Moral Outrage as a Sign of Trustworthiness and Long-Term Mate Value
One of the themes of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition is that the West is characterized by the paramount importance of moral communities rather than communities based on kinship. Another fundamental feature of the West is monogamous marriage. Thus I found it fascinating that a recent study undergoing the review process found that moral outrage, especially by males, acts as a cue to mate value in monogamous marriage. Since women want mates who fit into their moral community, men who signal moral outrage compatible with the values of that community are seen as good marriage prospects. All of the subjects were White and they were given images of opposite-sex people—leading me to wonder whether the paper will be rejected because it implicitly endorses opposite-sex relationships and White-White relationships as standard.
That may seem completely over the top, but just recently two professors, one at Michigan State and one at the University of Colorado, wrote a paper promoting a moral panic because people may be unconsciously performing microaggressions during Zoom videoconferencing that is now so common because of the virus.
“For example, when the virtual background of a Zoom meeting attendee has pictures of his or her wedding, it unintentionally reinforces the idea that marriage is most fitting between opposite sexes.” https://t.co/h1mfeSrJmr
— Kevin Under-House-Arrest MacDonald (@TOOEdit) May 24, 2020
From the article:
“In a recent videoconference, we were asked the ‘most fun thing you’ve done with your family during quarantine.’ Participant answers ranged from ‘gardening with my husband’ to ‘dance parties with my family,’” Viveiros said.
MSU’s article explains that sharing these types of experiences “crowd out the experiences of people with minoritized social identities and that “asking about ‘fun family things’ prevented several Latinx attendees from sharing their experiences of losing family members to novel coronavirus.”
So I wouldn’t be surprised if the paper was rejected because it didn’t have a diverse subject sample and didn’t depict all the possible mating scenarios—male-male, female-female, with all the possible racial combinations. But I digress.
The images in the moral outrage experiment depicted White people as performing
behaviors designed to connote both anger toward perceived injustice and an effortful response to it that could not be construed merely as virtue signaling (e.g., advocacy work to pay NCAA athletes, working to end human trafficking, removing plastic straws from beaches to help sea turtles), or control activities (e.g., intramural sports, working as an RA, playing video games).
Since the most obviously exploited NCAA athletes are Black stars in football and basketball who pack the stadiums and field houses of college campuses and thereby paying the multi-million dollar salaries of the (predominantly White) coaches, this would bring up images of Whites behaving altruistically toward oppressed Blacks.
One can imagine how this plays out on college campuses. Boy meets girl and wants to show that he is a good long-term possibility as a mate. (If he wanted to communicate that he was a good short-term mate, he should be working on his biceps.) A good way to do that would be to be aware of what moral community the women is part of. And that would typically mean the moral community of the mainstream media and the academic left which is being propagandized by pretty much the entire faculty. So he might steer the conversation to current events and, knowing she is your typical liberal arts major, he could express moral outrage at the latest Trump outrage. Or at the Georgia shooting of the Black “jogger.” He would thereby indicate that he is not only a good person but someone who promises to be a pillar of their shared moral community, whether at the university or in the wider society of young urban professionals. And it would be even better if he told her that he is a sociology major and is donating his free time to a Black charity, thus implying that he is not merely virtue-signaling. All else equal, he’d be well on his way to establishing a relationship.
Of course, all else won’t be equal, and he might get docked for other qualities like earning potential—not good for sociology majors. But he could help himself in that department by saying he’s going to get into a good law school when he graduates. Not a bad strategy because having a social justice background would certainly be a leg up in the application process.
It’s interesting that all of the subjects in the experiment were White college students. I rather doubt that results would be similar for non-Western peoples. There is certainly overlap in some of the desired traits, like social status or potential social status (earning power). It is my observation that Blacks don’t judge politicians by their moral pronouncements or their behavior (like corruption), but by their appealing to Black identity and interests (welfare, the criminal justice system, affirmative action). Otherwise Maxine Waters would be long gone. The moral pronouncements of such people are strictly for White consumption.
Here’s a relevant passage from Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:
The conviction of self-righteousness … need not be rational:
What feels like a conscious life-affirming moral choice—my life will have meaning if I help others—will be greatly influenced by the strength of an unconscious and involuntary mental sensation that tells me that this decision is “correct.” It will be this same feeling that will tell you the “rightness” of giving food to starving children in Somalia, doing every medical test imaginable on a clearly terminal patient … . It helps to see this feeling of knowing as analogous to other bodily sensations over which we have no direct control.
In other words, the sensations of rightness and nobility act as psychological reflexes, and they are so pleasurable that people are inclined to seek them in their own right and without regard to facts or the long-run consequences to themselves.
Talk to an insistent know-it-all who refuses to consider contrary opinions and you get a palpable sense of how the feeling of knowing can create a mental state akin to addiction. … Imagine the profound effect of feeling certain that you have ultimate answers. … Relinquishing such strongly felt personal beliefs would require undoing or lessening major connections with the overwhelmingly seductive pleasure-reward circuitry. Think of such a shift of opinion as producing the same type of physiological changes as withdrawing from drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes.
Feelings of moral righteousness may thus be pleasurable and lead to addiction. “Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.”
The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Or, that your method of helping others is so purely motivated and correct that all criticism can be dismissed with a shrug, along with any contradicting evidence.
This type of sanctimoniousness is, of course, particularly common among the people labeled “Social Justice Warriors.” These are the people screaming “racist,” “misogynist,” “white supremacist,” etc. at any seeming violation of the norms of the moral communities of the left. And, because of the cultural hegemony of the left, such people can often be seen on social media (and in op-eds in the mainstream media) expressing their moral righteousness—a moral righteousness that fits with or extends the boundaries of the cultural left.
Another aspect of this is competitive altruism or competitive virtue signaling. Given that expressions of moral righteousness are typically communicated in a social setting and are aimed at solidifying or enhancing one’s reputation within a group, there may be competition for ever more extreme expressions of self-righteousness—even among people who are not biologically inclined to be high on the Love/Nurturance system. Extreme expressions of moral righteousness are not only addicting, they may also raise one’s status in a social group, just as it’s common for religious people to express “holier than thou” sentiments. Strongly religious people compete to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served—even family members. I imagine there is a dynamic within antifa groups—the shock troops of the establishment’s views on race and migration—where people who do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.
