Tribe and Consciousness

Executed is accurate.

Executed is accurate.

Humans will always be tribal creatures whether they admit it or not; whether they realize it or not. Some human groups are better able than others to sublimate raw tribal responses to certain events to make possible the achievement of higher, more abstract philosophical or moral values, i.e. equality, justice, fairness, etc. While some groups busily apply themselves to the task of transcending tribe and muting the racial consciousness generally accompanying the recognition of tribe, other groups busily apply themselves to the task of cementing tribal loyalties, blood and kinship ties, and developing a strong sense of racial awareness. Tribalism is primal and it precedes all other considerations: it comes before a sense of absolute right and wrong, before empathy, and subordinates all other competing loyalties (e.g., nationalism).

Whites tend to be more altruistic than tribal, opting to move away from tribe and to connect with members of other groups on an individual (human) level. This attitude even extends to non human creatures. Whites are more willing to put themselves in other’s shoes, even if the person or people in question are not a part of their tribe. In contrast, non white groups tend to view things exclusively in terms of tribe, their reactions to events likelier to be tempered based upon the individuals involved and their roles in these events. Nothing highlights this difference better than the recent events in Roanoke and the reactions to it compared to the events in Charleston and the reactions to it. Specifically, I want to call attention to the reactions to it by race.

In Roanoke, two white people were murdered in cold blood by a black man who recorded the murders with a Go Pro and then uploaded the footage onto various social media networks before killing himself. The Charleston events are already well known: nine black people were murdered in a church in cold blood by a white man accused of harboring “racist” white nationalist aspirations. After Charleston, there was an immediate outpouring of shock and grief not only from black Americans (which was to be expected), who everywhere decried the killings and denounced Roof as a “white terrorist” who was intent upon slaying blacks due to his “racist” beliefs, but from Americans as a whole-particularly from white Americans-who viewed what transpired as a national tragedy, a corporate wounding striking America at its heart. Nine people massacred as they worshiped: regardless of how faithless this nations has become, everyone recognized how repugnant the act was.

Naturally, black people used Charleston as evidence to advance the narrative that they were under siege by America, and as ridiculous as this contention was, liberal white America went along with it, reluctant to object in a moment of black grief and national sorrow. This response was also to be expected: putting yourself in another’s shoes, to empathize, to feel the pain that others feel is natural to whites. We’re all Americans here, was the thought. To further demonstrate solidarity, whites even helped to curtail speech liberties, to desecrate cultural patrimony, and to erase parts of their national history.

Contrast this reaction with the reaction triggered by the happenings in Roanoke. Black Americans have been uniformly silent on the issue. No outpouring of grief from black people appeared on social media, no expressions of sorrow, no recognition that these murders were a sort of human tragedy, or at the very least, an American one. All that can be heard from blacks is the sound of silence. One would be hard pressed to find a single indictment of the character of the black shooter, or anything attributing his vile acts to some sort of racial deficiency or to racially motivated malevolence, as was done when Roof committed his murders. The most black people were willing to do in response to the Roanoke tragedy was to tepidly call for gun reform on social media. Simply put, the murders of two white people mattered not a whit to the average black because (1) they were killed by a black man and (2) because the victims weren’t black. To them, this was a “gun control issue,” if that. And of course, some sick fuck was on hand to callously racialize the issue, asking: “are we afraid to watch white people dying?”

This was all to be expected. Black people are amongst the most tribal and race conscious people on Earth. This is not necessarily a negative thing, as this is a healthy human mindset for all peoples. But there was something peculiar about the reaction to Roanoke: the response, or rather lack thereof of white people. White people viewed what transpired as tragic, for sure, but the response to what happened was muted beyond that recognition. There was no feeling that something important was lost, that white people are under attack, or that something is seriously wrong with America. Two members of the tribe had been felled by a hate-filled member of another tribe and there was no collective anguish, no feeling that something truly tragic had occurred, that white people had been violated in some way. Roanoke was sad, but then it was business as usual.

This disconnect from blood is a great problem. It is one thing for a tribe to be callous towards the lives of members of another tribe, to live in perfect mutual antagonism towards each other. It’s another thing to be empathetic to another tribe that hates your tribe, all the while professing not to recognize that the concept of tribe exists at all, all while members of your tribe are being picked off by members of other hostile tribes. This is madness. This is suicidal. Tribe matters. Tribe exists. There is power in tribe, and every other tribe recognizes this fact. Even if liberal white people don’t care about tribe, tribe cares very much about liberal white people. And competing tribes have been very clear about their desires to dispatch whites for the crime of belonging to a warring tribe that whites don’t even see themselves as being a part of. Possessing the liberal goodwhite card won’t save whites from the law of the jungle.

Racial unconsciousness is fast becoming an untenable position, one likely to end in annihilation. Only through an awakening to the realities of the world can white people begin to fight. This is not about humanity, it’s not about national solidarity, it’s not about empathy: it’s about the bonds of  blood. This is primal, and so it must be. Everyone else has come to that realization and feel secure enough to advocate for their race from that position. There’s no reason for whites not to feel the same.


