So who's the dream charismatic candidate to be the face selling the platform while you pull the puppet strings? I think a platform of clearing the streets of drug addict/mentally ill homeless to put them in a facility, defending Karens, free porn rehab, and barstool sensibilities in general would get 48-state route type margins.
Though it should be a third party. GOP and DNC have way too much baggage, 70% of Americans hate them both, and they're both operating on played out and irrelevant/useless themes. Plus it's almost impossible to get someone to hold their nose and vote for the "other side" but easy to get people to vote third party. At least, for non Boomers. They're the only ones left with real party identification and a partisan sense of things. Everyone under 55 would have no problem going third party, they'd just have to withstand the Boomer run legacy media going all out on shaming people into adherence with the two party system.
I think if I got Ron DeSantis to divorce his wife, do literally everything I say, and rebrand as a technocrat like he was from 2019-2022 he could easily win on this platform despite his lack of charisma. Maybe Vivek could get on board with this tbh.
Really sorry, Walt, that I haven't been more pro-active about writing and publishing on the 'second/third generation case for severely limiting immigration'. Sai and I have been having a lot of discussions behind the scenes on how to frame this in a way that is unabashedly pro-American/pro-West, but that doesn't unnecessarily threaten/offend the high-IQ people we care about and the less open folks in the circles we run among. In the meantime, I hope a lot of folks listen to our latest episode on Castizo Futurism – probably our best one yet.
Excellent guidebook and glad to see you also embrace the ban hammer against low IQ and callow accounts
Point of clarification: I think you can bleach people in my demographic but just not en masse. Most Asians will be racially (though not ethnically) endogamous, a chunk will intermarry with other nonwhites, and a chunk with whites. Among those who intermarry with whites, a chunk of the kids will marry Asians, a chunk other non-whites, and a chunk whites. Therefore, only a fraction of the third gen will be bleached, which is insufficient for the idea to work. Bleaching takes one gen with MENAs and Hispanics (and maybe Desis) but two with black people and Asians. Happy to see you consider my input and that you're respectful enough to accept the harmless subculture
"If there’s anything you should take away from this piece, it’s that we don’t need to agree on everything to collaborate, and the most important thing is that we figure out how to move past the polarization and gridlock of the past two decades and chart an energetic and civicminded new course for America out of the swamp we’re in."
It is true that I am embracing centrism, and I may write up why at some point. Funny enough, "in defense of wine moms" is on my brainstorm of articles I want to write. Liberal white women have been the most empathetic to me on my own journey, and I've come to recognize the correctness of some of their concerns about, for example, threats to democracy. Attracting women is obviously key for any political movement, especially those on the right. "The Karen is a vital civilizational force and she needs to be cherished and respected" is a good line. I agree.
Jun 16Liked by Rajeev Ram, Kryptogal (Kate, if you like), Walt Bismarck
Brilliant article, as always Walt. You’re a man with an appealing vision, who exudes positivity and ‘fun’. You are the perfect antidote to the religious right and conspiratorial chuds.
1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 1 will be impossible through the vehicle of the GOP and pro-life politics.
3. What's happening in Gaza is a moral abomination that no right-thinking person should want to associate with or turn a blind eye to.
4. South Asian immigrants are a benefit to American society through their non-Christian background and higher IQ. Allying with them against the populist mob will be key. The future is global, we must embrace that.
I don't really have much to say about the other three points. If you're concerned about leftism, hyper-egalitarianism and anti-whiteism then you should be leveraging liberal elitism against the populist mob, supporting reproductive technologies such as embryo selection and turbocharging the speed at which Christianity dies.
Agree on Gaza but allying with South Asians is a massively idiotic proposal. The future being global means that transnational ethnic bonds (not dissimilar to what we’ve had with Jews for centuries) will serve to weaken the constitution of our country. Indians are notoriously ethnocentric and by courting them as allies we’d be creating a host of future problems for an ambiguous term benefit. Also wanting to destroy Christianity is deeply misguided not to mention unrealistic.
I mostly agree with you Luke but I think there's an issue of timescales involved, changing elite opinion is going to take time and in the here and now we have major problems that need to be dealt with. If the elites are currently our enemies we need to be taking measures to counter them and achieve the most important short-term goals before attempting to shift the Overton Window. As far as Gaza goes I feel like it's being oversimplified by both sides, the reality it is a civil war which is very brutal for the people on the losing side (as most civil wars are). I'm much more interested in promoting the right of exit so it's easier for people to escape war zones, albeit that doesn't mean they have the right to immigrate anywhere they want.
