Invader justice for invaders

Recently saw picture of the invader jury that acquitted the invader who whimsically and casually murdered a white woman. They were very pleased with themselves. They were delighted. They were extremely proud of themselves.

The problem is that for some time, Democrats have been manufacturing a unitary and cohesive invader identity that is hostile to whites, and now we are getting invader justice – one immigrant from one country is apt to back another immigrant of a different ethnicity and religion who commits a crime against a white, because they are both invaders.

And the more anti white and anti native you are, the holier you are, thus Mexicans are holier than Asians, mestizos are holier than whitish Mexicans, indios are even holier, and Muslims are the holiest of all.

And acquitting an invader who murdered a white chick for laughs pleasingly raises one’s holiness status, hence the pride and joy of the jury. If you are Asian, and you acquit a Mestizo who murdered a white girl, this raises your status towards that of Mestizos, and even further above that of whites.

Someone in the comments is going to present some complicated legal argument that it was not exactly murder for laughs, or there was reasonable doubt it was murder for laughs, and there was some complicated legal reason why the murderer should get off, that it was not really who/whom justice, but even if that argument was completely true, that would not explain the happiness and obvious pride of a jury that did something guaranteed to look very like supporting the murder of white people for being white.

These were people who perceived themselves as having gained status. Killing white people is holy. Even if that murderous illegal immigrant totally deserved to get off (and quite obviously he was guilty as hell) these people believed that letting him off raised their status, and convicting him would have made them unholy, racist, and evil.

The facts of the case are that he stole a gun and used it to kill a white girl for laughs. But the facts of the crime do not matter. Maybe there was reasonable doubt, though I am sure that if the races were reversed no one would think there was reasonable doubt. What matters is not the facts of the case, but the facts of the attitude of the judge, jury, prosecution, and mainstream media, that the jury felt that acquitting an invader who looked remarkably like he frivolously and casually committed a murderous act against white girl was pretty good for themselves.

Obviously the invader stole a gun and murdered the white girl just for laughs, or out of hatred for whites, but regardless of the facts of the crime, even if he was innocent as morning dew, the emotional affect of the jury only makes sense if invaders murdering white girls for racial reasons is holy, socially approved, and high status.

74 Responses to “Invader justice for invaders”

  1. […] Invader justice for invaders […]

  2. Dave says:

    You could have titled this “Liberal justice for liberals”. Kate Steinle was an unmarried, childless 32-year-old white woman of no benefit to her race, who reliably voted for the party that favors unlimited mass immigration. Her brother even accused Trump of using the tragedy for political gain.

    If winning this war means liberal whites being massacred by the diversity they profess to love, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.

    • jim says:

      Predictably, her family threw her under the bus.

      But the murder is not the problem. The acquittal is not the problem. The problem is the invader mindset revealed by the fact that the jury expected, and received, social approval for the acquittal.

      Immigrants come to join you. Invaders come to kill you and take your stuff. The jury, and the approval they received, revealed their invader mindset.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Invader. Invader.

        I don’t understand what’s taking us so long to use the word. “Illegal”? “Undocumented”? “Infiltrator”? Weak!

        So what’s taking “Invader” so long? Even for us dammit!

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          The problem with “invader” is that to be invading someone should be resisting you. They are not invaders. They are janissaries. They are not fighting the state, they are obeying it.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            OK, so invaders aided and abetted by the collaborators.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            But still man, it’s a sharp distinction, and a humiliating one. I won’t lie.

          • jim says:

            The difference between an immigrant and an invader is the mindset. The immigrant wants to join you, the invader wants to kill you and take your stuff.

            Therefore, if an immigrant, not a reliable vote for the Coalition of the Fringes.

            If someone profiles as a reliable vote for the Coalition of the Fringes, profiles as an invader.

            Hence the overwhelming preference for rapeugees over Christians fleeing Muslim terror.

            Hence an immigration policy that makes it very hard for genuine immigrants. If, say, someone white and male wants to bring in a girl who would otherwise be a highly desirable migrant, which is to say brown, he and his girlfriend are going to be given a really hard time.

            On the other hand, someone like Jose Zarate, who has a long history of potentially deadly criminal behavior and over the top hostility to legacy Americans, no problem. Because women married to white men tend to vote republican, hence not allowed in, while criminals vote democrat, hence are allowed in.

          • Cavalier says:

            >The problem with “invader” is that to be invading someone should be resisting you. They are not invaders. They are janissaries. They are not fighting the state, they are obeying it.

            Correct. William the Conqueror was an invader leading invasions. The Puritan settlement of North America was an invasion, though the resistance was pathetic. The stunning German defeat of France was an invasion, though the resistance was pathetic. Hitler in Russia was an invasion. Normandy, invasion. Boer settlement of the southern tip of Africa, invasion. Even the mass-migration to South Africa, plausibly an invasion. Somalians vacuumed up and freely transported by 747 to Minnesota? Not an invasion.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              *Someone* certainly is getting invaded, in any case.

              So often, when benighted modernes mean to say ‘good’, the word that comes out is ‘real’, as they have been mindfucked by such sophistical psudologions as ‘fact/value distinction’ or ‘subjective vs objective’.

              A real invasion, which is to say a good, effective invasion (or a disastrous invasion, for the invadees), naturally involves the replacement of invaded demographics (with your own).

