples, you are going to eliminate those peoples rapidly. Rapidly.

  • An excellent analysis from Mr. Spraguer of one of the most tendentious fabrications in our entire fat contemporary lexicon of invented, hollow, perverse neologisms. Very well done indeed.

    • Thanks, man. I really like this one too. It’s a bit long & ponderous, but I like it anyway. Probably shouldn’t have written it during my 3L (final year of law school) exam week, but LOL. Per veritatem vis, I guess.

  • “Anti-racism is inmoral” is such a provocative, powerful slogan.
    This days when is the 50th anniversary of Paris May 68, is perfect.

  • Just a few points:

    “Admittedly, racial discrimination taken to its utmost extreme can take a society to rather ugly places (think Nazism).”

    Why do you say this? NSDAP Germany was beautiful, and peaceful, what is ugly are the shabbos goyim traitor “leaders” of so called Western countries that betrayed their people to the Jews evil plans by ganging up and making war on (Not to mention helping the Jews to consolidate their Globo-homo-NWO-death-state and perpetrating the Holy-Hoax), destroying the best hope of the white race in that century: National Socialism, racial awareness, and a clear eye on the Jew.

    Why in the world would you bow to those lies? Are you just smiling at the executioner hoping to be spared until tomorrow, or do you really believe that (if you do your entire judgement is questionable sorry to say). You didn’t have to say anything positive about NSDAP/NatSoc/Germans you merely had to shut your mouth on that topic!

    Debating with the supposed mexican below about racism:
    What a waste of time! Don’t do it. Just remember this one thing: “Anti-racism is a code word for Anti-White”.

    And bear in mind that NOBODY is more racist than the Jews, with Blacks and Mexicans and others right behind. It is, on the whole, only white European people who experimented with not being racist — and this failed experiment, this lack of racism is why they are getting robbed, raped, dispossessed, and genocided. White people need to get really racist really fast or we will be destroyed. So don’t waste time on “Gothic Joe” (whatever it really is), and other such disingenuous “moral” posers.

    Instead focus on improving yourself and the battle to save your people: You must secure the existence of your people and a future for their children.

    Arguing with people who want your race dispossessed and enslaved and dead is stupid beyond belief. Instead prepare for the race war they are already waging upon you. Fight back non-violently but be ready for when they just straight out come to kill you. They will in the end (obviously). And then, as Herr Hitler warned: “Those who do not wish to fight will perish anyway.”

    Finally, for anyone who bothered to read this far. Consider this observation: You cannot accept ANY of their lies, cannot concede any of their theft or tresspasses, if you do you are fatally weakened.

    Example: You bow to their holy-hoax, do they settle for literally raping and robbing and genociding the germans and leaving you alone? Nope. You stupid concession is used as excuse to genocide all white people everywhere.

    Example: The Russians. By living on jewish lies (Evil Nazis were the bad buys and we were the Good guys, and by fabricating evidence for the Holy-hoax, etc.), the Russians leave themselves in a tragically weak position. They have loosened the grip of the Jew from their throats, but the Jew’s USA & other globo-homo-gollem nations are still likely to destroy the Russians.
    …What Russians ought to jew is name the jew and declare the holy war against the jew’s white genocide.
    …But they won’t because they have built their civic mythology on lies, and lies of enormous evil proportion, they have in fact by hiding thier own crimes against the white race behind the lies of the jews betrayed not only Germany to jewish genocide but the entire white european race!
    …The Russians have tried to live at the expense of the rest of the white race in doing this. And ironically, tragically, it is this “to clever by half” moral turpitude that leaves them vulnerable to eventual destruction or re-enslavement by the Jews.
    …Russians instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too should throw down the cake, admit it was the germans who were the good guys and not them, and atone for thier sins by launching the holy war of white liberation and eternal freedom. …Unfortunately this will probably seem impossible to the otherwise excellen Vlad Putin and his gang — until the nukes are falling on Russia, until it is too late, THEN they will wish they had answered the call of the blood, of the Gods, the white Gods, and chosen Valhalla over cringing calculation.

    — So peaceful means, peaceful and polite, but understand the truth: In the end they will come to kill you. The blacks and mexicans and whatever will rape your women and piss on your dead bodies. They will have a big celebration of your extinction even as the smiling jew tightens the new slave collars around their necks.

    If we don’t get our shit together, the light, the white, which is the light, will go out of this world, forever.

    Some where out in the universe the will of the creator to manifest a creator race to tread the upward path back to him may rise again.

    But the light will be gone from here.

    Get a grip on the perspective.

    Not only do you owe your ancestors to carry on the race. You owe our racial progeny to deliver them the opportunity to struggle onward and upward and to equip them mentally, physically, and morally to do so. BUT finally you, we as a race, we also owe the creator, who invested the divine spark of ascendent “divinity” within us.