"South Asian immigrants are a benefit to American society through their non Christian background and high IQ ".The latter only benefits economic growth whilst with the former I'm presuming you're viewing it as detracting from Americas "Christian identity". But look at India itself where in the north sex selective abortions and female infanticide etc has created a 7:6 sex ratio which has led to some males there having to seek wives from darker skinned groups in the country something which is entirely opposite to their normal mating impulse. In the west however they have access to white women which they will certainly avail of although having a high status will definitely make them a suitable boy for another Indian family's daughter. My side of the pond white identity is being degraded by what is effectively a black and South Asian assault wave of immigration on top of the pre existing population of those two distinct groups with the whole legal,educational, political, cultural and corporate structures being realigned to elevate them and degrade white natives .Obviously the UK or Europe is not the same as the US but I believe that it's worth the compare and contrast binary question
I haven't read very many of your posts before but this one is really insightful and interesting. I have responses to each of the points you made that I would like to hear your thoughts on. If you wanted to have me on your podcast for a more in depth discussion that would be cool, but we would need to use a voice modulator so I could remain anonymous.
1. As a Gen Z autistic guy I have had very negative experiences with women most of my life, so I suppose I bear a level of "gender animus" that affects how I view certain issues. However I try to set aside my personal biases as much as possible and take an objective standpoint when considering "women's issues". I have pretty controversial opinions about abortion but in general I support a moderate policy, I feel much the same way about fentanyl zombies that young white women do, the deepfake issue I don't care either way about. Where I disagree completely is about imposing laws around relationships designed to restrict men, as I see it the laws that exist are already way too biased in women's favor and we need a big push in the opposite direction, particularly removing the ability for women to take a man's belongings upon separation, making the laws around sexual harassment/assault allegations much more fair and punishing women who are determined to have made a false allegation, and creating a higher bar of proof for abuse within relationships. I also don't give a shit about the word Karen but I will still side with high IQ white women over low IQ minority women, so I guess I can get behind that. As far as the promiscuity thing, I am a sexually unsuccessful guy so I don't have strong feelings about what men women choose to bang or at what frequency, I overall can't really be arsed to care how women behave. I would prefer women be loyal to a particular man than use sex to manipulate men into doing things they want, but it is not my business either way.
2. This I can agree with, but I think it is less important than addressing the fact that there is actual systematic discrimination against white men conducted in the name of diversity and anti-discrimination, and until we restore a level playing field there is a limit to what self help is going to accomplish. Making money and getting laid are obviously great things, but the Regime is doing its utmost to prevent white men from achieving those things and it is a zero sum game where any white guy who does overcome these obstacles will do it at the expense of others. To me this is fostering a competitive mindset when white men really need to cooperate with other to achieve commonly shared goals. My opinion about the "woman question" is that by and large men and women have different self-interests and there is only a degree to which those can overlap, I don't think that is an expression of resentment so much of an observation of evolutionary psychology building off of selfish gene theory. I don't care about other guys having more sex or whatever but I do have a problem with society being as I see it set up to benefit women and screw me or other non elite men over. Unbridled heterosexuality would definitely be an improvement, but I would also want it to involve the aforementioned legal changes regarding relationships. I also feel somewhat concerned about the homosexual adoption question because setting aside what is best for the child's wellbeing, I want a small government that does not make arbitrary dictates (arbitrary in the sense of based on subjective judgements) and regulating adoption goes against that. Personally I would rather just let parents choose who can adopt their kids, either specifying particular people or making broad statements like "no gay couples allowed", which would protect anyone who was concerned on a personal level about their own kids. I agree with you on the porn issue so no comment there.
