Thoughts on Race Commentary In The Dissident Right

16 million men today are descended from Genghis Khan. That's some serious mixing.

Many progressive have obsessed over race to the point its turned them into bitter people who can’t take time off to enjoy life. For others they’ve become self-loathing “allies” too busy worrying about their privilege to realize there’s more lessons to be learned from history than just “oppression.”

So take a hint from the self-inflicted pain these people put them through and DONT DO THE SAME.

One things many of us on the Dissident Right should be aware of is history and how demographics across the world have adapted and changed through conquest, migration, colonization, and various other methods.  They all overlap in various circles and variables.

Humans are tribal.  We always have been and likely always will. Race, ethnicity, cities, families, regions, tribes, etc all represent various “circles” that overlap.

Think of the Google+ circle overlap of friends, acquaintances, etc.  The internet, ease of travel, and technology have changed our “identities.  Because you can travel 100 miles with a car in mere hours, you and a host of other people can show up at a metal concert, all look somewhat similar, mosh and partake in an event that builds an identity for all those there.

Yes, “Us vs them” is a natural human instinct and its effect up until the last 300 years can’t be understated when used to distract the populace from their real overseers. It doesn’t however mean everything should be “us”, whoever that might be, vs some other group. Not every aspect of life is not a zero sum game.

Now I’ll admit, I may have a bias. I don’t even know if I’m bi-racial. The Turks burned all of our damned records in the genocide, but considering how many different times Armenia was conquered and how many different Empires and other groups have gone through it, I probably have a whole host of Middle Eastern, Russian, and maybe even Asian blood in me. (I’m going to take an ancestry test).  My European half is various mix of ethnicity.

I don’t live in Chicago, but even in the part of Illinois I live, I know ALOT of mixed, bi-racial people, not just including both sides of my family and my wives.  It’s not deliberate persay, it just happened – probably because the Lake County area generates ALOT of jobs, just as nearby Kenosha County in Wisconsin is starting too. People move to where the jobs are. (Cook County is dead to me.)


 Stop seeing the extremes and loud voices from external groups as the complete representation.  Most black people don’t care about Black Lives Matter, social justice, or intersectional nonsense. Sure, they might have some agreement with the overall thrust behind BLM, but they’d much rather just go about living life than obsessing over the white man.

Again you will have the malcontent trust fund types who have too much time on their hands and a luxury of funds to major in African studies, but most black people dont. They aren’t wasting their time studying about “oppression”.  They are working, trying to survive like everyone else, and enjoy the time they have.

Most Hispanics don’t care about La Raza.  The most disagreeable position they might have with you is immigration, and even then, it’s not uniform. They don’t hate “whites” anymore than any other group. Sure, they have they radicals, but if you aren’t at a college campus in a VERY urban city, they won’t care.


Interracial sex and in some cases marriage is inevitable. Hell, in 50 years, it will be harder to tell who is mixing with who. Just because it’s been weaponized by progressive race obsessed miserable fanatics doesn’t mean it’s somehow wrong, bad, or negative.

What’s inevitable about it?  Simply history shows that groups will intermingle given migration, conquest, or in today’s day the ability to simply pack up and move.   Sure, there are some rather nasty statistics that have been mentioned ad nauseum already that we shouldn’t overlook. (Particularly that most black men regardless of the race of the women they have children with often don’t just refrain from marrying the mother, but often leave her as well. Granted I have a strong sympathy for black men – not because of racism/opression, but that’s for another time.)

Those of us in the “manosphere” should be very familiar with the numerous reasons why black and white men in particular might choose to date and marry outside of their race and I can’t fault them for it either.


While the DailyStormCucks are obsessing about white purity and how it looks via ghetto trash representatives and the occasional armchair philosphers, they keep overlooking that what it means to be “white” has changed drastically in the last 100 years alone.

Zimmerman was a “White Hispanic”.  Italians, Greek, and various Balkanites weren’t white 100 years ago.  Just two hundred years ago the Irish were looked at as mongrels.  We can’t even tell if people from North Africa are White, Arab, or “African” or some mixture of all or how different they are from each other in the two thousand years of constant warfare between each other, invasions, conquests, and migrations.

Even Hispanics originating from Hispania – that’s Spain and Northwest Africa – are part white and whatever else after mixing with the local natives – another example of “interracial” inevitability.  Look at other parts of the world.

How many people from Asia and the Middle East have Mongolian, Seljuk Turk, or Mughal in them?  How many people alone are descended from Genghis Khan today? How many people in Western Europe, Russia, etc have Scandinavian Viking in them? Yes, the Japanese and Han Chinese might be their own exceptions.

Racial purity isn’t necessarily good or bad, but it’s unlikely somewhere like the US where you’ve had various waves of immigration.  Yes, people do stick to their own groups, but plenty will look for love elsewhere and where it’s most easily available. (Not to exclude opportunity, work, education, etc.)


Acknowledging racial, ethnic, gender, etc differences is important. Ignoring them doesn’t make any of it go away. James Damore was fired for daring to talk about it.

