Category Archives: Society

The Selection Effects of War

I was talking with NBS and SB for an upcoming episode of Ascending the Tower and one thing that came up was Vietnam, which got me thinking. A couple weeks ago Vox posted on “the killers”, those who are capable of instinctively waging war “without restraint and without regard to their personal safety”. He talks about Christianity’s killers. The article notes that there are a very small percentage of men who are killers and that these killers tend to take higher casualties for rather self-evident reasons.

Just under 27 million American men were eligible for military service between 1964 and 1973. Of that number 8.4 million served in active duty. Another 2 million served in the National Guard or military reserves… 2.1 million actually saw service in Vietnam… 58,152 were killed; 153,303 were seriously wounded. Only about a third of those in Vietnam were drafted.

About a third of eligible American men were a part of the military during the war. Of those, One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,148 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.7 million who served, about 2% died.

The people dying in this war generally chose to serve, and were likely disproportionately killers. If we add on top of this the 441915 who died in the WW2 and the Korean War, then in two generation we have about 500,000 Americans who have been selected out of the population. The men selected out would generally be the killers. The previous generation had about 116,000 selected out in WW1 and two generations before that about 600,000 men were selected out by the Civil War.

These modern industrial wars tended to, at least for Americans, kill out the fighting population, particularly the ‘killers’, while leaving the non-fighting population in peace.I can’t help but wonder if this may have have had a selection effect on the genetics of the population. I’m sure that the ‘killer’ spirit has at least some genetic basis. Has America been slowly selecting out its warrior spirit by sending those with killer instincts off to die on the other side of the world? Could this, at least partially, explain the liberalization and feminization of America?

Also thinking along these lines, Western Europe, especially in WW1 and on the Western Front in WW2, had a much more intense selection effect. Maybe this could, partially, explain why Western Europe glommed to socialism and feminization more heartily than America. Of course, Sweden and Denmark would be very obvious counterpoints to this hypothesis.

All of this is nothing but idle speculation but I can’t help but wonder what kind of selection effects modern industrial war, particularly the avoidance of civilian casualties in America and western European countries, has been having?

Hotness is All That’s Left

Amanda Mannen at Cracked has written on why getting MAD at magazines for photoshopping hot girls to be even hotter is stupid. There’s some feminist crap in there, but the points themselves aren’t too bad. The final one though brings up a good point, then stops dead before reaching something really interesting.

The uncomfortable truth is that most of us don’t actually want to eradicate cultural standards of beauty — we just want them changed to include us.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think she was familiar with Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism. That’s not the part I want to talk about, simply an interesting observation. Here’s the meat:

This isn’t the same as in entertainment, which serves a completely different function. The chief complaint about sexy ladies in those media is that that’s all they’re there for … or at least it’s presented as their most important quality. We run into problems only when we’re taught that a) “hot” is the most important thing a woman can be, and b) we do not meet that standard. How insane is it to propose as a solution to that dilemma, “Well, let’s just change the standard”? You might as well be trying to prevent tornadoes by removing the Earth’s atmosphere.

Here she identifies the superficial problem, women in the media are judged by sexiness and sexiness alone, and she identifies that changing the standard to include fatties and uglies doesn’t change the fact that the standard of ‘hot’ itself is corrupt.

She then goes on to blame this on the media and advertisements.

But, as the Last Psychiatrist was fond of saying before he disappeared, if you’re watching it, it’s for you. The media, however much I rag on it and however much of a sewer it might be, doesn’t exist in a bubble. Even more so, advertisements don’t. Advertisements have to actually have people who identify with them to be effective.

In other words, if people didn’t already value ‘hot’ to the exclusion of other virtues the media wouldn’t be able to use ‘hot’ as the sole standard.

This is where her thinking stops. Why do people, particularly women, accept that ‘hot’ is the standard to which they should aspire?

As I’ve pointed out before this is the new hedonism, how sexiness has become the greater good, especially for women. This is not going to change, because ‘hot’ is the only value left.