3. This is an interesting one since I'm a "mischling" and am not all too happy about any of the Jew related stuff going on. I am not one of the Jews who suddenly woke up to how bad the left was after October 7, I was already long aware of that and have felt pretty exasperated at how so many Jews seem to be have been completely clueless up until it personally affected them. My feeling is and has been before that I am a white person and my interests are white interests (with allowance for some degree of variation potentially), so what I am most concerned about is being accepted as an ally by the Right since many people have what you said was a "wrongheaded impulse". The fundamental sticking point is they have to promise to leave me alone, meaning respecting my civil rights and not trying to kick me out of the country. Until there is a unified effort from the Right to push out hostile antisemites and stop even tolerating "jokes" like '110 and never again' I simply can't trust the movement to defend my interests and would side with the Left against it if necessary. My attitude is I WANT to be "just another type of white person" but having people like that in the movement forces me into defending my ethnic interests.
4. I pretty much agree with you on the Brahmin question and I have fairly positive feelings toward high caste Indians. However since there are genetic differences between Indians and whites that would realistically prevent complete integration, I think people who feel less favorable towards them should have the right to "discriminate" against them on a personal level, which would be adequately addressed by getting rid of civil rights law.
5. I don't care very much about racial identities as such, except insofar as racial differences create societal problems that need to be fixed. In the long run (like the next generation or 2) the best solution is to CRISPR out differences in IQ or other socially valuable traits, but since you can't really make that a public policy agenda we need to do damage control in the meantime. Trying to get Hispanics to marry whites would probably help some, but I expect gene editing to accomplish the same goals a long time before there would be meaningful change through normal reproduction.
6. That's an interesting idea, but I still resent the concept of being forced to pay for black people's problems. I would rather have a system that would offer low skill physical labor to blacks or anybody for that matter in exchange for a guaranteed job and housing (people can call that reskinned slavery but idgaf). Admittedly I haven't thought much about the details of how that should work.
7. This sounds like a great plan but I'm not really financially independent or in a good position to exert power through money. I support it in principle though and we need to try to develop a parallel society that can take over if the Regime collapses. My closing remarks are that I have a lot of respect for your integrity and unwillingness to be influenced by bullying, to me it feels like there is way too much posturing and status-seeking on the right.
Jun 16Liked by Kryptogal (Kate, if you like), Walt Bismarck
This high openness contrarian recognizes many useful insights here, especially “You can and should collaborate with someone you agree with only 60% of the time, simply to move things in the general direction you want.” There is a huge opportunity to embrace those of us who recognize how badly things have gone to shit, and are searching for a course that doesn’t involve more 13 year old girls deciding to cut off their breasts. The right needs to understand that prolife legislation is not a winner. Only a deep cultural change, along with realism about the human need to control reproduction. Guys, that golden past of masculine valor meant you had to work fight and die so women and children could have a better life. Men could expect that if they got laid, it came with a life sentence. What do you do about guys who understand this, and are happy to use women like Kleenex? Because abortion is as much about those guys getting a get out of jail free card. Understand that your enemies are going big on abortion as a wedge issue, and that it will help them. Pro lifers that are serious need to build a more realistic view of the situation. Making “don’t do that” laws won’t change the facts on the ground. Women do want to have babies but they’ll continue to abort because bearing and raising children is a massive commitment, and women can’t effectively do it alone. And how many modern men want to experience the terror that sticking it in might just get them a life sentence?
The problem is that they think it’s normal. And sometimes women trade sex for not being alone. I don’t expect men to be different, so you’re right. Women shouldn’t put up with it. But abortion means they don’t have a life sentence if they make bad choices.
Women gatekeep sex and males gatekeep relationships is still a highly relevant phrase. And women are rarely "alone" in the sense that males can be" alone" usually having a circle of friends.
This is honestly your best piece to date. It shows how all your various ideas and proposals link together into a single compelling vision rooted in coalition-building towards the end of more harmonious relationships between various demographic groups. Before this I could sense that there was a kind of coherence to your proposals but I couldn't quite put my finger on exactly what it was. This really clarifies it. Excellent work!
You're surprisingly optimistic that the two groups that have managed to successfully resist assimilation for multiple millenia will quietly integrate into the dominant white American culture within a few generations. It bears repeating that Greg Clarke's intergenerational social mobility studies revealed the lowest rates of social mobility in India from the set of countries he studied in The Son Also Rises; also worth repeating Razib's note that, in South India, the degree of genetic distance between upper and lower caste Indians in the same town can be as large as the genetic distance between Swedes and Sicillians.