              Under the lens of this metric now so defined, what do different things look like?

              The perennial military masturbations in Afghanistan or Iraq for instance, are now seen as not real invasions. Indeed, are clown-world simulations of an invasion; much sound and fury amounting to nothing. Worse than nothing, actually.

              Somalians vacuumed up and freely transported by 747 to Minnesota? 25 wetbacks crammed into the back of a pinto hopping the border? Floppies packed like sardines in a dinghy eagerly awaiting ‘rescue’ by the Italian coast guard? Very real invasions, in the most vital essential sense of invasion.

              • Cavalier says:

                How can you be invaded when your “invaders” are already here? From my perspective (and theirs), this is garden-variety population management, historically proven and effective. All socialist government services (school, marriage, lawnorder, borders, etc.) are being privatized, we’re tipping towards a mestizo state such as Brazil, “ruling class” is going to become synonymous with “transnational white”, and you want to be on the right side of The Wall when it goes up.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >How can you be invaded when your “invaders” are already here?

                  The same way Rome was.

                  >this is garden-variety population management, historically proven and effective.

                  Effective, for what? Brazilification? I can think of several words to describe it, most rather antonymous to ‘effective’.

                  >yeah but if you’re one of the hyperion superclass like i dearly like to imagine myself as when fapping then

                  The whole point of reactionary perspectives like this fine chalet here, is in the looking beyond contingently compelling incentive structures agents are situated in presently; because it is *precisely* agents more or less reasonably observing the more contingent structures of incentives each facing all individually, *especially* at higher levels, that has led to present dyscivia to begin with. (“He complains about the dish he ordered.”)

                  Progressives are regressives and reactionaries are progressives, because progressives rationalize through cockroach philosophy, where the good is defined as the greatest amount of meat robots on a dirt ball possible, whereas reactionaries presumptuously imagine greater directions civilizations could march, Great Things that could be achieved, through which particular agents are merely a substrate, the utility of which to any particular agent being a contingent and incidental instrumental concern.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Effective, for what?

                  Finishing what the New Deal started.

                  >hyperion superclass

                  I have a toehold. Try it sometime.

                  >Progressives are regressives and reactionaries are progressives

                  Sure thing, buddy.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >The same way Rome was.

                  I don’t know the particulars of Rome’s population sink.

                  To call someone an “invader” is to imbue him with power. Man is a territorial animal, and for one to be somewhere of one’s own will against the wishes of the denizens of that somewhere is an act of supreme dominance.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >Finishing what the New Deal started.

                  And this is a good thing because: ( )

                  >I have a toehold. Try it sometime.

                  It goes without saying.

                  >Sure thing, buddy.

                  Don’t tell me this is going over your head.

                  You’re not really responsive to anything here.

                  >I don’t know the particulars of Rome’s population sink.

                  Revilo P. Oliver touches upon it in his most edifying book ‘American’s Decline’, which any right thinking WASP ought to read. (A select excerpt http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/History_and_Biology.html )

                  Suffice to say, when Vandal barbarians finally rode in to sack Rome, the garrisons facing them were *also* barbarians; actual latinates had already more or less completely disappeared from the peninsula 60-100 years prior.

                  >To call someone an “invader” is to imbue him with power. Man is a territorial animal, and for one to be somewhere of one’s own will against the wishes of the denizens of that somewhere is an act of supreme dominance.

                  >If we call queer people gay, people will associate positive happy connotations with them.

                  >If we call googles, bings, and yahoos americans, they will love the constitution, perform ably and reliably at their job, pay taxes, and not shoot each other.

                  Our friend nydwracu once opined that the basic operation of black magic is in naming the nameless; if one could in a single phrase generalize the greatest failure mode of conservatives over the past 100 (300) years, it was (and is) their failure to recognize their enemies, *as* enemies.

                  (Their enemies, of course, had no such compunctions).

                  The natives themselves almost certainly do not want the mystery meat to be around, and yet around they are anyways; who is it exactly then, that’s getting that hit of endorphins from doing things that other people don’t want you to do? Im sure you know the answer to that.

                  A single foot soldier on his own is not that impactful, but he is properly understood as a cog is a much more massive machine; a presence of which in itself carries an entailment of implications. If a troop of foot soldiers comes in kicking down doors and making off with the chickens, people don’t say ‘a set of free and atomized individuals who have no essential relationship with each other or anything else are each and all incidentally violating the non-aggression principle’, they say ‘The Enemy is Invading!’

                  Is it not a basic centerpeice of contemporary reactionary critique, the observation that ‘the system’, as such, not only is not concerned with the interests of it’s aryan substrate, and in fact is trying to destroy them? And not just a faceless abstracted ‘system’, but certain sets of *people* in particular, with common identifying and unifying characteristics, that naturally trend towards such action in any case?

                  Leftism as a strategy, which is to say, someone focusing their competitive thymos more on their neighbors than on aliens, tends to be highly effective in acquiring power; but as a strategy for *building* power, not so effective. Actually, the opposite of effective. Leftism consumes and cannibalizes power sources. Until at least, the people spontaneously get smart; or, threat from outside powers compels the people to make unprincipled exceptions; or, outside powers extirpate and supplant them.