However much some feminists and some MGTOWs rage against it, men and women want to be together with each other. They want to love and be loved. This is natural, this is good. To attain this love, attraction is important. Men are attracted to the feminine, women are attracted to the masculine.

Our society has been working to destroy the feminine in women and the masculine in men. As well, society actively lies to both men and women about what the other sex finds attractive. The traditional lovely, feminine virtues that women used to use to attract a man: kindness, joy, peacefulness, chastity, submission, vulnerability, motherliness, cooking, housekeeping, etc. have been maligned by feminism and replaced with repulsive traits of rebellion and argumentativeness (disguised as moxie and independence). Meanwhile, the traditional masculine traits that men would use to attract women have been beaten out of them through public schooling.

Once inner beauty has been destroyed, what does a woman have to offer a man? How can she find love? Men aren’t attracted to degrees, they aren’t attracted to over-exaggerated work titles, they aren’t attracted to argumentativeness or rebellion. Meanwhile, she can’t find it by being lovely, because being lovely is anti-feminist, which is evil. The only thing she has left to attract a man are her looks and her vagina. So, the woman try to be hot, so her looks and her vagina can land a man. She has to make up her lack of inner beauty, her lack of loveliness, with sexuality, hotness.

Hence, why the media focuses on the standard of hot. Women want to be hot, because they want to find love and their other paths to love have been taken from them. If people want advertising to change, they have to change the values consumers hold. As long as women value hot the media will sell them hot.

Hot is the standard and will remain the standard for women to find love as long as feminism reigns for it is the only standard men find attractive that is not in itself intrinsically antithetical to feminist values.

South Africa and Muslim Rape

Still sick, but I’ll comment briefly on a solid article from NRO a week back on the South African genocide. It’s interesting in how it’s pushing the Overton window. There’s a straight-up call out against the genocide of the Boers in South Africa, but even more interesting is his idea of a solution:

In the meantime, endangered South Africans might try this:

They could take advantage of their geography and set up a Singapore-style city-state. With foreign investment, they could purchase a city-sized portion of coastal land and assert independence from the national government. First they’ll want to hire some sympathetic military as a temporary security force. They can set up a low-tax, low-interference economic zone that can compete with Durban for its tremendously large volume of shipping traffic. As South Africa has fallen apart, Durban has slipped off the list of the world’s 50 largest container ports. But whatever happens to South Africa, the south of Africa will remain a vital point in world shipping. In fact, it’s only going to become vital-er, as trade between Brazil and Asia increases. Singapore, at the tip of the Malay Peninsula, built itself as a site of entrepôt trade — exporting imports. It has parlayed that into one of the world’s most advanced economies, a global center of innovation and free enterprise.

A new South African city-state could join Singapore and Hong Kong as centers of trade and investment — starting with the investment that would be necessary to build a brand new city-state out of thin air. But one has only to look at Abu Dhabi, Dubai, or any number of Chinese cities to see how fast a city can be built with some will and capital. A South African enclave could attempt its own “Taiwan miracle.”

Very Landian. Of course, I fully support this idea; an independent Boer city-state in SA would be a great idea.

Also, something else stood out to me:

When apartheid ended, the life expectancy in South Africa was 64 — the same as in Turkey and Russia. Now it’s 56, the same as in Somalia. There are 132.4 rapes per 100,000 people per year, which is by far the highest in the world: Botswana is in second with 93, Sweden in third with 64; no other country exceeds 32.

I knew the Muslim rape crisis in Sweden was bad, but I never thought they were third in the world. This has got to be missing a bunch of the third-world basket-cases where reporting is spotty, but even so, that’s insanely high. At some point, between the Swedens, the Rotherhams, and the continuous stream of rapes, European are going to have to wake up to the perils of immigration and multiculturalism.