Yes, America is not Telanganu, but you can't correctly generalize from Rajeev to other Indian immigrants. Most Indians don't live in Appalachia, they live in Sunnyvale and eat idli at Madurai where they can surround themselves with other Indians and keep caste alive and well. There are exceptions, of course - I know exogamous Indians (mostly married to Jews, amusingly) - but here you should keep in mind that the demand curves push low caste Indians to exogamy at higher rates than high caste Indians.
While I mostly don't want to take issue with your takes re Jews here, the thing that you miss is that Ben Shapiro and his ilk are liable to each have a leftist or ethnocentric child. It's old hat that Jews are overrepresented in positions of prominence even among WNs, but the corollary to their willingness to break new rhetorical ground each generation is that, next generation, there'll be whatever the 2050s analong of neocons and buzzfeed bergs will be aplenty.
I dunno, maybe this is all self-aware and you're trying to make this more palatable for the knucklehead WNs who read this stuff, but you're least persuasive when you talk about these multi-generation-scale trends. I just don't think you have a handle on how the dynamics will play out.
>”Make this a federal mandate and sweep the homeless off the streets”
I was going to argue about the constitutionality of making this a federal mandate, based on NFIB v. Sibelius and Printz, but then I realized that a court overturning the mandate would actually make it better, politically. If state have to opt into the law, red states will become completely clear of homeless people as they get placed in the facilities or flee to blue states. This will cause single women in them to either vote red or move to safe cities, like what Miami would become. Either way it goes, the Right wins
“More than anything else, that means teaching them how to get money and how to get laid.” LOL. What do you think they were doing up until now?. For thousands of years. It’s just that it was the surrounding culture they breathed and nobody thought about it. They all took it for granted!
How are brahmins going to assimilate if they view average whites as scum? And are they assimilating better in Europe? Supposedly sans American slob. I doubt it. Raising Dragon Slayer agreed with me that he is in a small minority.
We tried shattering so-called white guilt decades ago at the point of a bayonet. You have no idea what black people are like, or any other group for that matter. Try living in India and see how you are treated. LOL. They would call you a sharabi kabobi, drunken meateater. If you accidently hit a cow the mob will kill you. Ask your Indian friends what Eve teasing means. You are being played, my man.
10% in “side with Jews” “Castizo futurism” “abortion is fine” “gays can marry and adopt” bro what’s the point. I can get all of this on the left and actually win. You want me to stay tied to some sinking right wing and fight for the same things LMAO no thanks.
I would think if you really wanted to help white guys, which I'm not sure of at all, you would advocate a return to freedom of association. Meaning you hire, fire, sell to, serve, etc. anyone you want to based on any criteria you can think of – as a private citizen. This would include creating private schools. No centralized Department of Education propaganda. This would also mean no more Title IX. No more race and sex quotas.
My guy, there literally a paragraph in the middle of this piece with ITALICS and BOLD that says:
> Second, in exchange for reparations black people need to permanently give up affirmative action and all DEI initiatives. If possible, we should also use reparations to secure their acceptance of a general rollback of the Civil Rights regime and guaranteed freedom of association, but that is more of a stretch goal.
I mean this with the utmost kindness possible, but you need to actually take some time to carefully read everything that has been presented here, because you obviously have not done so. It's rather silly to be making suggestions or criticisms when have not actually taken a look at the written details in this very post.
How do you roll back the "Civil Rights regime" by extending it? Reparation is just another word for welfare for a protected class. He also contradicts himself by implying freedom of association isn't a serious proposal. He knows perfectly well that is a non-starter for blacks.
With all due respect, you may want to improve your reading comprehension skills. Simply calling a thing by a different name doesn't change the underlying reality. Also, it's not advisable for a dominant group to submit to threats of violence by another group in an inferior position, no matter how much guile they use. It suggests weakness and encourages envy and pride, a mortal sin. So, in effect reparations causes harm to both groups and is a sign of degeneration.
The problem, my White friend, is that the moment you said Black people have justified sentiments and White people may have done something wrong, you commited blasphemy. (Also, taking seriously their categorizations is annoying. No, I don't think White and Black Americans are truly collective enough that they can be brought into agreement by their celebrities signing a document).
You're approaching this like a diplomat, legislator, or negotiator.
Your former friends, however, are more akin to Zealots.
You will not get further with them beyond some immediate practical concern (asking them to tolerate or race mix is a no go), And Your breach with them is irredeemable.