    Don’t let the white race fad out of this world, don’t let the creators light, the white light go out of this world!

    Kindle it instead in your heart, and in the hearts of your brethren every day.

  • Anyone see that Vile Jewish Subhuman Piece of Garbage on Display at the WHCD last night??

    Michelle Wolf……

    Pure Talmudic Attacks on White Goy Sarah Huckabee Sanders…….

    What do these Jews think they’re accomplishing with this??

    They’re just Validating the JQ, Red-Pilling more Whites, and making their Demographic even more Despised…….

    Their Arrogance knows no Bounds………

    • (((Michelle Wolf))):

      ‘Sarah Sanders’ is the ‘Uncle Tom to White Women”…….

      Beyond Chutzpah…..

      • It is quite unreal. This non-white, anti-white Semitic communist thinks she’s qualified to judge who is an “Uncle Tom to white women”.

        • They’ve been getting away with it Scot Free for Years…….

          Until now…….

          The Alt-Right is already making Major Headway into the Culture…….

          The Alt-Right is exposing Jewish Anti-White Sociopathological Behavior on a Mass Scale…….

          I believe it is forcing the Jewish Community to start Policing their own…….

          I could be wrong but there seems to be a Noticeable Shift…..

    • Michelle is an anti-Trump liberal woman and Sarah Sanders is Trump’s spokeswoman. That’s where the animosity comes from. If Sarah were a Jew who liked Trump, Michelle would hate her the same.

      • Uh…….

        NOPE……….

        President Trumps Election united Jews from the Far Left and the Neocon Republican Faction against him……..

        Why?

        They saw the Rise of the Alt-Right and Trump’s Election linked……..

        And they banded together as a Tribe to preserve their Jewish Supremacist Privileged Hegemony over America’s Power Centers of Influence……

        Some to maintain Wars for Israel…….

        Some to maintain White America’s Degeneracy and Degradation into Minority Status……..

        • Most American Jews oppose Trump, but most Israel Jews love, love, love him.

          The thing with Michelle and Sarah is a liberal/conservative thing.

          • Jews disagree with each other all the time, like every race and religion. Denial of this makes you blind, not enlightened.

          • That is quite true, they do.
            But they rarely do on one issue: their own racial interests.
            On that one concern, their opinions, actions & attitudes are remarkably uniform.

  • What an idiocy! Do you think that Blacks in South Africa are bothered at all that “scientific studies show that Blacks are inherently less intelligent than the Whites”? “F the Whites, it’s our country” was/is their rallying cry. And even though I am White (though not a White South African) I fully sympathise with their perspective. The IQ research is totally irrelevant for our cause. But don’t tell that to Juden(knechts) like John Engelman 😉

    • You sympathize with their perspective? South Africa isn’t their country. They colonized it just like the dutch.

      • He’s saying fuck big brain justifications, they aren’t primary motivators. The only thing that matters is will to power, the will to conquer, exist and dominate irregardless of facts and morality. So yes, if the blacks have the will to expel the Boer who’d rather appeal to Jewish Internationalist sympathies than dominate through force of arms, then yes, they frankly deserve to get fucked. South Africa will become a black country if they simply take it – they understand this, while whites are too busy searching for moral justifications in abstract claims. This is why we are getting fucked on the world stage now.

    • No it’s not. You are free to marry a white woman and have white children and have white friends. Most of us anti-racists don’t mind. It’s when you start trying to force your will on others that we start having problems with you.

      But thank you for using inimical in your sentence. My English is pretty good, but I appreciate learning new words. 😉

      • “anti-racism” seems to be a doctrine of sorts… Would you merry somebody merely to fulfil a doctrine?That seems perverse to me.

        • If I married someone it would be because I loved her personality and yes, appearance. I am 90% likely to marry a fellow Mexican, but I’ve been attracted to white girls before.

          • Then you seem to be “normal”. But to be a “saint” think also at the “appearance” of your children with a White woman.

          • Why ae you asking me to think of the appearance of biracial childre? I do not get this question.

          • Mestizo women -with exceptions such Barbara Carrera, Jennifer López and Bianca Jagger- tend to be ugly.
            Shakira and Salma Hayek are no mestizo but Arabic.
            Unactracctive races shouldn´t breed.
            Attractive races should breed much. It is a pity the birth rates in the Baltic are going down while ((they)) want to fill the three countries with apes.

          • LOL You must be blind if you can’t see that Mestizo women are sexy Goddesses deserving of adoration and devotion in every manner possible. I shall forgive your heresy today simply because you praised Mexico City women in the comments down below. 😉

          • Sorry to say this but when I was in the DF I could´t find mestizo women attractive. I did find white women there VERY attractive.
            But I understand you find them sexy. That is a healthy “racist” response.
            The benefits of diversity: I always find, as well, American white women very attractive and I think the reason is due to the heavy intra-European mix. Also, there is something good about the fast food: the fast food makes American women a little chubby which I find adorable.