I’m just going to say right out, I know little of the science of vaccines. It’s not something I ever cared or thought all that much about; unti recently I just accepted vaccines as normal and healthy. As with most kids, I got jabbed with the needle whenever the nurse came to school. It was usually a horrible experience because inevitably someone, a classmate or my brother, would always punch my newly poked arm and it would hurt like the dickens for the rest of the day, but I never questioned it.

I like vaccines; I like kids not getting polio or malaria. Up until about a year ago, I thought anti-vaxxers were nuts, I still think some of them are.

But this last year I have began to have my doubts, and it has nothing to do with any arguments anti-vaxxers have made. The only anti-vaxxer (although, he seemed more skeptical than outright opposed) I’ve read is Vox and none of what I’ve read of his has been a definitive argument for why not to vaccinate, he seemed argue more that parents should have a choice.

I’ve really been beginning to have doubts about vaccines because of those in favour of them. However nuts some of the anti-vaxxers are, the insanity of the pro-vaxxers dwarfs them as the sun does the moon.  Over the last month, I have bombarded with pro-vaccine propoganda from what little MSM I read, from websites, from FB, and without fail it sounds like a deranged religious crusade:

“Those ignorant, fearful anti-vaxxer heathens need to see the light of the vaccine and accept the salvation of the injection. If in their superstitious ignorance they fail reject the teachings of the divine Department of Health, then we, the noble, holy, chosen of SCIENCE! shall force the truth into them for their own good. To herd immunity be the glory, the honour, and the power, forever and ever. Amen!”

I exaggerate, but barely.

Anything being pushed with this much unhinged fervor automatically triggers my skepticism reflexes. When and why the hell did the pro-vaccine crowd become such raving fanatics?

The tyrannical nature of the pro-vaxxers is the first thing to get to me. If vaccines work then why the need to force others to get them? Just get your own kids vaccinated and they’ll be fine. Let other parents worry about their own kids. The only reason to try to force them on others seems to be that a doubt that vaccines work, but if you doubt vaccines work, why force them on others?

Now, herd immunity comes up whenever I see that bit of common sense mentioned. Sure, there may be a few kids with cancer who may not be able to get vaccinated, but these are 0.02% of the population. Statistically they hardly exist. For such rare cases, I’m sure a reasonable solution can be found that doesn’t require mandatory, non-consensual, government-forced injections. Maybe have a school wing or a few classrooms where the unvaccinated are not allowed, or a private tutor for the child with cancer, or whatever. However its done, I’m sure the one in 5,000 case can be accommodated on an individual basis.

As well, what happens to those cancer kids, if/when the government decides that having cancer is no excuse for not vaccinating? The precedent of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few will already have been set.

Second, what is with the simple labels of pro- or anti-vaccinations? You’re in either in favour of every vaccine under the sun or some anti-vaxxer nutjob. I don’t know much about the science of vaccines, but even I know there is no single vaccination, as the plural ‘s’ implies. There are many vaccines and each vaccination would carry a different cost-benefit analysis.

In my barely-considered opinion, the polio vaccine seems like an unarguable good. I can’t see me not giving it to my child. On the other hand the case for the HPV vaccine is much more suspect. The vaccine prevents a virus that is easy to avoid (ie. don’t be promiscuous) and very rarely (about 0.009% of the time by my quick calculation) causes cancer. So, I’d question if the HPV vaccine is worth the potential risks.

Yet when I’ve seen people question the costs and benefits of the HPV vaccine, or even just say parents should be allowed to choose whether to inject their teenage daughters with this, they are automatically lumped in as an insane anti-vaxxers who want to flood the streets with malaria-infected, polio-crippled children. This is even more insane when you realize that herd immunity is even more meaningless with respect to an STD.

Third, I keep seeing the argument that there is no risk to vaccines and they are entirely safe. That can simply not be true. There is no such thing as completely safe when injecting foreign chemicals into your body. Even good-ol-fashioned Tylenol can have some severe side effects, and a vaccination is literally injecting a benign form of a disease into yourself. The constant denial of risks makes me suspicious. To be fair, organizations like the CDC seem to be reasonable in this respect (“low-risk”, “negligible risk”, etc.) but almost every pro-vaxxer propagandist completely discounts any risk at all.