So who's the dream charismatic candidate to be the face selling the platform while you pull the puppet strings? I think a platform of clearing the streets of drug addict/mentally ill homeless to put them in a facility, defending Karens, free porn rehab, and barstool sensibilities in general would get 48-state route type margins.
Though it should be a third party. GOP and DNC have way too much baggage, 70% of Americans hate them both, and they're both operating on played out and irrelevant/useless themes. Plus it's almost impossible to get someone to hold their nose and vote for the "other side" but easy to get people to vote third party. At least, for non Boomers. They're the only ones left with real party identification and a partisan sense of things. Everyone under 55 would have no problem going third party, they'd just have to withstand the Boomer run legacy media going all out on shaming people into adherence with the two party system.
I think if I got Ron DeSantis to divorce his wife, do literally everything I say, and rebrand as a technocrat like he was from 2019-2022 he could easily win on this platform despite his lack of charisma. Maybe Vivek could get on board with this tbh.
Really sorry, Walt, that I haven't been more pro-active about writing and publishing on the 'second/third generation case for severely limiting immigration'. Sai and I have been having a lot of discussions behind the scenes on how to frame this in a way that is unabashedly pro-American/pro-West, but that doesn't unnecessarily threaten/offend the high-IQ people we care about and the less open folks in the circles we run among. In the meantime, I hope a lot of folks listen to our latest episode on Castizo Futurism – probably our best one yet.
Not a prob--I can easily edit your piece in here once it's published!
Excellent guidebook and glad to see you also embrace the ban hammer against low IQ and callow accounts
Point of clarification: I think you can bleach people in my demographic but just not en masse. Most Asians will be racially (though not ethnically) endogamous, a chunk will intermarry with other nonwhites, and a chunk with whites. Among those who intermarry with whites, a chunk of the kids will marry Asians, a chunk other non-whites, and a chunk whites. Therefore, only a fraction of the third gen will be bleached, which is insufficient for the idea to work. Bleaching takes one gen with MENAs and Hispanics (and maybe Desis) but two with black people and Asians. Happy to see you consider my input and that you're respectful enough to accept the harmless subculture
"If there’s anything you should take away from this piece, it’s that we don’t need to agree on everything to collaborate, and the most important thing is that we figure out how to move past the polarization and gridlock of the past two decades and chart an energetic and civicminded new course for America out of the swamp we’re in."
Yep!
It is true that I am embracing centrism, and I may write up why at some point. Funny enough, "in defense of wine moms" is on my brainstorm of articles I want to write. Liberal white women have been the most empathetic to me on my own journey, and I've come to recognize the correctness of some of their concerns about, for example, threats to democracy. Attracting women is obviously key for any political movement, especially those on the right. "The Karen is a vital civilizational force and she needs to be cherished and respected" is a good line. I agree.
Brilliant article, as always Walt. You’re a man with an appealing vision, who exudes positivity and ‘fun’. You are the perfect antidote to the religious right and conspiratorial chuds.
1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 1 will be impossible through the vehicle of the GOP and pro-life politics.
3. What's happening in Gaza is a moral abomination that no right-thinking person should want to associate with or turn a blind eye to.
4. South Asian immigrants are a benefit to American society through their non-Christian background and higher IQ. Allying with them against the populist mob will be key. The future is global, we must embrace that.
I don't really have much to say about the other three points. If you're concerned about leftism, hyper-egalitarianism and anti-whiteism then you should be leveraging liberal elitism against the populist mob, supporting reproductive technologies such as embryo selection and turbocharging the speed at which Christianity dies.
Agree on Gaza but allying with South Asians is a massively idiotic proposal. The future being global means that transnational ethnic bonds (not dissimilar to what we’ve had with Jews for centuries) will serve to weaken the constitution of our country. Indians are notoriously ethnocentric and by courting them as allies we’d be creating a host of future problems for an ambiguous term benefit. Also wanting to destroy Christianity is deeply misguided not to mention unrealistic.
I mostly agree with you Luke but I think there's an issue of timescales involved, changing elite opinion is going to take time and in the here and now we have major problems that need to be dealt with. If the elites are currently our enemies we need to be taking measures to counter them and achieve the most important short-term goals before attempting to shift the Overton Window. As far as Gaza goes I feel like it's being oversimplified by both sides, the reality it is a civil war which is very brutal for the people on the losing side (as most civil wars are). I'm much more interested in promoting the right of exit so it's easier for people to escape war zones, albeit that doesn't mean they have the right to immigrate anywhere they want.