Race and School Discipline

More deliberately obtuse race baiting garbage from the New York Times. Apparently, some University of Pennsylvania researchers have discovered that black students are expelled from schools at rates more than five times that of their representation in the school population.

With the Obama administration focused on reducing the number of suspensions, expulsions and arrests in public schools, a new analysis of federal data identifies districts in 13 Southern states where black students are suspended or expelled at rates overwhelmingly higher than white children.

The analysis, which will be formally released Tuesday by the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, focused on states where more than half of all the suspensions and expulsions of black students nationwide occurred. While black students represented just under a quarter of public school students in these states, they made up nearly half of all suspensions and expulsions.

Of course, this is just an outgrowth of the ever expanding pseudo-Constitutional doctrine of “disparate impact.” Any governmental action that disproportionately impacts coloreds in a negative manner is automatically probative of discrimination, notwithstanding intent. Discriminatory intent on the government’s part doesn’t even have to be proven.

Which is what makes this doctrine so utterly bogus. Rather than examining the underlying causes leading to certain outcomes, the outcomes themselves are taken as proof of wrongdoing while the causes are deemed irrelevant. The study makes the observation that black children are likelier to face expulsion than white students, but the $64,000 question remains:

Are black children in aggregate likelier than white children in aggregate to act in ways that merit expulsion?

Naturally, that question remains unasked and goes unanswered. We’ll answer it here: yes, they are. Granted, the article is anecdotal. But it does reflect the reality of how common “behavioral issues” tend to be in schools with a large black student demographic.

Never is it asked whether the individuals within the “disparately impacted” group experience higher expulsion rates because behave differently from individuals within other groups. Cause and effect are completely divorced, and effects are proof of wacism.

This study, and other stupidly formulated studies like it are nothing more but the products of a culture that assiduously tries to deny the obvious: that there are inherent differences between races in terms of conduct, in terms of time preference and in terms of intellect. This notion is anathema to the leftist mind, a notion so intolerable that they produce bodies of obscurantist “research” that fail to come to obvious and sensible conclusions-as they have been intentionally designed to avoid grappling with root causes of disparate treatment-all for the purpose of advancing some dumb “oppressed class” narrative.


In healthy civilizations, people are systematically prevented from detrimentally yielding to their baser, parasitic natures through force of law and/or through operation of custom. The combination of de jure and de facto prohibitions against social vampirism work to ensure the productivity of the populace while freeing a civilization to simultaneously sustain itself and to improve/expand itself. A civilization that has fair control over this problem & is relatively unhindered by human remoras and other assorted civilizational millstones is free to reach its zenith. In order to maintain functional civilizations, humans must be intimately acquainted with the ugliness that is unrestrained human nature and must be willing to engage with it head on and put it down if and when necessary (when it threatens to destroy the civilization). Creating and maintaining civilization is fundamentally an exercise in realism, as delusion and unwillingness to see the world and humans as they truly are only serves to degrade a civilization.

In a healthy civilization, those individuals incapable of or unwilling to contribute/produce/perpetuate the civilization are shunned, punished, and generally prevented from acting in a manner destructive to the civilization. Ultimately these non-viable individuals and groups will be culled to prevent them from dragging the civilization down to the lowest common denominator through the introduction of elements of instability and general degeneracy.

Cultures failing to develop and organize into true civilizations remain rudimentary societies. These societies differ from fully formed civilizations in that they either are not or cannot be as invested in eliminating parasitism & vampirism for one of three reasons:

(1) these societies have never developed anything worth protecting from potential parasites

(2) these societies have never developed anything for potential parasites to take advantage of

(3) these societies were incapable of developing self sustaining civilizations and instead developed subsistence societies predicated upon free riding or otherwise designed to turn a blind eye to the problem, realizing either consciously or unconsciously that this would be the only way to maintain a society in which the majority of the population lacks the ability to be truly generative and productive.

These attitudes/capabilities/predilictions are transmitted from generation to generation.

The values of advanced civilizations predicated upon norms of productivity and parasite elimination are completely incompatible with those of bargain basement societies and cultures that are concerned only with basic survival due to the limitations of its population. When an advanced (parasite control) civilization allows itself to be overrun by the populace of (parasite unrestrained) societies that have not developed similar mores against free riding or that have evolved cultures that either explicitly encourage free riding, or loses its will to control non native parasite agitators it begins to implode.

The West is no longer home to healthy civilizations. The West is currently at an implosion stage because it has embraced too many parasitic alien cultures and at the same time has made the mistake of taking these parasitic alien cultures seriously, in spite of observation, experience, and common sense. The West has begun to elevate the parasite rather than subduing it, which allows parasites to flourish in spite of lacking the ability to produce or create anything of value. In many cases, it allows them to flourish in spite of being net drains upon their host civilizations.