                  The problem with that we have today, if it could be described in such terms, is that neandertalics are so much better than everyone else, that there aren’t really any other great enough powers ‘outside’ to pose a credible existential threat. Thus, people have had the pleasure of living in a cannibalistic state for a long time now, and likely will for the foreseeable future as well. Although they certainly are alien, khazarian steppe people don’t really count as an outside power in this regard, since their own strategies are and have been largely isometric which what a ‘natural’ native leftist would do wrt signal hacking (though of course more virulent), and in any case lack the real numbers to be an existential demographic threat (on their own that is).

                  The dream of making Africa, Arabia, and Sudamerica great the same way America and Australia were made great may take some finessing.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >And this is a good thing because: ( )

                  What is good? Is good universal? When a lioness chases down and thereupon feasts on a gazelle, is this good? Is it bad? Is it evil?

                  Man is predator. What is his principle prey? Other men. Man, predator of men, sculptor of man, sculpture of man, product of a million genocides.

                  >Don’t tell me this is going over your head.

                  You said that the “progressives” have become a nascent ruling aristocracy and that the “reactionaries” have become the idealistic naifs aspiring to power. I got it.

                  >invader BS

                  So, you want to redefine the word “invader”, but if you do, then you will lose the ability to express the original concept.

                  >who is it exactly then, that’s getting that hit of endorphins from doing things that other people don’t want you to do? Im sure you know the answer to that

                  71% intermarraige

                  >If a troop of foot soldiers comes in kicking down doors and making off with the chickens, people don’t say ‘a set of free and atomized individuals who have no essential relationship with each other or anything else are each and all incidentally violating the non-aggression principle’, they say ‘The Enemy is Invading!’

                  They say “Napoleon is invading!”. Not “the foot soldiers of Napoleon are invading!”. Not “an army is invading!”. “Napoleon is invading!”.

                  The foot soldiers are not the invader. Napoleon is the invader. One man. There is just one invader because there is just one will.

                  >Leftism
                  >Leftism
                  >Leftism
                  >Until at least, the people spontaneously get smart
                  >”the people”

                  There is no “the people”. Ever. There is no volonté générale, no general will, there never has been, and never will be. When you use mental concepts like “the people”, you’re being pwned by Rousseau (and, to an extent, by Hobbes).

                  Further, you cannot be said to have truly grokked reactionary anything. You’re still thinking in liberal terms, just with a shiny golden coat of paint.

                  >The dream of making Africa, Arabia, and Sudamerica great the same way America and Australia were made great may take some finessing.

                  1. Become worthy.
                  2. Assume power.
                  3. Rule.

                  Finesse? Eh, not really — not after step 1.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >What is good? Is good universal? When a lioness chases down and thereupon feasts on a gazelle, is this good? Is it bad? Is it evil?

                  Nat had undigested slave morality which made him feel the peons *deserved* being squashed *because* they are predatory; someone so possessed is hence inclined to much more evil than someone who does so earnestly believe in the goodness of war.

                  Also ‘what is the good *really*?’ is a sure prefigurement that someone is being pozzed (yes, plato was no exception).

                  >Man is predator. What is his principle prey? Other men. Man, predator of men, sculptor of man, sculpture of man, product of a million genocides.

                  As i have often and repeatedly argued.

                  >You said that the “progressives” have become a nascent ruling aristocracy and that the “reactionaries” have become the idealistic naifs aspiring to power. I got it.

                  Well that too.

                  But the deeper point is that simply swapping the denominators around is not (and rarely ever is) a more felicitous descriptor of the situation; for example, saying things like ‘progressives are progressive because they believe in making the future better’ leads to spergs thinking things like ‘well since progressives suxx i guess if i want to be a reactionary i’ll have to make the future worse, or something’.

                  Everyone has a sense of how things could be better, and will at times by various means act to drive in that direction; the point then is that a meaningful distinction would be concerned with the *object level*, the differences between those visions of greatness (or more pertinently, the revealed preferences). For a frustrated or disappointed vision of greatness is certainly a motivator for many reactionaries today, and the most compelling thing to those else who might hear, who might at some times imagine something greater than cockroach philosophy, which on its own is less of a vision and more of a social defense mechanism.

                  What differences could one point too, between the behavior of elites now, and elites in past times, and what elites could be in the future? Merely analytical, abstract, conceptually calculated approaches will fail, and often always fail, to find hardly any difference at all.

                  ‘Shitlibs are bad because they are actually fascists who oppose freedom of speech; therefore, conservatives should be the real liberals.’
                  Except when it’s actually a good thing to ‘regulate’ ‘speech’; for example, in making sure no (((community organizers))) are promulgating heretical ideographs anti-ethical to the official religio (or the very idea of official religios, fascist hierarchy, or aristocracy in general) for status.

                  It certainly would have been in the interest of the ancien regimes, even as recently as 60 years ago, to not let their mortal rivals enjoy such freedoms, but hey, they were principled, and believed in ‘are values’.

                  If even the king is saying that la peuple ought to be consulted for decision making, who else is going to argue for undisguised royal prerogative? (The present problem of course being highly occulted royal prerogative).

                  Memeing about sith lords or dark masters of evil darkness is funny, but people who use appellations of the sort seriously residually carry sklavischemoral modes of thought; the sense that proggism on some level really *is* the good and nice and fair; that rejecting the gnostic pharisaical nostrums of contemporary leftism means embracing ‘evil’; that on some level they have not, or can not, fully internalized the ‘reactionary’ nature of goodness.