Finally, the types of people I see going all insanely pro-vax are also the types of people I see who are very pro-immigrant and pro-illegals. If vaccinations are so important to public health and herd immunity, why do these same pro-vax people support importing hordes of unvaccinated third-world children? There seems a strong disconnect there, which makes me question their reasoning and motives.

The manichean worldview of the pro-vaxxers combined with their messianic tones, lack of nuance, and logical contradictions makes me strongly wonder about the efficacy of vaccinations. Why the need for such insanity if the position is so supposedly self-evidently true?

None of this is to say anti-vaxxers are all paragons of reason. The science does not seem to support vaccines causing autism (although…). We probably have more autistic kids because parents are having children later in life. But even people like Jenny McCarthy seem calm and reasonable when compared to the ravings of the pro-vaxxers.

I can’t say I’m anti-vaccines, I’m still on the pro-reasonable vaccine side, but it would be accurate to say I’m anti-anti-anti-vaxxers.

If the pro-vaxxers sounded sane, I would never have even thought to question vaccines; if/when I had kids, I would have just done whatever the doctor said was best without a second thought. But given the unhinged rantings of the pro-vaxxers, I now have my doubts; if the truth is so obvious, why the need to hysterics? If/when it comes time, I’m going to be doing my research and may even decline some of those vaccines of lesser import.

Surely, I’m not the only one who’s been forced into questioning vaccines due to the unreasonableness of the pro-vaxxers. Why do people act in ways that are so destructive to their stated intention?

Why Sex Work is Hated

Cracked asked a question, saying they’re asking honestly, so I’ll answer. First the question:

See, we’ve done a few articles on sex workers and porn stars (including a woman who has sex with a ventriloquist dummy on camera) and we keep coming to the same conclusion:

A) The demand for these people’s services is enormous;

B) The vast majority of us partake in some form or another (by consuming porn, if nothing else);

C) They thus fulfill a basic need in a way that the world would sorely miss if they stopped; and

D) We fucking hate them for it. Like, to the point of violence.

Why? We’re honestly asking. Someone let us know.

A & B are both easy to explain: the sex drive of a healthy man is a ravenous beast. Men need sexual release and need it constantly. The fire burns in the loins and the mind and never really stops burning except for those precious few hours after release.

To make matters worse, in today’s liberated society, the male is constantly assaulted with sexual imagery. One can not walk down the street without seeing a girl in a tight and/or low-cut top or ass-accentuating jeans. It’s a constant war for most men between their base urges and societal propriety. They’re constantly seeing on display what they can not have, what they could take but won’t; the whole of society enforcing the cruelty of placing a hamburger in front of a starving man. And man is always starving.

Sex work offers release. A temporary reprieve from the incessant burning and deprivation.

A third aggravating factor can be found in the article:

In other words, a key skill is learning how to simply hang out with clients and make them feel comfortable. Despite what you hear about how men primarily are all about looks, a lot of guys go to strip clubs for more than ogling boobies — they miss (or have never known) having a woman in their life, and for whatever reason this is the only place they can get something a little like that.

Men not only want sex, they want female companionship, a soft place to land, where they can comfortably offload their struggles. Traditionally, a wife would supply this role, but with today’s independent women who value traditionally masculine values over traditionally feminine ones, a soft place to land is not always as easy to obtain.

So there is a demand and this demand is aggravated by modern mores.

Now C is where their observation is not fully accurate as they do not distinguish between the personal and the societal. While sex workers fulfill individuals’ needs, it fails society’s needs. Society needs men to be fathers and to produce. Fatherhood is civilization, but unlike motherhood, fatherhood is not natural, it is a social construct. Like all social constructs it must be maintained and reinforced throughout society or it breaks down.