If we don’t, we will never be able to improve our lot, or those around us.  Dave Rubin did an interview with Stefan Molyneux on the subject, and while I’m not sure I place the same stake in “IQ” tests that he does, it’s worth watching to see how it affects how we live.  (Criticism from a left-leaning source here.)

Acknowledging racial and ethnic differences doesn’t mean we need to sterilize “low IQ” people or thrust some crazy eugenic influence into law like the early social progressives tried to do with their social Darwinism.

It simply means that we need to address what we know.  Now there’s plenty of insanity in this category with lots of supposed “pseudo-science” being clung around, but regardless the more we talk about it, the better it can be vetted.

There’s this idea that high IQ people have no flaws and are always ideal to a countries prosperity and success.  Sure, they are important, but their penchant to do evil with their brilliance is also a possibility.  Low IQ types may resort to crime, but many don’t and won’t.

Africa might have some of the lower IQ averages, but it’s more of an indication of constant and complete population displacement and a lack of exposure and well traveled trade routes that facilitate the exchange of knowledge and eventual academic undertaking.

Give some place like Uganda relative peace, 500 years of generations being exposed to a consistent 8th grade level education, majority of the populace being literate and watch what happens. Europe, the Middle East, or Asia didn’t magically build universities, hospitals, ect in 100 years.

It’s going to take time for the 3rd world to get to a 2nd world level. Unfortunately for Africa, the corruption that is so innate to MANY of the cultures of African countries – and the governments there -will test to see if it’s possible.  Perhaps the worldview shift taking place in parts of Africa – the rise of Christianity – will start to have an effect on the corrupt culture.

Don’t forget the kind of effect Christianity had on the culture and peoples of the Germanic tribes, Gauls, Franks, Danes, and even the Vikings.  Look at what Sweden became – or virtually all of Europe for that matter. It didn’t happen overnight.

Ideas have consequences, regardless of the culture they are from. If there’s anything history tells us, it’s that certain ideas – often many of those in the Anglosphere, some in Asia, and others in Europe and the Americas can uplift a society.

The Middleast is stuck where it is for a reason, despite dominance up to the mid 17th century.  An industrial revolution and the ideas necessary for it never took old.  The same can be said for most of Africa.

With the introduction of the internet and incredible easy accessible means to learn, share, and obtain information, that may change.  However, it will take at least several generations for those changes to start to take root and have results.


You can’t have a cohesive stable functional identity based on race. You can have one based on commonalities, but race doesn’t quite fit the bill here. Brazilians don’t have much in common with the Venezuelans, the Poles with the English, the Japanese with the Vietnamese, the Nigerians with the  Somali, etc.

Even similar ethnicities like the Belgian Walloons and Flemmings don’t have much in common, despite sharing the same country. Old ties die hard.

A “white” ethnostate is not just a stupid idea – considering what alt right whites like Spencer and ultra liberal whites like Michael Moore have in common, but an impractical one. It’s just as dumb as any other racial ethnostate. The modern world and means of travel make it an impossible one.

Also the constant melding of people over time means one wont know who is necessarily white, black, brown, asian ect over time if the Hispanics – who are partially white just from their spanish roots – are already demonstrating.  The “mutt” of various European blood which intermixed will soon happen here on an even bi-racial scale  here.

Sure, you might be able to form an identity based on who you are comfortable living next to, but spend some time in urban, rural, and everywhere in between and you’ll find out how different the world is.

Yes, we are tribal.  I feel loyalty to men in the manosphere, as well as some of those in the dissident right, but my familial obligations and loyalty come first – even more so than I thought.

Right there is where you form your identity. Family isn’t necessarily biological and blood related – it’s the close friends, often in similar circles, you make over your lifetime that become like blood.  This is where we must start.

Is Money In Politics Bad?

This always depends on whose money the “political party” and advocates are receiving. Ultimately, it is it’s own time held tradition of American hypocrisy that can be summed up as, “It’s wrong when you do it, but okay when I do.”

I came across this article in The Washington Post detailing a list for 2014 revealing the donors for the Center for American Progress.  CAP finally decided to do this after taking some criticism for a lack of transparency from fellow progressives as well as conservatives only too eager to point out flaws in their opponents.

Notable top donors include Walmart, financial giant Citigroup, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and some large biotech and pharma firms.  Walmart is actually particular shocking, considering unions’s attitude toward them and their top-dog status as a progressive punching bag.  This however, is not what what we should apparently be paying attention to.

“We’re proud of our donors,” CAP president Neera Tanden said in an interview. “We’re very diversified. We have a very low percentage of corporate donors. We have a wide panoply of individual and foundation supporters.

In political campaign financing and lobbying, there seems to be this odd disconnect between who you should take money from and why.  Most progressives will insist that money in politics is bad, but won’t hesitate to ask and accept plenty of it in order to win political races and advance certain agenda’s.  It was not too long ago when Michelle Obama decried the influence of money in politics, only to request campaign donations in the same speech only minutes before.