"South Asian immigrants are a benefit to American society through their non Christian background and high IQ ".The latter only benefits economic growth whilst with the former I'm presuming you're viewing it as detracting from Americas "Christian identity". But look at India itself where in the north sex selective abortions and female infanticide etc has created a 7:6 sex ratio which has led to some males there having to seek wives from darker skinned groups in the country something which is entirely opposite to their normal mating impulse. In the west however they have access to white women which they will certainly avail of although having a high status will definitely make them a suitable boy for another Indian family's daughter. My side of the pond white identity is being degraded by what is effectively a black and South Asian assault wave of immigration on top of the pre existing population of those two distinct groups with the whole legal,educational, political, cultural and corporate structures being realigned to elevate them and degrade white natives .Obviously the UK or Europe is not the same as the US but I believe that it's worth the compare and contrast binary question
Hi Bismarck,
I haven't read very many of your posts before but this one is really insightful and interesting. I have responses to each of the points you made that I would like to hear your thoughts on. If you wanted to have me on your podcast for a more in depth discussion that would be cool, but we would need to use a voice modulator so I could remain anonymous.
1. As a Gen Z autistic guy I have had very negative experiences with women most of my life, so I suppose I bear a level of "gender animus" that affects how I view certain issues. However I try to set aside my personal biases as much as possible and take an objective standpoint when considering "women's issues". I have pretty controversial opinions about abortion but in general I support a moderate policy, I feel much the same way about fentanyl zombies that young white women do, the deepfake issue I don't care either way about. Where I disagree completely is about imposing laws around relationships designed to restrict men, as I see it the laws that exist are already way too biased in women's favor and we need a big push in the opposite direction, particularly removing the ability for women to take a man's belongings upon separation, making the laws around sexual harassment/assault allegations much more fair and punishing women who are determined to have made a false allegation, and creating a higher bar of proof for abuse within relationships. I also don't give a shit about the word Karen but I will still side with high IQ white women over low IQ minority women, so I guess I can get behind that. As far as the promiscuity thing, I am a sexually unsuccessful guy so I don't have strong feelings about what men women choose to bang or at what frequency, I overall can't really be arsed to care how women behave. I would prefer women be loyal to a particular man than use sex to manipulate men into doing things they want, but it is not my business either way.
2. This I can agree with, but I think it is less important than addressing the fact that there is actual systematic discrimination against white men conducted in the name of diversity and anti-discrimination, and until we restore a level playing field there is a limit to what self help is going to accomplish. Making money and getting laid are obviously great things, but the Regime is doing its utmost to prevent white men from achieving those things and it is a zero sum game where any white guy who does overcome these obstacles will do it at the expense of others. To me this is fostering a competitive mindset when white men really need to cooperate with other to achieve commonly shared goals. My opinion about the "woman question" is that by and large men and women have different self-interests and there is only a degree to which those can overlap, I don't think that is an expression of resentment so much of an observation of evolutionary psychology building off of selfish gene theory. I don't care about other guys having more sex or whatever but I do have a problem with society being as I see it set up to benefit women and screw me or other non elite men over. Unbridled heterosexuality would definitely be an improvement, but I would also want it to involve the aforementioned legal changes regarding relationships. I also feel somewhat concerned about the homosexual adoption question because setting aside what is best for the child's wellbeing, I want a small government that does not make arbitrary dictates (arbitrary in the sense of based on subjective judgements) and regulating adoption goes against that. Personally I would rather just let parents choose who can adopt their kids, either specifying particular people or making broad statements like "no gay couples allowed", which would protect anyone who was concerned on a personal level about their own kids. I agree with you on the porn issue so no comment there.
3. This is an interesting one since I'm a "mischling" and am not all too happy about any of the Jew related stuff going on. I am not one of the Jews who suddenly woke up to how bad the left was after October 7, I was already long aware of that and have felt pretty exasperated at how so many Jews seem to be have been completely clueless up until it personally affected them. My feeling is and has been before that I am a white person and my interests are white interests (with allowance for some degree of variation potentially), so what I am most concerned about is being accepted as an ally by the Right since many people have what you said was a "wrongheaded impulse". The fundamental sticking point is they have to promise to leave me alone, meaning respecting my civil rights and not trying to kick me out of the country. Until there is a unified effort from the Right to push out hostile antisemites and stop even tolerating "jokes" like '110 and never again' I simply can't trust the movement to defend my interests and would side with the Left against it if necessary. My attitude is I WANT to be "just another type of white person" but having people like that in the movement forces me into defending my ethnic interests.