Sex work tears at fatherhood, it tears at civilization. That is where the seeming contradiction of D comes in, although disapproval or disgust would be a better word than hate. Here are a few of the ways it tears at away at fatherhood:

1) Sex work creates bastards. Children without fathers suffer and generally are less likely to become productive members of society. Before “reliable” birth control was common, bastards were inevitable, but even modern birth control is not as reliable as people claim, and bastards still occur. Fatherless children are societal problems.

2) A man partaking in paid sexual services (or is successful as a cad) is expending effort outside of being a father. He is not spending those same time and resources creating, providing for, and raising his own children.  His own family suffers.

3) In many cases, sexual services (or fornication) may even replace marriage and fatherhood entirely. In this case, the man has no family, he raises no children to carry society forward, women are deprived of a potential husband, and he produces less for society as he produces only for himself, not for his family.

4) A woman turning to sex work is a woman not being a wife and mother. Instead of creating and raising children in a stable family environment she is providing sex for profit. Each sex worker is one less young woman in the marriage pool for men, reducing the incentives for men to work towards marriage. Even after a sex worker retires, she is still not a good prospect for marriage.

If you think this is all no problem, just look at our current society as it has relaxed its mores against fornication and paid sexual services. About 40% of children are born out of wedlock, a third of children live without fathers, a fifth of children live in poverty, our birth rates are well below replacement levels, and young men are dropping out of marriage and the workplace.

On a more personal level: women dislike sex workers because they are in direct competition against them for men, even their own husbands. Men dislike sex workers because it is degrading having to pay for what you wish you could achieve naturally and they’ll externalize this self-hatred.

This is why sex workers are disdained. They tear at the fabric of civilization.


Another point, what they think of as hate is not always hate, but rather desire and perverted forms of love, particularly when it comes to violence or individual actions. Just looking through the examples of “hate” Cracked provide illustrates this clearly.

Yeah, there’s something about women who are willing to show off their bodies without shame that enrages a very specific sort of terrible person. It’s like they can’t stand the idea of the performer retaining any kind of power at all. “If I’m paying to see her body, I should get total access, regardless of what she says.” Every customer service job requires dealing with entitled dicks, but we’re guessing you’ve never had to deal with that.

61 percent of strippers report experiencing someone trying to penetrate them via finger, 82 percent have been punched, and a balls-out terrifying 56 percent reported having a customer freaking follow them home at least once.

That’s not hate, that’s textbook frustrated desire. A man getting handsy or attempting to have sex is not hating, he’s desiring. A man following a woman home is not hate, it is very strong desire.

Where hate might come in is after the fact (ex: the punching): its not all that particularly surprising someone would be hated for rejecting someone by the person being rejected, however irrational that hatred might be.

Rape Accusation Default

By now you’ve heard of Rolling stone’s UVA rape article, it’s retraction, and all the debate around it.

One of the interesting parts of the debate is this:

That was later downgraded to generally and most feminists haven’t gone quite that far, but the general trend from feminists has been that we should “believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.”. The general tenor from the manosphere is that the default should be skeptism of rape claims given the amount of false rape claims. Both default belief and default skepticism have their proper time and place, it is situational. False rape claims do happen often enough to be worth considering them, but most rape claims are not false.

Generally default belief is best in the context of friendship, sympathy, support, and personal relationship. If a friend tells you of being raped, immediately believing and supporting her if she’s lying is low-cost, a few wasted hours at most, while not immediately doing so if she is not lying can be very damaging to her and to the relationship.

On the other hand, default skepticism is generally best in the context of law, informal punishment, or the impersonal. In these situations, immediately believing a lie will have immense negative effects on innocent parties, while not immediately believing the truth will be fairly low-cost as there will still be time to find the truth .

The tricky part is when the friendship and informal punishment overlap, ie. when you have friendships with both the accuser and the accused. In those cases, your best judgment on the characters of both parties combined with how close you are to each party is probably the best way to determine who you should default to believing.