          • Sorry. I was born in the 50s, grew up in the 60s and 70s when almost all whites were quite thin by today’s standards. I’m not into fat asses on women. That’s a black thing.

          • When all the shit you want to happen comes to pass, Mexico is still going to be Mexican.
            In your grand equation it’s going to be white people who lose out.

            I thought you were a delusional white shitlib. You being an beaner ingrate at least makes sense.

          • I would believe the same things if I were white. If my demeanor led you to believe I was white, then that’s more proof anti-racist ideals are correct.

          • “I would believe the same things if I were white.”
            No, you wouldn’t. Anti-racism is overwhelmingly a situational ideal. People adopt it when they stand to gain from it. If Africans were moving en masse to Mexico & you were living there, you wouldn’t be an anti-racist at all.
            Anti-racism is always more popular amongst those who have nothing to lose by adopting it.

          • “If Africans were moving en masse to Mexico & you were living there, you wouldn’t be an anti-racist at all.”

            I’ve contemplated this before.

            Interesting how you didn’t use whites or Asians as your example, though. Probably because you calculated I wouldn’t mind them.

          • LOL. Well, I used “Africans” because it is sufficiently analogous to what is happening to formerly white regions.
            My point is that it would be morally defensible to try to protect one’s national traditions, genes, group identity, etc. irrespective of who was coming in.
            However, when the people coming in are less intelligent, less skilled, more violent, etc. it’s especially absurd & unconscionable to adhere to an absolutistic form of antiracism.

          • This is extremely interesting from an the point of view of anthropology.
            Well, then, when you are in the DF, you feel more connected to Zócalo Sq. or to Tenochtitlán?
            If you feel more connected to Zócalo Sq. it means the Spanish blood in your system is winning the cultural struggle. Or maybe is Tenochtitlán which is winning. Or maybe you feel connected to both, the same way.
            In any case, in a way, it cultural enrichment but in other way it is an struggle. And if you feel you want to breed with a white Mexican woman I guess it is going to be a problem because I know that white Mexicans tend to dislike mestizos for breeding. They want to keep the Euro genetics pure, especially since they are a minority.
            I mean… it is not easy.
            That is why miscegenation is not fair for the children,
            Can you imagine the struggle of Heidi Klum´s mulato daughter, for instance. Sure she wants to look like like mom.

          • Most “white” Mexicans have some Mestizo blood in them. There are countless “white” Mexicans with Mestizo-looking children (despite both parents being “white”) At any rate, I do not prefer one to the other.

          • But Albino, didn’t ya know every white woman secretly wants to have intercourse with a black or Mestizo, even if she’s already married? Andrew Anglin and Weev say it’s true so surely it must be! 😛

          • I know, but -usually- they don´t want to breed with them.
            This is the racial alpha fux beta bux.

          • Mexico — and all other Latin American countries — are far more “racist” than the United States. Societies are stratified along racial lines. Spanish whites are almost always the political, business and social elites. Mestizos are higher in social and economic status based upon the amount of white Spanish blood they have. Pure-blooded Natives are always at the bottom of the society… unless, of course, we are dealing with a country that also has Negro blood in the mix. This complicates the matter somewhat.

      • Human beings are biological specimens with strong sexual desires. You can’t force groups of people together via force of law & expect them to remain distinct peoples. Look at Brazil or Syria. If you import enough of a foreign people, especially a racially distinct foreign people, you are basically certain to transform that society greatly & the dominant groups that define it. As enough time passes, you will essentially end up with a new primary populational group. The former majority race will lose its numbers, power, & many of its essential characteristics.
        The best way, really the only way to preserve a people is via a certain degree of discrimination, & especially separation.
        “It’s when you start trying to force your will on others…?”
        You mean like when you communists passed the Civil Rights Act & imposed your warped Marxist morality on the rest of us?
        Or when you forced integration onto white communities that didn’t want it at all?
        Or how about when you drove innocent business owners out of business via force of law merely for wanting to serve who they pleased?
        Or how about when you ceased manning the borders & then your state leaders began literally hiding hordes of invaders?
        Who are you kidding? The left is obsessed with force. All Marxist systems are utterly force dependent. Shoot, you guys can’t even win an argument without exiling your opponents & banning their words & ideas. LOL. You don’t have a problem with force. You are trying to eliminate a race & you’re just angry that whites are finally starting to push back. You’re a joke.

        • Spraguer:
          “how about when you drove innocent business owners out of business via force of law merely for wanting to serve who they pleased?”

          Also Spraguer:
          “you guys can’t even win an argument without exiling your opponents & banning their words & ideas.”