The result is a “feed forward” process in which the poles of political discourse move ever farther apart. For example, well-publicized attacks on Confederate statues have quickly morphed into attacks on Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus. Sympathy among liberals for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants has morphed into calls by prominent Democrats to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), make border crossing legal, and give them health care, driver’s licenses, voting rights, and ultimately citizenship. Inviting anyone remotely associated with conservative ideas—much less the racialist Right—to give a talk at a college campus has morphed from a tolerated rarity to a context for angry protests, rioting, injuries to conservatives, and damage to property.
Indeed, I suggest that this competitive virtue signaling is a major cause of the increasing polarization that we see in the United States and throughout the West in the age of social media. A Pew Research Center survey on changes in U.S. political culture from 1994–2017 found that the increasing divide between Republicans and Democrats, especially on immigration and race, was much more due to the median views of Democrats shifting left.
Nevertheless, a theoretically similar phenomenon exists on the right as, for example, when individuals condemn others for being insufficiently militant or ideologically pure. However, because the left dominates the cultural landscape, such competitive virtue signaling has had most of its effects on the left. Such competitive virtue signaling from both the left and the right is highly characteristic of the social dynamics of social media sites and journalism.
People on the right face the danger of “doxxing,” having their identity and personal information made public. Hosts of shows in the mainstream media may have to cope with losing sponsors and hence their livelihood; e.g., as of March, 2019, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had lost around 30 sponsors, mainly because of his comments on immigration. Or people may fear losing their job as a result of a phone call to their place of employment by a self-described “civil rights” organization such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League. This may well be why it is the left that has become more extreme in recent decades, whereas far too many on the right attempt to mollify their leftist critics by knuckling under to their moral righteousness.
The cultural domination of the left has meant that certain views are off-limits for all but the most daring. Thus, media sites like Breitbart and The Daily Caller, while definitely to the right of the mainstream media, avoid explicit advocacy of White identity and interests. Such constraints are much less apparent on the left, with the result that the left continues to get more and more extreme in their views. As I write, views on immigration noted above and on abortion (making abortion legal up until or even shortly after birth) that used to be virtually non-existent among Democrats are increasingly being espoused by mainstream Democrat politicians and pundits.
A critical consequence of this is racial polarization. White Americans have been shifting toward the Republican Party—the last Democrat president to get a majority of White votes was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. In general, this is an expression of implicit Whiteness (discussed below), as non-White groups coalesce in the Democratic Party. The point here is that such trends are likely to increase and polarization become more severe.
 Robert A. Burton, “Pathological Certitude,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 131–37, 135.
 Ibid., 136.
 David Brin, “Self-addiction and Self-righteousness,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 77–84, 80.
 Ibid., 80.
 Pew Research Center, “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider” (October 5, 2017).
 Jeremy Barr, “Without Major Sponsors, Tucker Carlson’s Show Leans on Ads for Fox Programming,” The Hollywood Reporter (March 22, 2019).
 Mitch Brown et al., “Demonstrate Values: Behavioral Displays of Moral Outrage as a Cue to Long-Term Mate Potential,” unpublished ms, Fairleigh Dickinson University (2020).
How can this analysis be correct if it is also the case that high T men are dominant, aggressive rule-breakers who are unconcerned with the approval of others? These men are often war heroes and criminals, actors, athletes and trial lawyers. I was reading some of Thomas Jackson’s reviews of books on sex differences this morning at AmRen, and that is what prompted my question.
I’d say that War Heroes act the way they do largely because they exist in a culture that glorifies war heroes.
I’d say actors are concerned with the approval of others, in fact they master the art (put a lot of work into it) of presenting themselves in a way that others like.
Trial lawyers are also taking a high-status job, a way of being viewed more highly in society.
Athletes do what they do because their culture glorifies physical prowess of the athlete. If the culture does not much care for a particular sport, they will not play that sport typically. That shows that social approval does matter to them.
Ambition/aggression is about climbing social hierarchies, and social hierarchies are built upon social approval/disapproval mechanisms.
Once in a very dominant place, the man might find a way to shift the norms though. Usually in a direction that is even better for himself.
I think that we are not ambitious high-T aggressive people. If so, we would maybe enjoy rat race and not worry about changing the world too much.
It seems that most of us want to completely abolish “the system” so to speak. We don’t want to have to try to compete with different tribes right next to us, we’d rather hold down a territory that serves as our “safe space,” where we can breathe easy.
Talk for yourself. I want to send all mozlems back to arabia and further back. Joggers back to África , and so on. with a little help from my friends and by any means needed.
The Left, generously reaching into the co-opted Center, unabatedly critiques the security apparatus of the Third Reich. Unquestionably, this apparatus was all-pervasive, but also had a semblance of order and fairness: until at least the attempt on Hitler. Many, after preliminary investigations by the Gestapo, were sent home.
Stalin and his Bolsheviks were incomparably more vicious and vengeful: and they well preceded Hitler’s ascent. The numbers are as staggering, as their so-called jurisprudence. The post-Soviet, Russian film, CHETNIK portrays it correctly. A smoke-filled room with two ” jurists “, one with a Jewish name, rush through that afternoon’s stack of files. One reads the allegations, the other pronounces the death sentences forthwith.
The camera shows the execution chambers in the basement of the Lubjanka Prison; the palatial, former All-Russia Insurance Company HO. Men and women, of all ages, enter stripped, are pointed to face a wall and shot in the neck. Bodies dragged to a basement window and winched up by their feet. Tossed onto a truck, covered by a tarpaulin, with a few legs protruding; then carted off.
The East-German STASI kept a 71 pages file on me for my effort to relieve them of several of their 16 million inhabitants after they were incarcerated by their wall. It took two years to view the file, in the very office of their Central Administration in eastern Berlin, after the wall was ordained to fall.
Said file was heavily redacted in the fashion of Western domestic or criminal cases so as to minimize personal retaliation. However, unlimited time allowed for a mental reconstruction of certain reported incidents, which afforded a high degree of recall: filling in redacted names.
The border-guards at Checkpoint Charlie were regular troops, rotated frequently to avoid burgeoning friendships. Without exception, they were decent men. The STASI, by comparison, had some ” ideologically sound ” people capable of a transgression or two: with a secret cellar in the middle of Berlin, for extra-judicial executions.
WHY IS IT THEN, that I would be FAR MORE apprehensive about the potential treatment one could expect from our so-called neighbors ? Not scared in the ordinary sense, since I have seen much and lived some of it, but rather apprehensive as to how I would react ?