This brings me to another thought. Reading through the RS article there are a number of things that don’t pass the sniff test, but of all of them this one passage takes the cake:

Disoriented, Jackie burst out a side door, realized she was lost, and dialed a friend, screaming, “Something bad happened. I need you to come and find me!” Minutes later, her three best friends on campus – two boys and a girl (whose names are changed) – arrived to find Jackie on a nearby street corner, shaking. “What did they do to you? What did they make you do?” Jackie recalls her friend Randall demanding. Jackie shook her head and began to cry. The group looked at one another in a panic. They all knew about Jackie’s date; the Phi Kappa Psi house loomed behind them. “We have to get her to the hospital,” Randall said.

Their other two friends, however, weren’t convinced. “Is that such a good idea?” she recalls Cindy asking. “Her reputation will be shot for the next four years.” Andy seconded the opinion, adding that since he and Randall both planned to rush fraternities, they ought to think this through. The three friends launched into a heated discussion about the social price of reporting Jackie’s rape, while Jackie stood beside them, mute in her bloody dress, wishing only to go back to her dorm room and fall into a deep, forgetful sleep. Detached, Jackie listened as Cindy prevailed over the group: “She’s gonna be the girl who cried ‘rape,’ and we’ll never be allowed into any frat party again.”

The friends in question have since responded and have said that the night did not occur like that, because of course it didn’t because that kind of response is just absurd. But the absurdity of it is magnified by the fact that it was so widely believed, which is bewildering to me. It makes me wonder about the social lives of feminists though. How could someone possibly believe that three people called by a friend in trauma and wearing bloody clothing  would have their first thought be “but what about the keggers?

I can not think of a single person I know whose first response to finding a friend who had been gang-raped wouldn’t be to provide comfort and aid the person (or possibly rage against the perpetrators). It’s hard to imagine anybody would respond like this, yet feminists and liberals all bought this incident as perfectly believable.

Is this how liberals, feminists, and their friends behave? Is this how people in their social circles act? Is this really a believable course of action to them? When they read this did they really think to themselves, ‘yeah, that’s how my friends would act‘?

If feminists really surround themselves with people like those in Jackie’s story, it’s no wonder they’re so screwed up. I’d feel pity for them if they weren’t so evil.

Maybe feminists should stop trying to dismantle the patriarchy and instead work on finding some better friends.

Or are they just so hatefully bitter that even if they know their friends wouldn’t act like that, they’d think everyone outside their bubble would?

The Jewish Question

I wrote on Jewish privilege last week and the post was made more as a satirical bite at critical theorists than really related to Jews at all. As should be obvious to anyone reading my blog, I am not a critical theorist and am opposed to them. (My thoughts on white male privilege can be seen here and here). So any post where I seem to be supporting it should be read as containing a certain level of satire or irony.

I was accused of being anti-semitism because of the Jewish privilege post. Given that my post was mostly just a collection of statistics, it would seem some people think that reality itself is anti-semitic. So, note to Jews, you’ll probably make more enemies than friends if you go around yelling anti-semitism whenever someone mentions Jews in anything less than worshipful tones.

I’ve written little on Jews before for the simple reason that I don’t really care all that much about Jews either way. I don’t write pro-Jewish things because I’m not a Jew, Jew’s aren’t my people. I’ll leave it to Jews to promote and defend to themselves. I don’t write anti-Jewish things because I’m not particularly anti-Jewish either. But, given that the topic’s come up, I’ll give my thoughts on the Jewish Question and alienate all my readers in the process.

On a personal level, I’ve met few Jews, they’re sparse on the ground in the Canadian prairies, but those few I have met seemed to be decent-enough folks. As with any group of ‘others’, I’ll interact and judge Jews on an individual base but I have a natural preference for my own and tend to naturally congregate to my own, so I tend to spend the majority of my time with working/middle-class Christian whites.

On a group level, I view Jews as I do any other out-group not engaged in war with my in-groups, with benevolent neutrality. They are not my group but neither do I wish them ill.