4. I pretty much agree with you on the Brahmin question and I have fairly positive feelings toward high caste Indians. However since there are genetic differences between Indians and whites that would realistically prevent complete integration, I think people who feel less favorable towards them should have the right to "discriminate" against them on a personal level, which would be adequately addressed by getting rid of civil rights law.
5. I don't care very much about racial identities as such, except insofar as racial differences create societal problems that need to be fixed. In the long run (like the next generation or 2) the best solution is to CRISPR out differences in IQ or other socially valuable traits, but since you can't really make that a public policy agenda we need to do damage control in the meantime. Trying to get Hispanics to marry whites would probably help some, but I expect gene editing to accomplish the same goals a long time before there would be meaningful change through normal reproduction.
6. That's an interesting idea, but I still resent the concept of being forced to pay for black people's problems. I would rather have a system that would offer low skill physical labor to blacks or anybody for that matter in exchange for a guaranteed job and housing (people can call that reskinned slavery but idgaf). Admittedly I haven't thought much about the details of how that should work.
7. This sounds like a great plan but I'm not really financially independent or in a good position to exert power through money. I support it in principle though and we need to try to develop a parallel society that can take over if the Regime collapses. My closing remarks are that I have a lot of respect for your integrity and unwillingness to be influenced by bullying, to me it feels like there is way too much posturing and status-seeking on the right.
This high openness contrarian recognizes many useful insights here, especially “You can and should collaborate with someone you agree with only 60% of the time, simply to move things in the general direction you want.” There is a huge opportunity to embrace those of us who recognize how badly things have gone to shit, and are searching for a course that doesn’t involve more 13 year old girls deciding to cut off their breasts. The right needs to understand that prolife legislation is not a winner. Only a deep cultural change, along with realism about the human need to control reproduction. Guys, that golden past of masculine valor meant you had to work fight and die so women and children could have a better life. Men could expect that if they got laid, it came with a life sentence. What do you do about guys who understand this, and are happy to use women like Kleenex? Because abortion is as much about those guys getting a get out of jail free card. Understand that your enemies are going big on abortion as a wedge issue, and that it will help them. Pro lifers that are serious need to build a more realistic view of the situation. Making “don’t do that” laws won’t change the facts on the ground. Women do want to have babies but they’ll continue to abort because bearing and raising children is a massive commitment, and women can’t effectively do it alone. And how many modern men want to experience the terror that sticking it in might just get them a life sentence?
But time and time again women choose those guys that use them like Kleenex ..
confidence is sexy, no getting around that
The problem is that they think it’s normal. And sometimes women trade sex for not being alone. I don’t expect men to be different, so you’re right. Women shouldn’t put up with it. But abortion means they don’t have a life sentence if they make bad choices.
Women gatekeep sex and males gatekeep relationships is still a highly relevant phrase. And women are rarely "alone" in the sense that males can be" alone" usually having a circle of friends.
This is honestly your best piece to date. It shows how all your various ideas and proposals link together into a single compelling vision rooted in coalition-building towards the end of more harmonious relationships between various demographic groups. Before this I could sense that there was a kind of coherence to your proposals but I couldn't quite put my finger on exactly what it was. This really clarifies it. Excellent work!
You're surprisingly optimistic that the two groups that have managed to successfully resist assimilation for multiple millenia will quietly integrate into the dominant white American culture within a few generations. It bears repeating that Greg Clarke's intergenerational social mobility studies revealed the lowest rates of social mobility in India from the set of countries he studied in The Son Also Rises; also worth repeating Razib's note that, in South India, the degree of genetic distance between upper and lower caste Indians in the same town can be as large as the genetic distance between Swedes and Sicillians.