A full-spectrum, final assault on us by our own citizens would not be less brutal than what I described above. Their current methodology is still less bloody, but already incomparably more consequential than that of Stalin, Hitler and Honecker. Not that this completes the list.
In the end, the positions taken up by the US Armed Forces will decide. If you disagree, then tell me why Israel provides junkets for West Point seniors to learn the values of the ” only Democracy in the Middle East ” ! And whose side is the handsomely remunerated, tax-payer funded West Point leadership on ? Patriots or agents of influence ?
The Russian film I referred to is of course THE CHEKIST, not Chetnik.
It’s available on the net.
Aye Charles, some good points you have there for sure. What Kevin essentially alludes to in his article, and what you confirm in your comment is the depth and pervasiveness of the moral corruption and intellectual poisoning in the White West. The ugly truth of the matter is that this state of affairs is currently shifting into high gear. The White ‘milk herd’ is being disabused as never before, and the (((perpetrators))) and their addled minions continue to rampage on, essentially unopposed.
We are living in a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party!
Am I right in thinking that you meant to type “abused”—i.e., rather than “disabused”—in your comment above? Surely part of the reason that the rampage continues, as you say, “essentially unopposed” is that White people throughout the West continue to fail to see what is happening to them and via whose instrumentality.
Wow: The West Point comment is stunning. Yet here in WV the Jewish Director of the State Prisons has recently installed Holocaust training for both the staff and inmates. This is in addition to grade school instruction in the WV pubic schools.
Are you people in WV protesting against that?
Against pubic schools?
01 What you refer to is merely a small part of the full- spectrum assault on us all.
02 Review your reply and notice, that you are referring to three essentially ” captive ” audiences. Then ask yourself whether three out of three is a coincidence.
03 Perhaps US Police Forces getting their training in Israel is a more widely known fact: with the same aim.
04 Google for videos of US Cadets visiting their ” Brothers in Arms in Israel ” to fully understand their influence at West Point: coming damn close to Benedict Arnold.
05 In print, check out the heartwarming, snuggle-up descriptions in the JERUSALEM POST.
06 Reminiscent of Lev Bronstein [ Trotsky ] and Lenin laying the foundation for their murderous hordes: as realistically portrayed in THE CHEKIST.
07 Ca. seven years ago, Haaretz published a letter someone had played into their hands. It was authored by organized Russian Jewry and widely circulated among their own.
It exhorted all Jews to seek not only well-paying jobs for their own sake, but especially jobs at specific intersections to afford and exercise lateral influence leading to control.
08 And, exactly how, does this differentiate itself from my above ? No need, to even INTERPRET what they state.
Take care ! CF.
Charles Frey. Very interesting. On British TV so much time is spent on investigating ‘Nazi horrors’ including hunting down 90 year old veterans, that there is not really any TV time left to even mention the occupation of East Germany at all. Plus of course the H industry as well being the main focus of recent history, leaving no time left to criticise any communist atrocities such as POW camps. Therefore I doubt that many people are even aware of what communism in action is really like. Our mainstream media really are the enemy-within.
– Did you succeed in getting the people that you mention out of East Germany?
– From the secret files kept on you, where you able to work out who the individuals were who were passing on info about you, and did any of these people acknowledge it or say sorry?
01 Ca. a quarter of a million of their youngest and brightest fled shortly before the Wall. [ Sunday, August 13, ’61, 02:30 – November 9, 1989 ]. In all, they lost ca. 20% of their population, threatening economic collapse.
02 The draconian Section 213 of their Criminal Code sought to stem the tide. Two years for FLIGHT OF THE REPUBLIC: eight years for helpers. Ca 35,000 so convicted, were bought out by Bonn: for an average of 80,000 Deutsche Mark pp. Payments handled by the Protestant Churches: of which Merkel’s father was a DDR minister; having transferred there from the West voluntarily.
03 East Germans were permitted to visit SISTER SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, i.e. Warsaw Pact, but not unaligned Yugoslavia.
04 Nixon had visited Ceausescu of Romania. No rocket-science to assume its so-called Green Border with Yugoslavia to be less deadly than elsewhere. The Danube river near the old Habsburg fortifications against the Turks, the Iron Gate, became my entirely bloodless choice.
05 Thence to the West German Embassy in Belgrade, which, pursuant to its Hallstein Doctrine, was constitutionally forbidden to recognize the DDR. There was only one German citizenship. Thus a DDR medical student and Olympic rower metamorphosed into a West German apprentice plumber for the purpose of the train trip to Giessen [ Frankfurt ] for mandatory US Intelligence debriefing, followed by subsidized reintegration into U o F Medical School.
06 Yes, I was able to reliably deduce a number of those who informed on me. One initially merely spurious question that posed itself to me was solved. My aunt, in East Berlin, and I visited a neighbor of hers upstairs for coffee, which she brewed on her gas stove. Mid-afternoon required no lights and she had no electric appliances in her smallish flat.
Of course she had the identical electric meter in her entrance area as my aunt. It was rotating far quicker than the consumption to operate itself. I noticed it but forgot about it until I realized, after reading my file years later, that she was running a hidden tape recorder.
07 No, I never spoke to those again, who had irreversibly chosen to write themselves out of my life.
08 My mother’s brother, Gerhard Alde, had gotten his Army commission defending the German U-Boot pens in La Rochelle, France. He was transferred to the Russian front, was taken prisoner by the Bolsheviks, but escaped, with four others, assisted by Russian peasants, 400 miles back to the German lines.
In Dessau, DDR [ Junkers and Bauhaus ] with wife and four children, he was repeatedly pressured by the STASI to become an informer. Wife, children and a small construction company he was allowed to own and run, with less than six employees, certainly exposed him on multiple levels.
He consistently refused, without any repercussions.
Being retired I watch a lot of TV. The anti-White onslaught is endless in both TV shows and ads. Progressive insurance has “Jamie” – a typical White guy – who is routinely portrayed as a goof and ridiculed by his coworkers. Many shows/ads routinely have a mixed race couple (almost always a Black male and White female), as well a openly gay couples.
The more people see these the more they’re led to believe that this is the current “norm” and should be accepted as such. Given that gays are only about 4%of the population (and Blacks around 11%) this definitely does not represent the majority White population values.
Once again the message is simply this – that minorities are more important than majorities. Even the old Loonie Tunes had the same (jewish) message – the little guy always beats the big guy.