Continuing on, as I demonstrated in my Jewish privilege post, in North America Jews are vastly overrepresented in any non-physical, high-status area of achievement, be it government, the financial sector, the media, the education system, or the justice system. Jews wield a disproportionate level of influence. This is a statistical fact. Anybody who denies this is a liar or ignorant and anybody who thinks stating this is anti-semitic thinks reality itself is anti-semitic and is no more worth listening to on the subject than any other race-baiter.

The reason for Jew’s over-representation is likely a combination of intelligence and tribalism. Jews have a high average IQ, which is correlated heavily with success. As well, Jews, like most people groups excepting some pathologically altruistic whites, tend to favour their own group over out-groups. This in-group favouring gives Jews, along with Asians and blacks, a competitive advantage as a group over whites in white dominated countries where the white in-group is larger, more diffuse, and riddled with the pathologically altruistic, making whites less likely to act in their group interests. Whites simply don’t identify as whites as an in-group and don’t act on this in-group loyalty.

For these two reasons, Jews are more successful on average than the white majority and I don’t really begrudge them that. Tribalism is natural and healthy, it is a good thing. I don’t hold it against other groups who act in the interests of their group except when it is to attack my group. That Europeans deny their natural tribalistic impulses is on Europeans not on Jews.

(I’ll note here, that whites as a group are not my group; white in North America is far too large and diffuse a group to make it an in-group. My in-group would be the red tribe, particularly Prairie Canadians. Many whites, particularly blue tribe whites, are also the other).

Some would point to the Jewish over-representation in progressive causes as an attack on my people, but I do not think Jewish over-representation in progressive causes indicates any purposeful, malign attack on the part of Jews.  Jews have always voted strongly Democrat and are a liberal group who prefer liberal policies, and given the earlier two reasons they tend to represent themselves well wherever they happen to be; this combination of achievement and liberalism is why Jews tend to be heavily represented in progressivist movement.

Those minority of Jews who have not been liberal have acquitted themselves proportionately well in anti-progressivism. Jews were the largest minority who fought for the confederacy. Jews were important aides to McCarthy in his anti-communist fights. Barry Goldwater himself was half-Jewish. More revealingly, 1% of the John Birch society were Jews, despite the fact that at the time, only 10% of Jews voted for Goldwater. So, .2% of the population that were Jewish conservatives were over-represented by a factor of 5 in the JBS.

So, Jews represent themselves well wherever they seem to go, but they tend to go liberal as a group. It seems less a purposeful attack on us by Jews, and more Jews, as a different group, have different priorities and pursue them. They happen to be good at it and are thus overrepresented among progressives. The effect is the same, progressivism, but ideological convergence rather than malign conspiracy seems more explanatory.

Continuing on, Jews are only 2% of the population. They are, as a group, smart and wealthy, but they are not super-human monsters. They may be progressive and disproportionately powerful, but even then they still hold only a small fraction of power and wealth in North America. If the majority were opposed to progressivism it wouldn’t matter what Jews thought. Our willful self-destruction is our own fault.

Because of this I can’t bear any particular ill-will towards Jews as a group; I do not fault groups for pursuing their interests and the only reason their interests are hurting us is because too many of us are pursuing self-immolation. But, we do have different interests, so something should be done so neither of our groups are hurting each other while pursuing our own interests.

So, what is to be done?

The same as is to be done with any other group: separation. As with blacks, Jews are not us, they are a different group with different priorities and different values, and they should be allowed to pursue them, just as we should be allowed to pursue our own priorities.

The answer to the Jewish question is subsidiarity or patchwork. Different groups, whether ethnic, religious, or ideological should have their own regions to live as they see fit without interference from other groups. In the particular case of Jews, this should be easy, as they tend to be geographically concentrated in the Northeast, Florida, and California. When we divide the country, we can allow these areas to either be cosmopolitan or give them to the Jews to run as they see fit. Then Jews and blue tribe whites can have their progressive utopia, blacks can have their welfare state, and red tribe whites can have agrarian conservatism. We can all live separate but in peace.