Yes, America is not Telanganu, but you can't correctly generalize from Rajeev to other Indian immigrants. Most Indians don't live in Appalachia, they live in Sunnyvale and eat idli at Madurai where they can surround themselves with other Indians and keep caste alive and well. There are exceptions, of course - I know exogamous Indians (mostly married to Jews, amusingly) - but here you should keep in mind that the demand curves push low caste Indians to exogamy at higher rates than high caste Indians.
While I mostly don't want to take issue with your takes re Jews here, the thing that you miss is that Ben Shapiro and his ilk are liable to each have a leftist or ethnocentric child. It's old hat that Jews are overrepresented in positions of prominence even among WNs, but the corollary to their willingness to break new rhetorical ground each generation is that, next generation, there'll be whatever the 2050s analong of neocons and buzzfeed bergs will be aplenty.
I dunno, maybe this is all self-aware and you're trying to make this more palatable for the knucklehead WNs who read this stuff, but you're least persuasive when you talk about these multi-generation-scale trends. I just don't think you have a handle on how the dynamics will play out.
>”Make this a federal mandate and sweep the homeless off the streets”
I was going to argue about the constitutionality of making this a federal mandate, based on NFIB v. Sibelius and Printz, but then I realized that a court overturning the mandate would actually make it better, politically. If state have to opt into the law, red states will become completely clear of homeless people as they get placed in the facilities or flee to blue states. This will cause single women in them to either vote red or move to safe cities, like what Miami would become. Either way it goes, the Right wins
“More than anything else, that means teaching them how to get money and how to get laid.” LOL. What do you think they were doing up until now?. For thousands of years. It’s just that it was the surrounding culture they breathed and nobody thought about it. They all took it for granted!
How are brahmins going to assimilate if they view average whites as scum? And are they assimilating better in Europe? Supposedly sans American slob. I doubt it. Raising Dragon Slayer agreed with me that he is in a small minority.
We tried shattering so-called white guilt decades ago at the point of a bayonet. You have no idea what black people are like, or any other group for that matter. Try living in India and see how you are treated. LOL. They would call you a sharabi kabobi, drunken meateater. If you accidently hit a cow the mob will kill you. Ask your Indian friends what Eve teasing means. You are being played, my man.
10% in “side with Jews” “Castizo futurism” “abortion is fine” “gays can marry and adopt” bro what’s the point. I can get all of this on the left and actually win. You want me to stay tied to some sinking right wing and fight for the same things LMAO no thanks.
I would think if you really wanted to help white guys, which I'm not sure of at all, you would advocate a return to freedom of association. Meaning you hire, fire, sell to, serve, etc. anyone you want to based on any criteria you can think of – as a private citizen. This would include creating private schools. No centralized Department of Education propaganda. This would also mean no more Title IX. No more race and sex quotas.
Let nature take its course.
My guy, there literally a paragraph in the middle of this piece with ITALICS and BOLD that says:
> Second, in exchange for reparations black people need to permanently give up affirmative action and all DEI initiatives. If possible, we should also use reparations to secure their acceptance of a general rollback of the Civil Rights regime and guaranteed freedom of association, but that is more of a stretch goal.
I mean this with the utmost kindness possible, but you need to actually take some time to carefully read everything that has been presented here, because you obviously have not done so. It's rather silly to be making suggestions or criticisms when have not actually taken a look at the written details in this very post.
How do you roll back the "Civil Rights regime" by extending it? Reparation is just another word for welfare for a protected class. He also contradicts himself by implying freedom of association isn't a serious proposal. He knows perfectly well that is a non-starter for blacks.
With all due respect, you may want to improve your reading comprehension skills. Simply calling a thing by a different name doesn't change the underlying reality. Also, it's not advisable for a dominant group to submit to threats of violence by another group in an inferior position, no matter how much guile they use. It suggests weakness and encourages envy and pride, a mortal sin. So, in effect reparations causes harm to both groups and is a sign of degeneration.
And I'm not your guy.
💯
The problem, my White friend, is that the moment you said Black people have justified sentiments and White people may have done something wrong, you commited blasphemy. (Also, taking seriously their categorizations is annoying. No, I don't think White and Black Americans are truly collective enough that they can be brought into agreement by their celebrities signing a document).
You're approaching this like a diplomat, legislator, or negotiator.
Your former friends, however, are more akin to Zealots.
You will not get further with them beyond some immediate practical concern (asking them to tolerate or race mix is a no go), And Your breach with them is irredeemable.