So, be careful of what you watch…..pick up a good (TOO) book and know that we can still win this war.
I don’t see how this war can be won when most white people, infected with the pathological complex of WEOSX (white ethnomasochist oikophobia and suicidal xenophilia), now burn with unquenchable lust to be eternally and publicly gang raped by Paco Jamal, Abdul, Wong, and Shekelstein as the ultimate form of virtue signaling.
I can tell you as a non-Anglo, no British Isles blood European that part of this is ethnic. You guys really do seem to communicate by socially shamming each other. Whether you’re making fun of someone for not being sexually degenerate, or castigating someone for being sexually degenerate, there’s a pronounced “I’m morally better than you” vibe to Anglo-Americans that is absent among Germans or Italians, who are more arrogant about being better at something specific like sports, but don’t have that peculiar smugness of the ever-progressive American “I’m on the right side of history” crap.
Interesting point. Why do you think this is?
It seems that all white Americans are in this moral frenzy. Northern whites are probably the worst, and that region is actually less Anglo than others.
Things would not have gotten this far if men weren’t ruled by their sexual lusts.
Women are more receptive than men to “social justice” messaging. Guys who want to get laid or get a date have to conform their attitudes to those of the women they are interested in. If a woman gets into an argument with a conservative man, “white knights” will fly to her defense. It’s the sexual marketplace influencing the political marketplace.
It wasn’t always this way. A lot of women were attracted to “bad boys,” and what could be “badder” than ridiculing the politically correct?
“Bad boys” have disappeared on college campuses and in the workplace because social disapproval is now accompanied by administrative punishments, doxing, firing, etc.
Most of these sanctions are imposed by private entities that do not have to honor the first amendment to the Constitution or due process of any kind.
Corporations now consider white males to be expendable. Non-Jewish white males built up the civilizational infrastructure to enable corporations to function relying on women, non-whites, immigrants and overseas workers. Now they are no longer needed. Automation and AI will only intensify white male obsolescence.
As for universities, the private ones rely on Asians and Jews to keep up their academic standards. No need for non-Jewish whites.
Public universities are a slightly different story. As arms of the state, they can be sued for punishing free speech and denying due process. The “elite” public universities are responding by making troublesome whites even more of a minority within their student bodies.
Thus the recent decision by the University of California to stop requiring the SAT for freshman applicants. UC will remain picky in its graduate programs in order to preserve its reputation as a research institution, but its undergraduate student body will only exist in order to allow the university to posture as a “public service” — requiring (white) taxpayer support — and to pay lip service to “diversity.”
“men who signal moral outrage compatible with the values of that community are seen as good marriage prospects.”
Most people are able to conform with current culture values to a very high degree. This is such a major part of our behaviour that it is even strongly present in 6-7 year old children. For the brain to devote so many neurons to this task at such an early age shows what a significant part it plays in our behaviour patterns.
For example, 6-7 year old muslim children in a school will very strongly police each other (‘You cannot eat that biscuit one of the ingredients is not Halal’).
Teacher: “I saw Mr Brown last week”
Reply from child: “You cannot say Mr Brown, it’s racist!”
This shows that although this reply slightly misses the mark on this occasion, nevertheless it shows that conforming with norms is top in his thought process.
The reason for this is that if tribe A wants to go to war with tribe B over the issue of whether eggs should be eaten small side up or big side up, then in the War, the tribe that wins is the tribe that is united and where all the members can enthusiastically support whichever way up their King says is correct.
This explains how the men in the Allies’ countries were able to rush to WWII against Hitler as the govt gave them a few sentences and they all started chanting in unison ‘Hitler wants to take over the world’. Their behaviour instincts had been successfully activated. No logic thought was involved. Dissenters would from now on be called names such as ‘traitors/collaborators’. I will wager that in the lines to enlist during WWII there was never any discussion in any line of enlisting soldiers about the history of Poland/Austria or about which country had rights to which lands. Everything was reduced to about 3 summary sentences an no-one ever questioned the govt propaganda lies, then of course after the War the biggest War LIe was given fact status and legal protection.
The prehistoric tribe where there is an internal discussion about rights and wrongs before the battle campaign starts, this tribe is divided and will lose. So conformity leads to strength.
The readers of blogs like this are thinkers more than conformers, and we often make the mistake of assuming that others think as we do, ie thinking logically. The left know they need to avoid logical thought as it does not help their cause.
TOO video archive used to have a video on social comparison theory that addressed the desire to one up one’s peers by becoming more extreme. I doesn’t appear to be there anymore. Do you still have it?
Abolish Female Suffrage. Problem solved.
It’s waaaay to easy for the Deep State to manufacture hysteria in so many gormless WW. Ann Coulter is Right.
You’re right, of course, but the chance of that happening is almost a metaphysical impossibility. I would gladly give up my vote if it meant removing my mother and sister from the rolls. My dad used to say it was his duty as a patriotic American to go to the polls each election day “and cancel out your mother’s vote.” Many moons ago I read a fascinating academic paper co-authored by John Lott, the guy who usually writes and comments on guns. Accompanying the text was a simple graph showing U.S. government spending, in constant dollars, going back several centuries, spending on the y-axis and year on the x-axis. The line bumped along for many decades, hugging the x-axis with perhaps a bit of a bump here and there. Then suddenly the line soared up like a military jet doing one of those dramatic vertical ascents immediately after liftoff, afterburners wailing. That liftoff came within a year or two of women being granted the vote. And remember Jimmy Kimmel’s little experiment, when he set up a booth on a university campus and got coeds to sign his petition to “end women’s suffrage.” Young women flocked to sign until finally an older woman quietly told the giddy girls that “suffrage” didn’t mean what they thought it meant.
Flo – women think in a different way. This is because over the millennia it is the male who inherits the family plot of land, and stays put, and must have loyalty to this plot, and fight for it whereas it is the woman’s role to be moved away to be the wife of another male ie away from the family plot to join the plot of another male when she marries. Therefore ‘it helps’ (ie it is part of human behaviour wiring) if the woman is not too upset or traumatised when this event occurs (transfer of loyalty via marriage), and therefore must have no inherent loyalty to any particular plot of land .. or territory in fact …, and must be prepared to ABANDON loyalty to her own initial sub-tribe (extended family) as a young woman, and to transfer her loyalty to a brand new sub-tribe/extended family with equanimity, and to look after someone else’s elderly parents and not her own. It is no good if for the rest of her life she is troubled and torn both ways and feels regrets of abandoning her fathers’s plot. And so women do not value land or territory as much as men do, and this behaviour pattern is there in their makeup for their own peace of mind so they can cope with the trauma of the marriage move.