                  >invader BS

                  The point was that *not* labling them an invasive species is pretty much the same as not labeling bantus niggers.

                  Labeling gay people gay didn’t imbue fags with positive happy connotations, it imbued the word gay with faggotry.

                  >71% intermarraige

                  Well they’re included too yes, like i elided too later.

                  >The foot soldiers are not the invader. Napoleon is the invader. One man. There is just one invader because there is just one will.

                  Yes, and since the foot soldiers are Napoleon, and Napoleon is invading, the foot soldiers are invaders.

                  Really a rather tedious hill to die on here.

                  >*snip*

                  Sequences like this are why i’ve always above all preferred qualitative, characteristic descriptions of ones bogeymen, above and beyond the merely ideological window dressing.

                  One, because it helps do an end run around adulterating purity spiraling by being more object level, and more pertinently two, hit’s on the nose for *describing* those people most prone to preoccupation with reductive rule making, the essential factor in the consistently disastrous products of their cognition, whatever label they associate themselves with; the preoccupation with the *logical* certainty of a neat self-contained system a sublimation of the deep *un*certainty they experience every day trying to comprehend being.

                  Of course, it is that very desire, that very deficiency, that engenders the most virulent intellectual chaemeras of all, which promptly explode upon contact with being; they who by nature can hardly *see* where and how the intellectual toy they play with jumps off the rails. The greatest problem not being that they are fully unbelieving cynical pragmatics, but that in large part that they *do* in fact so earnestly believe in the(ir) system and try to implement it, thus conjuring demons.

                  Many people, especially on the internet, tend to select belief systems based on how easily it lets them win arguments with people.

                  ‘The people’ are a substrate; like a stormy ocean, or a precipitous mountain, a clever sailor may navigate it, or clever climber climb it; but he must indeed be clever, do some things and not others; he cannot navigate it *any old way he desires*.

                  The view that the sovereign is always and everywhere all powerful, (and that there always and everywhere is indeed a singular sovereign power), is not really responsive at all to question of *why this*, and not *anything else*. Like the example of psychological egoism, it reasons itself into unassailable universality, and hence, irrelevance.

                  Replace dire apes with sapient blockchains, the exact play calling may change, but the dynamic remains the same. (As a matter of hilarity, i eagerly await the innovation of the ‘infomorph rights’ movement; after all, what better way to elect a new people for grievance blocks, than by cunt/pasting them yourself a trillion times? Just imagine, server farm after server farm sucking up niggawatts of power to house a googleplex of barely uplifted scriptlets who exist only to give their dumb opinions assent. Could glorious AIs of the future be pinko populist political hacks? You better believe it. I can only hope Mr. Land lives long enough to have conniption fits over it.)

                  >Finesse? Eh, not really — not after step 1.

                  “You would eat that fruit too.”

                  So far the historical track record in the west has been that people practicing leftism, people who co-opt and cannibalize power, out-compete people becoming worthy, people who build power, with regards to *being* in power within the west.

                  Who would prefer knocking down a skyscraper if you could be king of the rubble pile, vs middle management in that skyscraper? A lot of people evidently.

                  It certainly would be nice if we had a king that decided it would be great to start genociding aliens rather than his co-ethnics, and certainly it is one hope of reactionary thinkers to, if not become the highest elite themselves, then to at least convince other elites that that is on the whole a sweller deal, but the incentive structure as i (and you) described is still there; simply as a matter of brute prediction, i think it’ll be some time before we get there. If we do, it will in any case become more likely as the cannibalization degenerates further.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Memeing about sith lords or dark masters of evil darkness is funny, but people who use appellations of the sort seriously residually carry sklavischemoral modes of thought…”

                  I would say that memeing about sith lords of evil darkness is precisely based on the idea that calling the good “evil” and the evil “good” does not make them so. You can ironically call yourself “evil” in opposition to the “good” your opponents call themselves but you’re still good.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Nat had undigested slave morality

                  Who?

                  >which made him feel the peons *deserved* being squashed *because* they are predatory

                  Nobody deserves anything, good or bad.

                  >For a frustrated or disappointed vision of greatness is certainly a motivator for many reactionaries today

                  “What is the good”, he says.

                  >cockroach philosophy

                  ?

                  >What differences could one point too, between the behavior of elites now, and elites in past times, and what elites could be in the future? Merely analytical, abstract, conceptually calculated approaches will fail, and often always fail, to find hardly any difference at all.

                  Feel the Force, Luke.

                  >If even the king is saying that la peuple ought to be consulted for decision making, who else is going to argue for undisguised royal prerogative?

                  What’s the point, exactly? That the king should be forced to play it straight? He who binds the sovereign, becomes.

                  >(The present problem of course being highly occulted royal prerogative).

                  I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

                  >sklavischemoral

                  Is this something I should know?

                  >The point was that *not* labling them an invasive species is pretty much the same as not labeling bantus niggers.

                  Like I said, there are invaders but they’re already here. In the cities. In the government and the newspapers and the universities and the banks and the corporations. Not, “the nigggggggers are invading”; not, “the spiccccccs are invading”; not, “the Mozzlelems are invading” — USG is invading.