          We’ve gone over this before, hypocrite. If it is okay for physical businesses to refuse to offer their services to people based on race, then it certainly is okay for social media businesses to refuse their services to people based on ideology.

          • Yeah, we went over it & you lost the debate.
            1) The would-be totalitarianism of the Alt-Right is no match for the actual totalitarianism of the Cultural Marxist left.
            2) There is a huge, huge difference between vast multinational corporations that are effectively common carriers & backwoods cafes! Indeed, I’ve never taken the position that for essential services businesses should be able to racially discriminate. Totalitarianism is defined not merely by the rule itself but by the degree to which you are willing to take it! The way the left terrorizes poor, nobody racists is fundamentally totalitarian. Holding Big Tech, which acts as an information gatekeeper for the nation’s democracy, to a higher standard than I hold backwoods racists who have no capacity to do substantial harm to national interests, is called being sane.
            3) By your own logic, if it’s not OK for tiny businesses to discriminate on racial grounds, why is it OK for vast multinationals to discriminate on ideological grounds? Are not ideas & freedom of conscience more essential rights & liberties, especially in a democracy, than your anti-racist Marxist scruples?

          • “The way the left terrorizes poor, nobody racists is fundamentally totalitarian.”

            Get off your high horse. You guys love doxxing leftists as much as Antifa loves doxxing you. It just so happens that the center left runs social media companies. I study history. The far right is just as willing, if not more, to use force on its enemies.

            “why is it OK for vast multinationals to discriminate on ideological grounds? Are not ideas & freedom of conscience more essential rights & liberties, especially in a democracy, than your anti-racist Marxist scruples?”

            If I moderated Twitter, Jared Taylor would never have been banned. I oppose his views, but he has never called for violence. I would ban groups who called for violence such as Daily Stormer, Incel Revolution, and New Black Panther Party.

          • 1) I’m talking about what the left does now. You’re talking about what the right did at certain points throughout history. The Cultural Marxist left is in power & has been for a long time in America. I do not doubt that some rightists would do the same if they could. But they can’t. So again, no comparison. We live in a time & a place, you know? In that time & place, Alt-Right would-be totalitarianism can not hold a candle to the left-wing totalitarianism which surrounds us & dominates our lives.
            2) Rightist doxxing is far more limited & usually occurs when leftists commit actual crimes. The left typically doxxes righties merely to police our thoughts & politics, & to ruin our lives. These are quite different things. However, yes, I agree that there are bad actors on both sides. I don’t agree, however, that any portion of the right polices any portion of the left the way the left generally polices the Alt-Right.
            3) Politics is violence. You can’t advocate for any law without advocating violence. All laws must be enforced via violence. You mean like extralegal violence, yes? But extralegal violence is lawful for good reason. Unless harm is imminent, why police calls for violence? So long as someone is calling for violence that is not truly imminent, all calls for violence are functionally equivalent to democratic participation generally.
            4) You don’t run Twitter. I’m talking about reality as it is, you’re talking about some sort of parallel universe again.

          • Because they A) Separate, B) Exclude, C) Discriminate, D) Aggregate & segregate wealth, & E) Possess a very strong tribal identity. If the Jews played by their own Cultural Marxist rules they’d have undone themselves long ago.

          • Over 40% of American Jews are married to a non-Jew. That’s higher than the number of whites in an interracial marriage. They assimilate.

          • 1) They do not assimilate. In fact the opposite has obviously occurred. Jews never assimilated into America. America assimilated to the Jews. When the Jews acquired sufficient political power they simply made America in their image. That was a bout 50 years ago now.
            2) Even Jews who marry-out often have their would-be spouses convert (Ivanka). Those who don’t still often retain a very strong Jewish identity & pass it on to their offspring. Their half-Jewish offspring want to enjoy the perquisites of Jewish discrimination, ethnit networks, exclusion, elitism, etc. & so often identify as Jews despite their non-Semitic heritage. It pays to be a “victim”. Non-Semitic whites are not granted these same privileges.
            3) However, you’re not entirely wrong that the Cultural Marxist values of the Jewish community have adversely affected their own communities in some limited ways. However, these effects are limited for many of the reasons already mentioned. Even with high out-marriage rates, Jewish ethnocentrism, ethnic networks, ethnic pride, etc. all make Jewish identity a desirable thing for halfsies & partial Jews to have. Also, this is only true of nonreligious Jews. Religious Jews are still very fertile, very racist/ethnocentric, & very insular. This powerful right flank (silent battalion) acts as a backstop against the forces of modernity. Thus Jewish numbers are not in decline. Whites don’t have these factors present in their own communities to help offset the anti-white forces of Cultural Marxism / Secular Judaism. One of the few factors whites do sometimes have to counteract these sinister forces is religion, especially highly conservative, insular religions like Mormonism (which are a lot like conservative Jewish communities). However, most white communities have nothing. That is why most white communities are in crisis. If secular Jews had to commit to “anti-racism” to 1/10 the degree secular whites do, forget it.