Women see things more in terms of ‘who will provide for me?’ This could be a man provider, or it could be the state as provider, in which case she sees herself married to the state, so the state must give her stuff. Women are more at ease with being provided for in return for no work except child-rearing, and it is not a source of shame like it is for men to not provide for yourself and for someone else to do it for you.
Obviously this is a generalisation as not all men think like this or anything near a large majority, ie want to provide, in fact the ones who do are not a very significant proportion, but this is a reflection of poor stock.
“Women are more at ease with being provided for in return for no work except child-rearing, and it is not a source of shame like it is for men to not provide for yourself and for someone else to do it for you.”
Maybe, maybe not.
By the way, the term “child-rearing” is proxy for a whole shitload of other stuff as well. I am not talking about the upper crust bunch here, but ordinary folks. However, things have really shifted in the past 2 generations. Women are generally expected to do the vast majority of the usual domestic labor as well as go out into the world of Real Work (i.e., paid by an employer).
Wanna see hate? Never mind antifa. Have a look at the attitude of career women (doing either low class work or professional work) toward the hapless housewife who “stays home” raising kids and all the other stuff that goes with it. “Parasite” is not too strong a word for the attitude held. To add insult to injury, men today are even more contemptuous of “non-working” women.
The nicest thing about homeschooling children was simply having the opportunity to be around other women who understood what it was like to live in a society that considered us worse than streetwalkers in short skirts standing on street corners.
@Barkinmad – correct, and good point about which group despises the woman as homemaker the most. Note that in the last 60 years or so in the TV & film media no fictional female character has ever said : “I want to make this a nice home for my husband to return to after a hard day’s work”
So the idea is never countenanced (since the 50s) that one of the woman’s roles is to provide a calm and happy place for the husband to return to after work. In fact I have seen recent newspaper articles mocking 1950s adverts that had this attitude. The most they will do on TV is to suggest she makes it a happy place for the children – but never the husband. That is certainly not one of her tasks. Instead the TV tells the woman that he should be sharing in the washing up and ironing. This is part of the process of lowering the status of white Western men. Of course the same TV/film/magazine media who want to lower the status of white men will readily refer to ‘proud African warriors’ as if the traditional sex roles are fine in the 3rd world cultures.
Link to Lott’s paper:
Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and
Scope of Government?
John R. Lott, Jr.
Lawrence W. Kenny
University of Florida
This paper examines the growth of government during this century
as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional
time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate
state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state
laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns
for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing
over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something
that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American
government started growing when it did.
[Is it actually possible to give a right? This stems from legal positivism- a “right” is simply asserted. I read a law book published ca 1943- it asserted that the laws of government have equal status with laws of nature]
Women’s suffrage, and the consequent mass infusion of women into politics, has been a total disaster. The effects of this disaster are now all around us, most starkly in the pathological altruism that is enabled the black and brown invasion, both illegally AND LEGALLY, of the West.
Yet the disaster of women’s suffrage is hardly spoke of today. And any attempt to reverse this disaster would be most vigorously resisted, not only by women but perhaps above all by today’s legions of fully propagandized and snipped “men.”
Speaking of these “men,“ have you noticed how many straight “men” today sound like sodomites?
Women’s suffrage post-dated by a few years the Jews getting the Fed, then the ‘Great War’. Your argument on women’s votes and huge pending is nonsense.
spending, not pending
He didn’t say anything about spending.
Nationalists and conservatives (of any race) need to stop treating liberals with respect, for respect must be earned. It is not a right.
Liberals are unjustly proud (hence the self-anointed term ‘progressive’ for what is really regressive) and therefore – while ridiculing others – cannot stand being ridiculed. They cannot stand being laughed at.
It would behoove all clear thinking people to point out how irrational and emotion-based the liberal mind is. After all, these are people who really believe (or at least believed until such stand became untenable) that Al Gore is a scientist, that Bruce Jenner is a woman, that race is a social construct, that Elizabeth Warren is an Indian, that Bill Clinton is a husband, that gender is a matter of identity, that Rachel Dolezal is Black, that race is simply a matter of skin color, ad nauseum.
Racially conscious white people need to explore alternative avenues for finding mates. I found my Norwegian black metal musician husband on a P2P music sharing program chat. I would suggest seeking out the more obscure forums or lifestyle interest sites that allow for a wider range of opinions than what one might find on a normie college campus these days. Also, meeting like minded people in person is obviously not what it used to be. You have a much better chance of finding an actual mate somewhere online as they sit halfway across the globe from you. Remember, the normie with the “acceptable” range of opinions that you marry is the same one who will be raising your kids, and the same one you have to try and work together with for life. Pick someone closer to your own way of thinking, or your relationship will be short, difficult, and ultimately pointless.
Fenria – you refer to ignoring country of origin and marrying by selecting those who think the same instead. The drawback is that each culture looses its loyalty to its ancestral lands when it has to leave them. Eg I personally feel a fondness for Greek mythology, but I feel no ownership of it as if it is not mine.
(It would be better to eject the left from each country and let them all live in Africa! Eg Liberia)
Will the racially conscious whites, drawn from all Western countries, ever regroup geographically in one country and claim ownership of a territory, irrespective of original country of origin? I suppose it depends on how many there are and whether the Left in their respective countries of origin can suppress them. No doubt it would be the Left’s top priority to oppose this. Even if a small group fled to the moon, the white elites now on earth would not rest until they had either blown up the moon or sent a contingent from Africa over to join them.
Why Women Have No Shame is a high-production value video about the role of individualism in sexual humiliation of men by women demonstrates less depth than KMac’s evopsych analysis.
But we there are multiple layers to this. The deepest layer, goes back to the origin of sex. 600 million years ago the Cambrian Explosion, individual male intrasexual selection played a key role. Shells appeared not just due to predators but also due to intraspecific aggression. “Cowardice” and the corresponding sexual humiliation, is rooted not in “war” as normally conceived, but in the image projected onto the feminine hind brain of an individual male shrinking from a challenge by another individual male. The “welcome refugees” signs are a “lets you and he fight” message to the men in their environment by this primitive hind brain that doesn’t possess the instinctive comprehension of war — only of individual combat in nature. Civilization is only one layer that makes feminine instincts incompatible with reality. Gang formation goes back a mere 6 million years — only 1% of the time that individual male intrasexual selection has been creating our nervous systems — not nearly enough to adequately correct the feminine hind brain.