The irony of this hasn’t been lost on those on the left. This was brought up by The Atlantic in an article a few months back, “Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy?”  in which Gara Lamarche made this point about his fellow progressives:

Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?

A prevailing question that continues to remain is as to why money from “corporations” is dangerous, but money from huge political PACs, non-profit organizations, ect are not.   The CAP president emphasized the variety of donors and foundations contributing money as somehow not as “bad” as receiving money from more “acceptable” sources. Why?

The fundamental question we must ask is rather simple: Do the end’s justify the means in regards to where the cash comes from?  There is no gray area.  Either money in politics is bad or it is not.  People with strong political involvements are willing to make all sorts of exceptions about where they get their money from while condemning others for doing the exact same thing.

At some point, there must be some consistency or the whole argument breaks down into what it has become now; decrying others for doing the exact same thing that you are doing.  While you may be right about the destructive influence of “their” money in politics, it doesn’t make your identical actions any less destructive.

Either we get rid of money from politics all-together, or we quit pointing fingers at people getting funding from places, people, and worldviews we don’t like.   This of course brings up another issue: Is money free speech?   That is another debacle with it’s own mess.

Why Voting 3rd Party Can Change History: The Election of 1924

I often browse the blog of economist and author Aaron Clarey who goes by the name, Captain Capitalism for his blog.  His post, Conservative Idiots Who “Protest the Vote” about this upcoming election misses an important lesson from history where voting 3rd party changed the results of an election.

History – for those of us who actually read it instead of watching Netflix – can teach us all sorts of fun things that internet comment brawls can’t.

Voting 3rd party can push a main party in a specific direction. Don’t believe me?

Take for example the presidential election of 1924.   Calvin Coolidge crushed his main democratic opponent, but his election win helped reveal a noticeable split had occurred in the democratic party.

The democrat nominee for president was John Davis.  During the election, he was considered by the growing progressive movement of the time to be too conservative.  Just think about that.  One only wonders what being considered too conservative by the Democrat party meant back then. Note the populist influence on progressives of the early 20th century.

The progressives that usually supported the democrat party – even though it didn’t exactly completely and utterly yet emanate their views – bolted from the party in protest and voted in favor of the 3rd party progressive candidate Robert M. La Follette from Wisconsin.  This represented a deep fragmentation in the party that had finally manifested on a national level of impact.

The Election of 1924

It was a landslide election, particularly in the electoral votes for Coolidge. However, the popular vote totals are very important.

1.  Calvin Coolidge receives 15,723,789 of the popular vote thus 54% of it.

2. John W. Davis receives 8,386,242 of the popular vote thus 28.8% of it.

3.  Robert M. La Follette receives 4,831,706 of the popular vote thus 16.6% of it.

The end result of the 1924 election for the democrat party is that the party embraced the ideal of the progressives on their party plank and the party was forever changed.  The party had secured the future votes of Progressives, but the conservative element of the party would move into a decline that is evident of the party today.

As a pessimistic libertarian, imagine if the Libertarian party cost the republicans 16% of the popular vote in a presidential election.

Yes, the “evil” Democrats would have even more of a free reign to destroy our lives than they usually do, but the Republican Party would have to change its positions if it wanted to again be a party capable of winning major elections.

We Need A System Implosion

Honestly, the Republican party is in trouble. It has been for some time just due to simple demographics. It needs to change, and it needs to change now if it wants to slow the decline.  Perhaps a widespread deviation from the party by libertarian voters who are usually forced to pick between the best of two evils is taser to the nipples that the party needs.

Even if it doesn’t work in this hypothetical future situation- even though history has shown its worked in the past – the decline of the country will happen even faster.  I’ve always been leaning toward the conclusion that the country is doomed.    As Stephan Molyneux has one said, “The experiment in limited government has been a failure.”

I  am now to the point where I strongly believe the system can’t be saved.  It needs to implode and restart. We need to let the car wreck of today happen instead of pushing it off with “The Republican Party” of the trainwreck of 50 years from now.  Either it’s gonna hurt now, or alot more in the future.   The recent riots we’ve seen in Ferguson and now Baltimore are only the beginning.

Reading through Aaron Clarey’s (Captain Capitalism) book on the incoming decline of the country has re-affirmed and reinforced my conclusion. It is because of his views on the country’s future as a whole that I find it confusing as to why he wants to delay socialism or simply setback the incoming trainwreck through voting.  I’d much rather have it happen now.  (Granted I’m newly only 26, single, and have no kids.)

Now you can still be pessimistic, but you still get everything back from our robbing thieving government and enjoy life and the decline as it happens. If they are going to rob you, its time to use the welfare system to rob them back. I highly suggest Aaron Clareys: Enjoy the Decline: Accepting and Living with the Death of the United States.

Note the very conservative viewpoint of the book, but economics and our massive bureaucracy doesn’t lie.  You can’t sustain a system in which there are more people who don’t work vs those that do.

Cheers to all my fellow vagrants.