          • On Stormfront, a favorite tactic of anti-racist pranksters is to pretend to be a white nationalist and then to post anonymous pictures of beautiful Jewish women while pretending they are white. “THIS is what we are fighting to preserve!” the real racists reply, misty eyed.

            😀 😀 😀

      • Gee that’s sweet Babylonian. I’ll keep that in mind when these pet projects make you into Kosher Bacoin Sandwiches and Soylent Green Crackers.

    • No brainer as “anti-racism” is merely anti-White racism. Unfortunately many no brains among the White people…

    • Compulsory vasectomies for every non white crossing Río Grande or the Med. You don´t want to get vasectomised? OK: get back.

  • Anti-Racism is Immoral……..

    And that Picture…….

    I feel the Potential for some Great Meme Magick happening here………

        • Joe……

          Go find your People……….

          It’s not your Fault for what your Parents chose……..

          But, we in the Alt-Right reject that Choice……..

          • Or Stay……

            But, you still can NEVER be White or Alt-Right……

            And that is a MORALLY Righteous Position……..

          • Who said I wanted to be white or Alt-Right…..

            If you paid attention……

            You would know I’m this websites Resident Lefty…..

          • LOL. I like your humour. Are you a Jew, btw? They are the only people in the USA that can be “humours” (at our expense, without being “racists”…)

          • I am 90% certain I don’t have any Jewish blood. The only reason I’m not 100% is because even Christopher Cantwell has .6 Jewish ancestry. But Jews are the Masters of the Universe (in your pov anyway), so I don’t mind much if you think I’m one.

            P.S. My grandfather was fairly Anti-Semitic.

          • I am both pro Semite and pro Israel. I guess I have a lot of Jewish DNA like most of Spaniards.
            Most of ((them)) remained in the Peninsula after the “Expulsión” in 1492. They just converted into Catholicism. They had that option. Very practical people.

          • That is what Euro leftist say.
            I always found anti Israelian speech from the Euro lefties very disgusting.

  • Doesn’t matter if it’s ultimately immoral. The mythology is righteous and is used effectively by the state to enforce policies. I say mythology because liberalism is very much a religion at this point. A cult based on violent ‘liberation’ of ‘victims’. From the jacobins of the 18th century to the trannies of the 21st century. That destructive progress won’t stop until it’s consumed its host(s).

    • The first liberals in the West were definitely Christians. Many were Catholics. Indeed, it was a Catholic who wrote Utopia and the noble Jesuits were perhaps the first true leftist organization economically speaking. Many white liberals today are atheists, but I am pleased to say we Mestizos have not forgotten our religion.

      • We in the Alt-Right don’t want our Descedants to be Mestizos or Mulattos…….

        It has NOTHING to do with Hate………

        It has EVERYTHING to do with Love and Survival……..

        • If Nosy Nova is so fixated on her descendants……

          Then maybe she should have had kids…..

          But few men desire an old crone for a wife…..

          Most whites would trade her for an Asian gal any day…..

          And so she project her bitterness……

          Pondering her woe……

  • That’s nice, but the left’s entire gameplan is to ignore all those distinctions you just made. If they believed in ethics or reasoning they wouldn’t believe in equality to begin with. For the white left, racism is a bludgeon to use against the right. For minorities, racism is a way to claim injury and therefore self-interest (which at least makes sense from their perspective). The question is, how do we take that away from them?

    • Wrongo boyo. As a minority myself (Mestizo) born into an upper middle class family, I can’t honestly say I’ve been subjected to much racism…my contempt for your ideals is based on principle. White liberals (bless their hearts) are a lot like Judy Hopps from Zootopia.

        • Your movement first came to my attention when Milo penned that article in 2016 about your movement. Then you were trolling everywhere, even YouTube, especially YouTube. Then Hillary gave her speech and Trump won and brought Steve Bannon with him. Ever since then I’ve been following the Alt-Right and its related movements.

          Very weird…..

        • Because the AltRight is appealing to everybody, does not matter race or religion.
          Bolivia, with its Inca national socialism, is an ethno-State. Turkey is an ethno-State. Israel… of course, most Muslim-Arab countries are ethno-Sates. Also Butan, Nepal, Japan… and of course Mexico is a mestizo ethno-State, and Guatemala, and Venezuela is already a mestizo ethno-State after expelling most of the white population who is arriving to Spain in massive numbers. Cuba is a fucking mulato ethno-State after expelling whites to Florida and Spain. Cuban regime was very aggressive to the Catholic Church but encouraged Voodoo, like in Haiti (another Etno-State).
          Then… Finland wants to be a Nordic-Lutheran Ethno-State and they are… EVIL!!!!