The top layer — the “moral” layer — is in a deadly embrace with this, the deepest layer of sexual humiliation of males by females. Individual integrity in “the moral animal” goes beyond the individual integrity of “the merely sexual animal” but individual integrity encompasses both. Individuals of integrity are necessary for a “moral community” respects individual freedom. But how do you select for individuals of integrity — how do you “culture” (verb) individual integrity? Thankfully, that is given to us by the natural history of sex.
” sexual humiliation of males by females.”
Certainly I have often been taken aback by the unnecessary cruelty of high-status young women to young men when rejecting advances. Where a polite ‘no thank you’ would suffice, many have no hesitation in causing humiliation where it is not required, especially in school. It is as if the hurt caused is of no consequence. They even act as if they are insulted that a low status male like he is should have the cheek to insult their high status by assuming he is in their league. We all know the facial expression of disgust that they use.
It is as if it is the fate of males for a small minority of the group to be extra successful and have their egos endlessly boosted, and to get all the women, and for another minority at the other end to be endlessly humiliated and get no women, and the women gladly join in this process. In a school setting, the boys in school do it by getting the best football or the best desk in the class, or pushing to the front of the queue for lunch, whereas the girls do it by psychological humiliation.
This behaviour arises from our primitive instincts in the brain as James Bowery describes, and in recent prehistory these instincts were ‘tamed’ ie constrained, in order to create peace and harmony in the tribe. The new arrangement was ‘one each’ ie one woman per man, and along with this arrangement the family groups helped to decide who would marry who. But now the family has backed off and primitive instinct reemerge and it is ‘every man for himself’. One consequence is that ‘nice women’ have urges to put a shield around them from men and to be shy of them, and whereas in the past the family would usher such ‘shy’ girls into a marriage, and this would get a chosen man past the shield, but these days left to their own devices these women are sometimes reluctant to lower the shield, and end up single and childless.
Individualism is a two edged sword.
For a person to break out of the false reality created by massporopaganda in mainstream media she or he need to be a strong individual.
For someone to take some kind of action against what is in effect a rather fast homocide of white folks, he or she needs to be strong aindividual and think out of the box.
The mainstream keeps pushing the narrative that people who see through the lies are evil nazis who wanna start terrible world wars and kill jews. Which is of course not true at all.
On the other hand individualism can lead to a too large focus on the pleasures of oneself or shortterm goals.
Regardless I think we all have to find our own unique path and way of working to make our world a better place especially for white folks if youre an ethnocentric white person.
And such a path will include new movements and people that agree on enough matters organizing and the like.
And we all do work in the way that is most suitable to our unique abilities and knowledge of life and tallents.
Mozart and Bach benefitted their region best by making music and Dostojevskij by writing books.
Turbulent times puts us at great pressure. Pressure is very very dangerous. It also to some part push us to the extreme which can benefit genious expressions.
The problem with conservatism is it isn’t forward looking hence a lot of artists earlier in history have been a bit leftie or whatever cause it’s more progressive at least in image.
I think it will benefit the ethnocentric movement to be more progressive. For example to fight mass surveilance of whites…
Most interesting as usual, thanks KM.
Many Leftists whine about The Other so it is as well that those who don’t know who was responsible (KM obviously excluded) for the elaboration and simultaneous corruption of Hegel’s concept, acquaint themselves with this member of the Tribe :
Points worth raising and a thinker worth attending to. Cheers, Al!
Like Heidegger, Husserl—in both moral and intellectual terms a notably complex man—is far from easy to read. Probably no more than a few will be able to profit from the experience, but TOO is a target-richer environment than most.
“Feelings of moral righteousness may thus be pleasurable and lead to addiction. “Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.””
It’s called mood-altering through self-righteousness.
I think it’s pretty obvious that addiction is the condition of life and that the worst addiction is the addiction to words in the form of beliefs assered to be ultimate truths.
In short, that the human mind is literally insane and that we shouldn’t laugh at the dinosaurs for getting themselves extinct.
Evidence of this is seen in the amount of writers and commenters online who are so easily triggered by those who disagree with them or challenge their point of view.
In fact, many are so thin-skinned and hysterical that they’re really responding to their own interpretation, or misinterpretation, of what they read and not really what the other person wrote.
Worse, they don’t even know it.
Not surprisingly, many of these people are the ones only too happy to censor us and abolish our basic freedoms.
Something that couldn’t happen without support from the elite.
Which is why treason against the hostile elite is loyalty to humanity.
“amount of writers and commenters online who are so easily triggered ”
This is the only way they can ‘win the argument’, by personal attacks, by insults, by shouting over, by blocking the right to a voice in the media etc. They cannot win by logical thought, eg how can they use logical arguments to support Islam and gay rights at the same time? They cannot. Or support Islam and feminism simultaneously? Or admire the third world cultures in Africa, ones that fully embrace female genital mutilation of young girls (this is very widespread in Britain but only one prosecution so far, meanwhile a Christian doctor who offered to pray for a patient was suspended, so they can be firm when they want to be).
Everything the left believe in contradicts, so they are easy to defeat in a fair debate, therefore the media does not allow one. One hour of truth in the MSM can undo hours, days, years of on-message propaganda, so must be kept strictly out of the MSM by tight control. One global warming documentary that challenged the message would undo years of on-message global warming propaganda.
This is why in the British News media there is very little interviewing of actual politicians, and instead on our screens we see the news journalist interviewing the ‘political correspondent’ instead to analyse what the politicians say, so we never get it first-hand and always the MSM’s interpretation, ie censored version.
With respect, you talk about ‘News Media’ as though its most significant feature – Jew control – is unimportant. The reason for ‘poitical correspondents’ is that Jews want it. The reason for ‘triggered comments’ is that Jews encourage them. The reason Fed borrowing in not mentioned is because Jews discourage it. The reason ‘Mainstream’ stuff is rubbish is because Jews want that. The reason wars are always presented from Jewish sources is because Jews want that. The reason Christianity is never discussed seriously, pro or con, is because Jews don’t want it. The reason Islam … etc …
Many simple people seem to believe ‘soap operas’ are real – they haven’t understood scripts, and script conferences, and multiple shoots, and make-up, and studios. Half the people here seem to have a similar problem.