                  Labeling the end result of a long human centipede of Foundation machinations as an “invader” crushes one’s understanding of the concept, of the nature of the world, and of important in-group/out-group distinctions.

                  Suppose you had a house full of termites, which can be easily handled with a bit of bug spray (or however termites are dealt with), but your town wouldn’t let you use the spray because it’s toxic to the environment. Are there termites? Yeah. And they’re in your house, dude. But who’s really at fault here?

                  Is that a tedious hill to die on? No way, man, just start calling the termites “grubniggers” in spittle-flecked intonations, and go around posting flyers rousing up popular anger against the termite infestations, and put on elaborate extermination costumes, and doing marches, and writing songs, and writing in the papers. If you can only just generate enough hate against the termites, call them “trespassers” and “invaders”, and accuse them of taking your wood as their own, you’ll convince the government to legalize the spray. Democracy, yo. Dawg. Face. Man.

                  >Sequences like this are why i’ve always above all preferred qualitative, characteristic descriptions of ones bogeymen, above and beyond the merely ideological window dressing.
                  >One, because it helps do an end run around adulterating purity spiraling by being more object level, and more pertinently two, hit’s on the nose for *describing* those people most prone to preoccupation with reductive rule making, the essential factor in the consistently disastrous products of their cognition, whatever label they associate themselves with; the preoccupation with the *logical* certainty of a neat self-contained system a sublimation of the deep *un*certainty they experience every day trying to comprehend being.

                  You must be much smarter than me, because I can’t figure out what this means.

                  >Of course, it is that very desire, that very deficiency, that engenders the most virulent intellectual chaemeras of all, which promptly explode upon contact with being; they who by nature can hardly *see* where and how the intellectual toy they play with jumps off the rails. The greatest problem not being that they are fully unbelieving cynical pragmatics, but that in large part that they *do* in fact so earnestly believe in the(ir) system and try to implement it, thus conjuring demons.

                  Do you judge on intention or result? A man has goodness in his heart, doesn’t intend to commit an evil act, but does. Another man has evil in his heart, intends to commit an evil act, but doesn’t. Which is the greater transgressor?

                  >The view that the sovereign is always and everywhere all powerful, (and that there always and everywhere is indeed a singular sovereign power), is not really responsive at all to question of *why this*, and not *anything else*. Like the example of psychological egoism, it reasons itself into unassailable universality, and hence, irrelevance.

                  Peter Thiel tells us that monopolies companies do everything they can to appear as not-monopolies, while not-monopolies do everything they can to appear as monopolies. A government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

                  >So far the historical track record in the west has been that people practicing leftism, people who co-opt and cannibalize power, out-compete people becoming worthy, people who build power, with regards to *being* in power within the west.

                  Why is “leftism” adaptive?

                  A. It’s decentralized. Heads of Medusa, etc.

                  B. It’s informal. Hard to strike what you can’t see.

                  C. 1% of economic growth a year means that every thirty years, 35% of all wealth is newly generated (and captured), most of it by the upwardly mobile.

                  D. The aristocrat is a blond beast of prey.

                  >Who would prefer knocking down a skyscraper if you could be king of the rubble pile, vs middle management in that skyscraper? A lot of people evidently.

                  Typical democratic reasoning. “If only we convince enough people of X, then we will achieve utopia.” Lol. In this case, “X” is “restraining their will-to-power”. Good luck. A Darwinist would bet against you.

                  >It certainly would be nice if we had a king that decided it would be great to start genociding aliens rather than his co-ethnics

                  How large was your great-grandparents’ in-group?

                  >If we do, it will in any case become more likely as the cannibalization degenerates further.

                  Capitalism is the cannibalization of the commons.

          • dan says:

            Oliver, do you know how to use a comma? Particularly between
            “invading” and “someone.” It makes it MUCH easier for people reading your otherwise cogent comment.

      • John B says:

        > The problem is the invader mindset

        Surely that is a symptom, not the problem? The key factor, it seems to me, is always and everywhere the baizuo. The baizuo begat diversity, which begat vibrant invaders, which begat the Steinle killing.

        There is, so far as I can tell, no precedent in history for the baizuo phenomenon. No civilisation has ever before been gripped with mass insanity to the point of auto-genocide. The key part here is *mass* insanity: emperors and elites have made catastrophic blunders but there is, so I claim, no case of pervasive insanity destoying a civilisation from within.

        If that’s the case, a novel phenomenon demands a novel explanation. The only one that seems to fit the bill is that industrialisation plus mass prosperity abolished powerful evolutionary pressures (infant mortality etc) that kept us on the genetic straight and narrow. Absent those pressures, you get the human equivalent of the “mouse utopia” experiment. We are heading for something very like a mass extinction event for Whites, at least in the Western world, because they industrialised first.

        So this blog is by and for genetic throwbacks. We and the baizuo are incomprehensible to one another because we still think as our ancestors did and the baizuo no longer can. We’re free of the mutations that make the baizuo insane.

        The only hope of averting catastophe – and I’m afraid it’s a slim one – is that the throwbacks forcibly overthrow the baizuo.

        • jim says:

          Nah, holiness spiral.

          Not a novel phenomenon, been seen before time after time after time after time.