  • We have to be able to articulate the positive life-enhancing attributes of homogeneous societies. It is good to document how diversity kills on so many levels, but we need to be able to convey the superiority of homogeneous societies–why having an identity and sense of belonging is what makes us fully human. Much of this is instinctual and seemingly ineffable. With the confidence that comes with ready arguments and responses to people who insist that racism is evil we’ll be able to persuade people to discard the cult of diversity.

  • The Alt Right’s world view is pro-white humanism, in that we have a vision of human flourishing and the good life in line with the humanist tradition, but oriented towards white people’s interests.

    We just reject the universalist ethics that came out of the Enlightenment because it conflicts with man’s nature and therefore doesn’t work in the real world.

    • I agree that universalism is a deadly poison. As the author says, to refuse to discriminate is to refuse to be a people, that is, to self-anhililate. While Enlightenment attitudes may have gotten us into this mess, those attitudes are not keeping us here.

      Reason can and does err, but it also self-corrects. Religious fanaticism cannot self-correct. Cultural Marxism is a religious fanaticism, impervious to rational analysis based on evidence. The cure will always and everywhere be the hair of the dog that bit’ya.

  • “However, a total lack of exclusion/separation is an invitation to miscegenation, to cultural disintegration via borrowing and mixing,”

    It’s okay to be biracial! 😛 😛 😛 😀 😉

    • You’re not Bi-Racial……

      You’re a New Race………

      Go find and be with your People……….

      We are not your People……..

      It’s OK to be You……..

      I agree……

      It’s not your Fault for what your Parents did……..

      But, it’s not our Fault either…….

      We wouldn’t have Created you……….

      We don’t Hate you for what you are……..

      We don’t wish any Harm to come to you……….

      But, we want White Women to Procreate with White Men in Monogamous Traditional Relationships to create White Families that Sustain our Race………

      Anti-Racism is Immoral………

      • It’s not okay Nosy Nova……

        To be as jealous as you are…..

        Of white liberal women with careers and families…..

        Just because you have neither…..

        Does not mean you will make yourself feel better……

        By attacking people of other races……

        It’s okay to be white but it’s not okay to be so bitter……

        Please grow up…..

        HA!!!!

        • The Alt-Right is a Pro-White Movement………

          Nothing you do or say can change that………

          Find your People and Find some Peace………

          Good Luck……

          • Good thing I have no desire to join the Alt-Right……

            I am with what you would call “my people”…..

    • Well joe you would never say that towards any other group. You just want us gone. You as have illustrated object to us talking heritage ancestry or anything pro white. Blending out= genocide for every group. So much for that diversity is our strength bs. Yes all the blending out propaganda and chasing us down with diversity everywhere all the time. So yes it’s very much being pushed down our throats. Diversity is our strength is never pushed on any other group.

  • While I feel ZERO White Guilt regarding anything that our Cultural Marxist Overlords try to Brainwash Force Feed me with on a Daily Basis…….

    It’s very nice and refreshing to be reminded with such Powerful Intellectual Force……..

    That the Alt-Right maintains the Moral High Ground……..

    100% Without a Doubt……..

    What would be the Pavlovian Left’s Response??

    “You’re a Nazi White Supremacist!”……..

    “They are people, by and large, who don’t even comprehend what they’re saying, or how utterly idiotic what they’re saying actually is.”

  • After reading the WN novel, “Hold Back This Day”, I now know the endgame of white genocide. And I also now know the solution, after reading the WN novel, “Eternity Beach”.

  • for all the statements that Racism Is Immoral; the one ques. that people never seem to ask
    is what if Racists just want to be Racists because that is their belief system and their bedrock
    principle ??

    • This is circular reasoning, Charley. Everything that a person believes is part of their belief system. Obviously racism is a bedrock principle to racists. Anti-racism (egalitarianism) is one of my bedrock principles. Yet here we are.

      • A commitment to some limited conception of justice is usually admirable.
        A commitment to egalitarianism is essentially always a commitment to totalitarianism. It is communism by another name.
        There is no way to eliminate inequality without also eliminating freedom.
        Furthermore, “equality” has no inherent value. It’s like building a chair with 4 legs which are all exactly 2 inches in height. Sure, the legs are all equal, but the chair has no use as a chair.
        You’ve selected the wrong bedrock values. That’s what it comes down to.

        • “A commitment to egalitarianism is essentially always a commitment to totalitarianism.”

          Wrong. I do not demand that the government do anything to enforce egalitarianism other than stopping bigots from harming those they deem inferior to them. If a white man wants to marry a white woman, that’s fine. If a white wants to move to an all white neighborhood, fine. If a white attacks his black neighbor, then that is where the government must punish him. That is not totalitarianism.