Most of the comments here seem to be made by people who can’t understand this, which is astonishing in view of the fame of Kevin MacDonald. Of course they may be paid Jewish trolls – there are vast numbers of them.
These are two groups of enemy-within. ((One group)) hates us for no reason except that it is in their genes to be hostile to other tribes and to try and parasite off them. (Not all of them, but those who do not nevertheless support the rest who do).
Another enemy-within group is the white left, who would still work against us even if there were no Jews here.
Both groups promote mass immigration of the 3rd world into the West. Both hate white ppl, both want to destroy the West.
If you go into a school staffroom you will pick up the hatred of the lefty teachers, such as hatred of Trump etc and a strong desire to corrupt the children eg to push the sexual deviancy agendas, but none of these people are Jews or influenced by Jews.
We have 15% or so of our own white people who are strongly against their own people, aided and abetted by wealthy organised ((banks)) and ((publishing companies)) and ((media)).
In fact the Left are *more powerful* than the Jews which is why the Jews cannot stop the Left being on the side of the Palestinians in the Isreal/Palestine conflict. This is because although the Left love the Holocaust narrative (demonises whites), they also hate the way the superior and law-abiding Jews in Israel are superior in their civilisation to the surrounding arabs, and when there is any superior group in conflict with an inferior one, the left always support the inferior group – this urge is in their genes and is their motive for everything the do.
I sympathise with a lot of what you write but I think they are only part of the problem, and you seem to think they are all of the problem
Pterodactyl: “…but none of these people are Jews or influenced by Jews.”
I’m afraid that everyone is influenced by Jews. They dominate journalism, social media, publishing, Hollywood, the music industry, the fine arts, academia — all of the cultural and intellectual choke points of society.
You are right about whites on the Left bucking the Jewish agenda by supporting the Palestinians.
But I can’t think of any other case of the non-Jewish white Left going against the Jewish agenda.
Rerevisionist: This entire website is a critique of Jewish influence. That does not mean that a commenter needs to insert the word “Jew” into every sentence.
You make a lot of attacks on people commenting here. And you’ve accused Kevin MacDonald of being “controlled opposition.”
Could it be that you are the “paid Jewish troll”?
One of the primary flaws of the white west was and is the aspect of the constitutional, legal and ideological order of formation in its structure. Here is a possible solution ..
The ultimate goal of any pro-white strategy in a charter or constitution should be to neutralize and dismantle anti-white enemies, in pursuit of creating an ethno-nation. This must meet the three primary requirements: Ethno-centric, Homogeneous-territorial, maintain IQ.
Eliminate any religion, egalitarian political ideology, and multi-ethnic enclaves. Meritocracy should be essential
Ethno-centrism should be the legal political ideology, and the primary religion constitutive basis of such a document, that guides the destinies of an ethno-nation-state. Finally, a symmetrical or honeycomb type society should be created in relative freedom, where all its individuals will be equally part of the society, in a meritocratic way with autonomy and cooperatives among themselves. Individual freedom should only be for those who do not harm the foundations of Ethno-Nation-States.
Realistically, whites have lost the demographic war and the post-60s generations have all been transformed by leftist control of the media and educational institutions into self-loathing zombies intent upon helping advance the racial interests of other humans. The best that can be done presently is simply to de-fuse anti-white hatred by de-stigmatizing the concept of white interests and the concept of the white ethno-state. This is done simply by positing the desirability of white societies and by completely disconnecting the idea of white society from the notion of “white supremacy”. Too much time is wasted by those on the Right trying to justify or explain away the past sins of white societies. Forget about that crap. Just move on, accept that all societies have made mistakes in the past and keep hammering away at the idea that racially-uniform societies will provide the ultimate benefit for people of all races. There will be no need for racial quotas, racial alienation – and hence racial hatreds – will be eliminated, and identity politics will become a thing of the past. The message is simple: just like the Amish, who wish to live apart from the culture of “the English”, it’s okay to be white, it’s okay to want exclusive white societies, and white interests will not threaten the interests of other human groups.
“A good way to do that would be to be aware of what moral community the women is part of.”
The distressing part of all this is that the moral community that the women approve of and promote is not based on logical thought or on true moral principles in any way, and is merely learned from TV and school and university. It is not rooted in their deep thoughts or feelings – because on the subject of ‘approach to life’ they do not have any deep thoughts or feelings. All they have is shallow instincts that can easily be pressed like buttons by the left, such as ‘fairness’ and ‘share stuff out’ and ‘those men are mean’ and ‘more stuff for women’ and other very shallow instincts.
If overnight the TV message and the school message and the university message suddenly changed to a patriotic one, then within a few years the next batch of white Western women on our campuses would simply follow that instead, and end up thinking like the young women from Pakistan etc think who are now living in the West, whose loyalty is strictly and totally to their family, tribe, religion and country of origin.
In fact our white women even approve of this loyalty of the third world women to their own countries! They approve of the black woman who is ‘proud of her African roots’ just as much as they disapprove of their own roots!
This shows how much the act of slavishly following the culture can take up so much room in their thought processes that there is no room left at all for any proper reasoning to take place. It shows how the left can persuade the stupid to even be against themselves! It proves that most people (those who read this blog are not typical) follow culture even more than self-interest. Just as the Jews take guidance from their hostility to other tribes even more than they take guidance from self-interest, so are quite willing to destroy that which provides them with wealth and security, ie the West. If self-interest was their priority they would not do this.
Certainly women have been ’empowered’ as they wanted, in the sense that they are now of great influence on politics in the West, but they have also been directed by the left to use this power to the detriment of their own people, and the irony of course is that in the end they too will suffer the consequences when the West deteriorates and becomes more like the third world that they admire and look up to so much. And if they and their daughters in some European cities are one day forced to put on the headscarf and bow to Mecca and stop reading books, they will never ever for one moment blame themselves or their ’empowerment’.
“this is an expression of implicit Whiteness (discussed below), as non-White groups coalesce in the Democratic Party.”
– I wonder if this will lead to geographical separation within the North American continent, and whether this could be achieved without civil war? In the even of a war, in the initial stages the left would have access to advanced technology and disciplined men left over from the current successful and productive country that the left wish to ruin, so initially the left could do quite well.