          The Khmer Rogue wiped themselves out almost to a man. You cannot blame industrialization for that. Similarly, the peasant revolt in Szechuan, where they wound up killing the rich, then the intellectuals, then the peasants.

          Holiness spiral is a standard failure mode. To activate tribalism in larger groups than is natural, you use religion. We started using religion as a tool for manufacturing tribes ten thousand years ago. Watch out, or priests seize control of your tribe, with the priests competing in holiness. And then the tribe barrels off into utter madness.

          • John B says:

            Our ideas of “novel” are certainly different! I’m not familiar with the Szechuan case. Democratic Kampuchea certainly lacked key elements of baizuo. There was no move towards self-abasement of Cambodians with respect to hostile outsiders, rather the opposite (their slogan was “Independence Mastery”). There was no movement to claim that “Vietnamese Lives Matter!” nor to promote transgenderism nor to invite “refugees”. Did anything like those features appear in Szechuan?

            Further, Cambodia is still there. China is still there. Western countries have already changed ominously and will have effectively abolished themselves in the next few decades. The Khmer Rouge came nowhere close to that, killing only about the same proportion as in the Thirty Years War. And they fell not through voluntarily importing outsiders but by a Vietnamese invasion.

            On the “utter madness” point: for the last thousand years or so Western peoples were far from mad. They could hardly have risen to world domination in 1500-2000 had they been so. The madness is very recent, very severe and of a nature that is, so far, confined to the West. This what I consider novel and therefore something that an explantion has to account for.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              What you list are examples of a mass media culture. In the past no one gave a shit about what peasants thought so we didn’t see what the political beliefs of the masses were. When you have mass media and public opinion, the masses start aping their superiors.

              What do you think would have happened if the Vietnamese had not invaded Cambodia?

              “On the “utter madness” point: for the last thousand years or so Western peoples were far from mad. ”

              The Protestant Reformation? The French Revolution? The Enlightenment? There are certainly episodes of madness that pop up. They don’t affect everywhere simultaneously, but the ancients didn’t have our technological capabilities to screw over everyone simultaneously.

              • John B says:

                I couldn’t entirely make sense of your comment…

                > What you list are examples of a mass media culture.

                I don’t know what list you’re referring to. If you’re saying the baizuo are just parroting what they’re told, I disagree, I think they are sincere.

                > What do you think would have happened if the Vietnamese had not invaded Cambodia?

                Obviously, I don’t know and nor does anyone else. The most plausible outcome is a stabilisation, as occurred after Stalin’s collectivisation famine and after Mao’s Great Leap Forward famine. The least plausible outcome is that the Khmer Rouge would have gone on killing Cambodians until there were none left.

                > The Protestant Reformation? The French Revolution? The Enlightenment?

                Not sure what you’re getting at in this paragraph. None of these were forms of madness. Protestant powers, notably the British Empire, went on to dominate the world. After its revolution France conquered Algeria, much of West Africa, and Indochina; they defeated Russia in the Crimea and Austria in Italy. French decline became apparent only on their defeat by Prussia, eighty years after the revolution. I wish we had that much time left.

                • pdimov says:

                  The French Revolution was madness. Who knows where it would have stopped on its own.

                • jim says:

                  > The least plausible outcome is that the Khmer Rouge would have gone on killing Cambodians until there were none left.

                  It is not a common outcome, but it has happened. It happened in Szechuan.

                  Yes, stabilization after the fashion of Stalin was likely, but by no means guaranteed.

                  > Protestant powers, notably the British Empire, went on to dominate the world.

                  The anglicanism of the restoration proceeded to dominate the world. Restoration is stabilization, an end to the madness and substantial reversal of it. Similarly, Emperor Napoleon.

                  The Anglicanism of the restoration was sane. The puritanism of Cromwell was – not quite as insane as the Puritanism that Cromwell suppressed.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “I don’t know what list you’re referring to.”

                  The self abasement. It does not make sense outside of a mass media culture; in the past if you thought another’s culture was superior, you adopted their culture.

                  “The least plausible outcome is that the Khmer Rouge would have gone on killing Cambodians until there were none left.”

                  They managed to kill 1 in 3. What makes you think the killing would have stopped there and not claimed a substantial portion of the rest of the population?

                  “None of these were forms of madness.”

                  The Protestant Reformation lead to a wave of religious wars across Europe- people started killing each other for having slightly different opinions about how Jesus was present in the Eucharist. I’m not sure how that can be any but an example of madness.

                  The French Revolution was insane. Ignoring all the killing, people in power engaged in year zero behavior. They enacted decimal time and a decimal calendar because it was ‘rational’.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >They enacted decimal time and a decimal calendar because it was ‘rational’.

                  Pray that you never have to write or maintain code that deals with times or dates.

            • pdimov says:

              Have you read The Fate of Empires by John Glubb?

        • BomberCommand says:

          >No civilisation has ever before been gripped with mass insanity to the point of auto-genocide.