          • A) So then you don’t support the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act prohibits far more than people “harming” those they deem inferior. Far, far more. Indeed, anti-discrimination laws are not premised on “harm”. Those who are discriminated against in most contexts are in no worse position than they were in prior.
            B) You are confusing “racists” with “bigots”. I’m a racist. “Bigots” are people that are intolerant of those with different opinions, like the regressive left, & the Zuckerbergs & Dorseys of the world.
            C) If you don’t support a robust version of egalitarianism, then you clearly value a lot of other things over “egalitarianism”. Hard then to call it one of your “bedrock” principles. Which was sort of my point. The “non-egalitarianism” you say you have a problem with is not “non-egalitarianism”, it’s basically just criminality with a racist motive. If your support for egalitarianism is this limited, I’m not so sure you’re not an egalitarian at all. An “egalitarian” views equality, especially equal ends (social, racial, economic), as desirable social conditions, as Marxists do. You seem to want to merely police criminal assaults. That’s a far, far cry from egalitarianism being one of your bedrock principles.
            D) You can believe in the equality of peoples without wanting to enforce egalitarian outcomes. In this form it is a belief or an idea, not a value. Those who believe in equality as a value (there are limited exceptions to this observation, but they entail a very thin or limited understanding of equality) almost immediately start justifying really bad deeds & ideas in the name of that equality they so value. “Egalitarianism” as a political value is a cancer. As a mere truth claim it’s harmless, if it can remain a mere truth claim. However, it rarely does remain a mere truth claim. When a society takes it on as its preeminent moral or political value, it’s all over for that society.

          • There are different types of egalitarians just as there are different types of feminists. Women who want the right to vote and women who want to criminalize cat calls are both feminists, but very different types of feminists.

            I am an egalitarian based on the definition given by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status.

          • That version of egalitarianism is hardly a moral/political value. It’s more of a moral premise & basically a truth claim.
            Anyhow, what it entails politically is essentially nothing.
            Part of the point of my recent articles has been to show that reaching extreme conclusions via such premises is unwise & morally untenable.
            Do you believe your govt owes the same things to homeless Americans as homeless Eritreans?
            Do you flip a coin when your own child is starving to decide if you should give your last can of corn to him or a hungry Bangladeshi child?

          • “Anyhow, what it entails politically is essentially nothing.”

            Politically, it entails a lot of things. For instance:

            1) Jim Crow laws were evil. Miscegenation should be permitted and biracial children should never feel the force of the government on their backs for being what they are.

            2) Blacks can run for President. (off topic, but imagine how many wars America would be involved in now if John McCain had beaten Obama. America would have toppled Syria and would probably have an army of 50,000 in Iran.)

            3. Apartheid was wrong, and stealing from the white farmers is wrong.

            4. Same rights for women.

            5. Morally (but not necessarily politically) it rejects the false misogynistic beliefs coming from the Incel Revolution and MGTOW, and it makes you acknowledge that compassion, love, wickedness, dreams, and free will belong to us all.

          • 1) “Miscegenation should be permitted”. Should it?
            What about in a nation explicitly premised upon racial identity? For example, it isn’t exactly permitted/recognized in certain nations (Israel, S Arabia). These nations don’t recognize interracial/interreligious marriages.
            What about in the citizenship context, when one of your own citizens reproduces with an out-ethnic outsider/foreigner? Should that half-white child receive automatic citizenship in a white ethnostate?
            Again, placing limits on out-group marriage & breeding is one of the means populations use to protect their interests, identity & existence as a group.
            2) The white minority in South Africa was insane to opt for total racial integration. Placing themselves under the yoke of a 90% black majority is lunacy. To the extent apartheid was wrong, it was wrong because it placed two different racial groups under one government & then separated them by government force. The current situation in South Africa is even more wrong. Different peoples, especially very different peoples, deserve different governments.
            3) Last statement is meaningless egalitarian hogwash.
            4) What all of these social issues/crises/problems come down to are different peoples being under the same government. That should be avoided at all costs, which is sort of the Alt-Right’s central thesis. “Diversity” is just a problem all-around.
            5) Your truth claim does not “entail” any of these things in all contexts.

          • So then why do we never hear you argue on our behalf that we should eliminate affirmative action, forced diversity quotas, and mass immigration when the democratic majority rejects it?

      • Your Parents made a Choice………

        And Created you……..

        It’s not the Alt-Right’s Fault that we Reject that Choice……..

        If I was you then I would hate the Alt-Right……..

        But, your Existential Angst can only be Alleviated by Finding your People………

        Not by Attacking us…….

        We want White People to Survive long into the Future……….

        We’re not Sorry……..

        We did NOTHING Wrong……….

        • If you did nothing wrong……

          Then pray tell why you are so bitter, Nova……

          I see right through you, cupcake……

          • Joe……

            What do you want the Broader Alt-Right to do to Alleviate your Identity Crisis??