But after a few decades, the side that has the blacks, and the equality and diversity, one that has an economy that does not work, certainly it will lose. Like the Soviet Union lost in the Cold War, simply by the West letting it follow its own course. The Soviet military was a failure and far inferior, and such as it did have was gained by copying technology from the West (with the full co-operation of our enemy-within in the West – Eg Britain gave Stalin 5000 tanks & US gave them billions worth of hardware in the war).
Will Natural Selection get an opportunity to carry out the experiment of which white group is more successful – the whites who believe in equality and diversity and have no racial identity in collusion with racist tribes from the third world living with them, versus those whites who do have racial identity?
(Re the enemy-within helping the enemy, the West helps China today with technology, eg to follow its biological warfare programme. Eg the French gave the Chinese the training to set up the Wuhan labs to research viruses for biological warfare. Let us hope we learn a lesson from what happened recently.)
Firstly, why even talk to a date or girlfriend about politics. My father never told my mother what party he voted for. Sure society is becoming so extreme in it’s anti whiteness, ones political opinions will most likely affect a lot of decisions and many will be organizing politically and hence might wanna tell their partner that they spend time on something like that…
Secondly, Trump was popular among women, especially white women. This is particularly interesting since a lot of policies of the democrats might be of interest for women such as the focus on the environment, healthcare for all and the like. And Hillary was a woman…
Ethnocentric folks, pro whites could just get together and then go for top positions in their field and what they think is fun. And then get top positions i politics own media, work in media and at universities and push their agenda. As the marxists/ commies have. It would probably be too slow though.
Another thing is the gays, bisexuals, the marxists, the people with minority heritage (i.e. ethnically / racially mixed), many of them fear whites, especially straight whites. Especially whites who are not mixed in any way.
A lot of people who are mixed tend to be heavily ethnocentric towards their minority background and focus often more heavily than jews on pushing their kind. Historic percieved attacks on their kind a feeling of lesser value and the such do play a role. And they just push their genes in order to benefit their genes and also spread their genes.
It may be a tactic from people who are mixed, but look mostly white to spread their genetics and ethnical/racial mixture, so that everyone is mixed like them and hence they won’t start some kinda anti thing against people who are mixed which they fear of course… Hneve many groups enhance the current trend of genocide of white folks by different kinds of propaganda.
Jews and latinos in medium positions in advertising and TV-show creators may focus on pushing racemixing with obvious other races such as africans / blacks / the n-word or latinos (latinos being pushed is common in children shows, I saw one example on the Disney channel where a latino kid, with a latino name looking latino name, was the guy at the childrens part, children maybe age 11 or 12, that all the girls in school were in love with. Like all the girls at the party like 12 of them vere running after him, noone cared for any of the white boys… Can propaganda for racemixing be more obvious?). People with mixed backgrounds tend to push others with mixed background that look whiteish.
The end effect is that whites that are not mixed hardly see any non mixed whites in the media. They don’t exist in this alternative reality.
Regarding a separate area division in the USA, which has been promoted bu US ethnocentrics and nazis, I don’t live in the states, but is it realistic.
How many people are so ethnocentric.
Will whites in other areas such as cities just give up their territory and houses apartments and the like? Especially now with burgoise and rich whites essentially buying out blacks and latinos in larger cities (so called gentrification).
Having very different races such as blacks or arabs around whites is very very very dangerous. It’s life threatening. You may do many analysis of why. I mean many blacks used to be cannibals… They are mixed with some kind of smallbrained pre-neanderthal (on averege 8 %, often more). Arabs are sneaky rapy and dangerous. But not as in your face dangerous aggressive as blacks.
So, face it white folks first you need to get the message out there. You need to organize somehow. You need to work to inform people about the truth on race.
You need to have a realistic political goal and an ideology or a political program that is better than todays society…
And for the soviet army. It was probably very dangerous in the 80s and still is. They have tons of new technology. Russia is not the economic sucess that the US is for sure but their army is not to play with.
They were just very ill prepared for wwII, which is one of the reasons they went so hard with military industry after wwII. At the end of the soviet like 70% of their industry was military, caused also by reagans failed plans for the starwars shield thing (a response to that).
@Martin Smith: “How many people are so ethnocentric. Will whites in other areas such as cities just give up their territory and houses apartments and the like?”
I agree that under present conditions the whites will do nothing. As for a test of what they will do when provoked to a higher level (including disarming them, which is relevant to the US), we can observe the case of S Africa. How do the whites respond now that there are moves to take their guns off them even after threatening all sorts of genocide? Do they start to group and prepare for conflict? No they do not, they attempt to appease the blacks even more.
Part of this is due to the fact that the wealthy and powerful whites can just emigrate away from the continent, so their own elite is not loyal to their race as it will readily abandon them, not go down with them, as did elites of the past have to do, who therefore had a stake in defending their kingdoms. Kings lost everything when the kingdom was defeated, but the SA. elite will just ‘escape’ easily.
Unfortunately though, you can also see an attitude of white appeasement to blacks in S Africa in the face of extreme provocation – you can see this attitude lower down than the elites by reading the Twitter accounts of white S.Africans, eg I read one thread following the excessive jail term given to a white woman for using the ‘N’ word in an altercation following a traffic accident. I saw very little white outrage, and a lot of ‘we must try even harder to be even fairer to them and then we can all live in harmony and they will be nice to us. I know this because my cook is black and she is nice’. How can they all be so naive I do not know.
However, the reluctance of whites to act in SA might be that they know they are few and they have no white allies anywhere in the world. Eg currently Britain and Holland refuse to take in white refugees of British or Dutch descent, and in my opinion it is easier to get to Britain or Holland if you are a muslim or black African. The whites there know that white governments in all the Western world would give them zero support, and furthermore, the white populations in the West would watch their TV and agree that “the whites deserve being genocided as they are so racist, this must be so because it says so on our TVs”.
Sadly I think this submission will be repeated everywhere as so few whites are deep down ethnocentic.
However, even if the ethnocentric ones are 5%, if one day they gain the upper hand in a territory and are seen as winners, another sheep-like 80% will themselves readily adopt ethnocentrism into their cultural norm, just as they currently accept the anti-white culture – this 80% can adapt to any culture as they are just sheep programmed to be followers of culture. This leaves another 15% of fanatical white haters who could be dealt with.
As for the Soviet Union, in my opinion their only trump card is that they will all fight to the death for what they believe is ‘their country’ when in fact it is for communism or similar.
“. . .The whites there know that white governments. . .”
Are there any? Governments are controlled by (((Central Banks))).