          Let me introduce you to:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse

          Nongqawuse predicted that the ancestors’ promise would be fulfilled on February 18, 1857, when the sun would turn red. Initially, after the failure of Nongqawuse’s prophecy, her followers blamed those who had not obeyed her instructions, but they later turned against her. Sarhili visited the Gxarha River mouth, and spoke with Nongqawuse and Mhalakaza. When he returned, he announced that the New World would begin in eight days. On the eighth day the sun would rise, blood-red, and before setting again, there would be a huge thunderstorm, after which “The dead would arise”. During the next eight days the Cattle- Killing rose to a climax. These prophecies also failed to come true leading to the death of many people. [5] In the aftermath of the crisis, the population of British Kaffraria dropped from 105,000 to fewer than 27,000 due to the resulting famine.The chief of Bomvana handed Nongqawuse over to Major Gawler and she stayed at his home for a period. [15] One day Mrs Gawler decided to dress her, along with the Mpongo prophetess Nonkosi, and have their portrait taken by a photographer. [16] This is the widely circulated image of Nongqawuse with which most people are familiar.. After her release, she lived on a farm in the Alexandria district of the eastern Cape. She died in 1898. [3]

          Mass religous insanity is a common problems with humans and you need a tightly controled religon to avoid it.

      • james wilson says:

        I was just about to ask, how would the girl have voted if she was on the jury and not the victim. But you have answered that.

  3. Mister Grumpus says:

    Goddamn. The Reichstag Jury. This is fucking dangerous.

    It’s a race between
    A: our learning to hate again, and
    B: our being so humiliated that we just give up.

    Hate vs. Humiliation. The race is on.

    Tell you what though. I can think of some historical figures who took their people’s humiliation, explained that someone had DONE something to them in order to cause their humiliation, and in so doing converted their humiliation into the hate that they needed.

    Scapegoating or leadership? You decide.

    This is fucking dangerous.

    • mikey says:

      Looks like it will be b since this has already been going on for decades with oj and many similar cases. Unless Trump goes martial law. Apparently, democracy is not a viable system for more then a couple generations.

    • TBeholder says:

      The Reichstag Jury. This is fucking dangerous.
      It’s a race between
      A: our learning to hate again, and
      B: our being so humiliated that we just give up.

      Speaking of Reichstag? (B) then (A) works. Of course, this makes (A) even more likely to be steered for some or other puppeteer’s benefit, leaving the rest burned and still without a potato. So it’s really (B) → (A) → (B).
      And between entryism and KKK+BLM happy bus ride your chances to avoid this already don’t look great.

  4. Mr Curious says:

    Tge coal has been mined. No use for dumb prison B of modern world. Trll Koppel no we,aren’t fattest, stuidest & naffest race ever. No we aren’t breakjng sex dusc act by letting our sows priority halls – we are dead midern.

    Joke micheljn man pussy Stephen Dough,Boy. You wanna ban Britain First like l a little bish over cultmarx witch jo cox – ponce – a million more people have said .Allahu akbar’ so you must ban islam. Going carsh!tU buggest mistaje ever stop sending me stuff obese primitive oafs, fingees toi stubby ti ring dermatologist.

    Scoug master , dirty old queen. Livsly tim lovely stevd. languafes – pag same.

  5. Alrenous says:

    Should have shot first, like Han.

  6. Anonymous says:

    You might want to post the picture, as it is not easily googlable.

  7. John Sterne says:

    You’re 100 years late to the party, the entire reasons JEWS have been pushing immigration since the 1800s is to build a fifth column which they can use to destroy us. Changing identities from one of the column to one of the white at will.They have always managed to find whites they can trick into supporting this for other reasons usually short money.when they cant they use the power they have accumulated to blackmail. These stupid browns couldn’t do anything on their own, they are told how to act by the jews, the lawsuits are filed and strategies made and speeches written by jews.Forget hitler mess and how stupid neo nazis are, besides the point. Whats germain is the jews are the nes running this show, what whites they have recruited (considerable at this point) are laboring under jew lies, or are just corrupt.Even if it were true that leftism would be this bad without jews which is an absurd shit brained thought, it would still be manageable crushable in fact if not for powerful jews doing the fighting for these white cucks.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      That would be a great argument except for the fact bringing in immigrants to vote for a political party was a major political issue by John Adams (president number 2). Alien and Sedition Act was passed to curb the power of the immigrants who voted for the Democratic Republicans.

      Not coincidentally John Adams was the last president from the Federalist party. The next 6 presidents all came from the DRs.

      This behavior occurs repeatedly throughout history- the use of foreigners in order to secure political power because they don’t have a local power base and so rely on you is so common it was institutionalized in several societies.

      “Even if it were true that leftism would be this bad without jews which is an absurd shit brained thought, it would still be manageable crushable in fact if not for powerful jews doing the fighting for these white cucks.”

      Like the French Revolution? Or the American Revolution? Or the Protestant Reformation? Or the American Civil War?

      Jews make leftism worse, but they don’t make it stronger.

  8. chedolf says:

    Recently saw picture of the invader jury that acquitted the invader who whimsically and casually murdered a white woman.

    Let’s see it.

  9. j says:

    The place of the murder is a crowded tourist area. There was no one around to eliminate the terrorist? They let him walk away? In Mexico he would have been lynched on the spot.

  10. Kevin C. says:

    OT, but no mention of Gen. Flynn, Jim?

    • John B says:

      Seconded!

      As with the Manafort charges, Flynn won’t be used to topple Trump but as part of the process to keep him contained and ineffectual. I hope I’m wrong. If they really go for pushing Trump out, it will be a Fort Sumter event and very interesting!