            If I disappeared…….

            The Alt-Right will continue to Grow…….

            And continue to Exacerbate your Psychological Tensions and Anxiety…….

            That’s inside YOU…

            Not me……

          • Nova…..

            I don’t have a say in what the broader Alt-Right does…..

            I am here to debate and to troll…..

            Your fake concern for my health is touching…..

            But my only mental issues are a little OCD and occasional brain fog…..

            Neither of which are caused by you……

            So would you kindly……..

            settle down cupcake……

    • This week in the Rich Upper West Side of NY……

      Ashkenazi Jews who probably all voted for Hillary Clinton………

      Hate President Trump……..

      Hate us in the Alt-Right……..

      Probably donate to Organizations wishing to Destroy the Alt-Right through Frivolous Lawsuits……

      Protested loudly against the School Board for wanting to bring Poorly Performing Blacks into their Schools to achieve the Blessings of Diversity and Equality…….

      Ha!!

      I don’t know what Colored Pill that is but it’s definitely not a Black One……..

  • I would start with the right to be left alone and not have your wealth extracted by state force. Add free association and the rest largely takes care of itself.

        • I could fall in love with people from any race. Admittedly I am more attracted to whites and Mestizos than I am to blacks, on average. The first girl I remember being attracted to was Lydia from Beetlejuice. She was whiter than white. I am far more likely to marry a Mestizo from Mexico City, though.

          • That is respecting your race and culture. Mexico DF is a wonderful city.
            I like so much white Mexican women by the way, they look like Spanish but they have that beautiful Mexican accent. Only a problem about them: the man has to pay everything all the time. I don´t like that. I am very feminist: 50/50 is fair.

          • She’s very attractive. Women speaking Spanish fluently is a major turn. Also, most white Mexicans probably have some Mestizo blood in them.

      • We tried that, you lot called us racist, anyway, and not without reason. We want to be left alone, with our own.

        • Lexi, you’ve stated on other threads that you have a white husband and white children. You already are with “your own.” Did minorities and leftists storm your wedding to steal your wedding ring? Are leftists throwing rocks at your windows or abducting your children to send them to Antifa training camps?

          No? Then please tell me how we are oppressing you. Did some Antifa call you a racist? Get thicker skin. When I was a teenager I was called a freak for participating in the punk and gothic scene. But you don’t see me calling for a Gothic country, right? 😉

          • No, they just stormed our communities via government forced integration.
            They stormed her wedding as well, via anti-discrimination laws in hiring & employment. Half the staff was probably non-white.
            They stormed our country when millions of them came pouring over the borders in defiance of our laws.
            Yes, leftists, especially non-white ones, would be throwing rocks at her window actually, if they knew about her politics.
            Being called a freak is nothing compared to the persecution white people face in America today, merely on account of expressing pride in their history & heritage.
            Many of us are being fired, deplatformed, even assaulted regularly merely on account of speech, assembly & our participation in American democracy.

          • And then there’s the fact that I have to worry about their future as a minority.

            Aren’t we constantly told how terrible it is to be a minority? Yet, we are irrational to resist this for our children.

            The unspoken assumption is that only White majorities are threatening and therefore immoral. Other kind she of majorities are perfectly fine.

            Spraguer, I am going to address this comment specifically to you, and you may do with it as you wish. I trust your judgment.

            I have a hard time understanding why Joe is allowed to post here. He’s not White, and he is not an ally or sympathizer.

            I bear him no ill will, but my concern is that if our movement is unwilling to ban a mestizo, civil as he may be, why would anyone think we’ll ever ban non-Whites from our political community?

            It seems to me an over-principled approach that typifies the White man’s disease, as Jared Taylor has called it. That is, excessive preoccupation with the rights and interests of the “other.” An admirable quality in many ways, but one that needs to be brought under control.

          • Because, Lexi, this sites has recently published a bunch of articles proclaiming the Alt-Right to be the leader of the free speech movement. So banning people would be hypocritical. That being said, it’s highly possible I get banned. We shall see.

            P.S. Spraguer is not a moderator. He writes articles. Not sure why you’re whining to him, you triggered ❄.

          • 1) Joe is the resident pinata. Every time he gets whacked the universe is a slightly sweeter place. And he gets whacked a lot.
            2) I have absolutely no inclination to ban him, even if I could. I really don’t see him as a nuisance at all. I rather like to debate people who disagree with me, both those who do it well & especially those who do it poorly.
            3) I sympathize with your position regarding the rights & interests of the “other”. The white race is far too solicitous of the rights & interests of our racial enemies. However, I can’t view the speech of Gothic Joe as in any way comparable to the right of Joe’s cousins to show up at my border & demand asylum. I do not view speech as a trespass of any sort. It’s just speech. However, again, your point is noted.

Leave a Reply