    • R7 Rocket says:

      Gen. Flynn is no longer a credible witness (he plead guilty of *lying* to the FBI). In a normal prosecution, he wouldn’t be useful as a witness for either the defense or the prosecution… but this isn’t a normal “prosecution,” hmmm, what would the God Emperor do?

  11. Mister Grumpus says:

    Give us a piece on Evola sometime, please.

  12. pdimov says:

    In a less civilized country, the city would have been burned to the ground by now. This results in a remarkable future lack of “invader justice”.

  13. JJ says:

    Whether or not it was murder or manslaughter, who cares? He is very low IQ and has been deported 5 times, he should be killed.

    Frost and Harpending discovered that 0.5%-1% of men were killed every generation in Europe for centuries. This improved the gene pool very much.

    Cochran wrote recently about cases where DNA evidence could narrow down the suspects in a murder case to a pair of identical twins, but if neither admits to it, then both get off. The correct thing to do is to kill both of them, regardless of whether one confesses or not.

    • j says:

      The killing of violent individuals in Europe (and much more severely under the Mongol and Manchu in China) did not improve the character of the XXI Century European: They lost their self-defense instincts and are like defenseless sheep and cattle.

      • Cavalier says:

        Did they, though? or did they “collectivize”, forming greater and greater agglomerations, enabling industrial society in the first place? Consider the Chechen.

        • j says:

          There is no contradiction between defenselessness and depending on the police, and ‘agglomerability’. You are right, I am too.

          • Cavalier says:

            It seems to me that there is one spectrum, individual vs. collective, and one’s location on this spectrum determines a very large part of how good one is individually vs. how good one’s society is collectively at the application of violence. The state is inherently an “outsourcing” of a given amount of violence.

            My ancestors had excellent self-defense instincts, including my recent ancestors. What’s changed in the last three generations? Not the gene pool. What’s changed is the power of the state. “The European” is not a defenseless sheep or cattle before the mighty power of the Arab or the Mexican or the black African; he is a defenseless sheep before the mighty power of the state.

            And how good, today, is the state at the collective application of violence? Complete-planetary-annihilation-at-the-touch-of-a-button good. Just a cohencidence, probably.

  14. Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

    Post the picture

    • Cavalier says:

      No lives matter.

      Guard your attention jealously. Throw away your television. Stop reading “news”; if war is declared, you won’t need a “news”paper to know it. Never watch a movie made after the fall of the Berlin Wall. What you think you become.

      Pay attention to the clown circus if you like, but know that your sands of time, once spent, settle at the bottom of the grand hourglass for good.

  15. TBeholder says:

    Also, inb4 another obligatory stale joke: “this must have been a hard decision – to condemn an immigrant, or to acquit an evil gun that obviously possessed him to steal it and kill someone”.

  16. TBeholder says:

    Seriously, however…
    The more lack of legal resort becomes more and more obvious, the sooner comes the inevitable moment when those cheering the loudest discover the hard way that the courts exist not to provide some means of resolving conflicts, but to provide grudgingly agreed-upon mostly civilized means of resolving conflicts.
    And then what?
    Cops? Unless they are DoS’ed into drooling torpor or gave up, like in Sweden. Sure, they in part come from the same crowd, happy to bravely chase dog poop and dastardly 10 yr old kids who keep unapproved photos of themselves. And remember “sure, the suspect shot himself in the back twice” nods from the courts. But they probably remember BLM even more vividly.

  17. Inquiring Mind says:

    I saw a link (but did not click) on an essay “Steinle verdict is the Right’s George Zimmerman verdict.”

    OK, OK, the link is on HotAir, you can see for yourself.

    Isn’t Left-Wing Equivalence a marvel to behold?

    I mean it isn’t the Steinle verdict, it is the Zarate verdict or whatever name this man goes by these days. Steinle was the decedent whereas Mr. Zarate was the defendant? Travon Martin was the decedent whereas Mr. Zimmerman was the defendant?

    Of does the Left call this the Steinle case because they cannot bring themselves that whatever-is-PC-to-call-this-poor-excuse-of-a-man has a name?

    So where does the equivalence occur? Was Ms. Steinle smashing Mr. Zarate’s head into the pavement when the “gun just went off”? Did Mr. Zimmerman claim that the discharge of his heavy-trigger-pull firearm was unintentional?

    Is it that the Right holds Hispanic persons in low esteem, yet Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic only the Left can bring themselves to admit as much.

    Professor, I’m confused!

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Because the left subsists entirely on lies and the will to power. “You didn’t give us what we want so we will respond in kind”. Yes, the two cases have nothing in common, but people often buy books just to display them; don’t expect the lack of coherency to matter.

    • peppermint says:

      The importance of Kate is that the wall is now Kate’s Wall and while before we needed to have a complicated argument that’s fundamentally outside of any world view taught in government schools to explain that any single Aryan let alone the race and nation not only have a right to exist but merely to be left alone, now we just need to point to Kate and people instantly understand that professors and journalists need to be shot.

      The importance of Trayvon was the Left let Internet signaling get the better of it and went too far in a very blatant way.

    • pdimov says:

      Because white people are always the guilty party.

  18. […] sees. Nor should he. What he sees, and what a surprising number of normies I have spoken to see, is invader justice for invaders. Take it away, […]

  19. […] Invader justice for invaders […]

Leave a Reply