Observe the video above. The speakers and the audience more than likely all hail from uncivilized societies and cultures that turn a blind eye to free riding rather than stamping it out. They are the embodiment of the parasite class, fully embracing the idea that they should be allowed to wreak havoc upon civilized society with impunity while extracting the myriad benefits created by the productive elements of the very same society that they victimize and scorn. Why should they be held to account for any crime they may commit? What does it matter that they steal? What does it matter that they loot? Those organizations are insured against their crimes anyway. To assert that these organizations have rights in their property or that they should be able to take action against pilferers is to show your racism. And this man’s contention is taken seriously.

In a healthy civilization, any individual advocating for what this man is advocating for would be put down. The class of people subscribing to such degenerate and anti social ideas would be identified for the lawless and disruptive elements they were, and fully and ruthlessly suppressed. Now, human detritus like him is allowed to proliferate, contributing nothing while destroying things that they are utterly incapable of creating.

Communique from the Cathedral: Time Capsule Edition

The thing about the culture’s incrementally leftward drift is that by the time the drift becomes noticeable, things have already progressed far beyond the point of no return. The reality is that the cancer of leftism is capable of lying dormant within a culture for years, waiting for an opportunity to metastasize and overwhelm the healthy tissues of its host.

The question that consistently occurs to me when I observe Cultural Happenings in the West and as I watch Western civilization sucked into the vortex of degeneracy and filth is: “do they know what they’re doing?” That is to ask: “to what extent has this cultural rot has been purposefully unleashed?” It’s comforting to believe that The Happening is just happenstance. But ever so often, one comes across some. . .indication that there is an intelligent design behind the cultural decay. Every now and again, one encounters confirmation that the odious conditions of the day are merely the fruits borne of the frameworks designed to produce these very results, frameworks constructed decades ago by the usual suspects/assorted merchants of cultural declension.

The field correspondence in question comes from one of those typical dildo team building/indoctrination events that white collar drones have to attend for work on a quarterly basis or so. Our first assigned task at this event was reading a keynote address delivered back in 1987 at another similar dildo indoctrination event at another western public university of no note. Most of the speech was feelgood pabulum about “leadership” and “taking ownership.” It then quickly veered into Newspeak:

In culture there is strength. [C]ulture is the thing that keeps the herd moving roughly West.

In other words: “in culture there is strength, and its strength lies in its susceptibility to subversive influences that would manipulate it-and by extension the philosophical zombies looking to it for cues and guidance-and shift momentum perpetually leftwards.” The idea is to use culture not for generative purposes or to enable humanity to reach its apex, but rather to use it as a weapon to further degrade an already debased sheeple and keep them lumbering unquestioningly “West” towards their eventual doom “progress.”

It’s interesting to note just how long the academy has been surreptitiously embracing its role as destroyer of civilization proselytizer of the Gospel of Lies agent of cultural transformation, working diligently to ensure that generation after generation is so thoroughly steeped in prog ideology that they become completely impervious to logic and blind to the fact that leftism will ultimately lead to their destruction and to the implosion of the society that keeps them aloft. Yes, undoing civilization is the aim and it’s purposeful and the narrative concepts that have long percolated in the coffee maker of the ivory tower are now dripping down into the mug of the commons. There can be no question that the academy is indispensable to (and perhaps even the sine qua non of) the Cathedral, the cultural potentate which exists solely to perpetuate its own power and aggressively advances a pre-approved slate of brain dead, suicidal, progressive ideas to achieve this end.

This Won’t End Well

Everything is odious in this foul year of our Lord, 2015. Everything around us is decaying and disintegrating, yet we’re continually told that we have entered a new golden age of Enlightenment, an era of infinite progress where self-actualization is not realized through achievement or self improvement, but through dissolution and self-abasement. Does this age have any redeeming qualities? Is there any salvageable in a world where the past is derided and then erased while the future is obliterated by the horde as it seeks to mortgage it to extend ephemeral pleasure for a second longer? Past and future are gone, leaving only the option of merely drifting through atomized existence in a permanent present.

Everything goes in Babylon, except nothing goes at all. Everyone is encouraged to save the planet, but woe betide the man who desires to save himself. Everyone must open his heart to vibrant and diverse peoples, but he must never seek to defend his people or to preserve his tribe. We are exhorted to be global citizens while watching dispassionately as our nations wither away. Anyone may be a man or a woman, but only after being surgically reconstructed and reconstituted. This is a time of inverted values. We seek transcendence. We seek purpose, meaning, direction, nobility and find that postmodernity offers us iPads, wet holes, and the cubicle monkey lifestyle. After all: God is dead. In Jobs We Trust.

The spiritual void must be filled with the material. In the alternative, it must be filled with devotion to causes and fervor for chimerical crusades. People have become so unmoored from everything meaningful that they look to the spectacle of the political process for something to cling to and look to men and figureheads for redemption and for hope. Suffocating under the weight of falsehoods, people look to anyone who will say something true. Thus, Father Donald and St. Bernard are venerated as future hopes. Such is the hopelessness of the current situation, that this is the best that can be hoped for.

We have all been forcibly dispossessed, and nothing that the postmodern world has on offer can indemnify us.  The problem plaguing us now is a fundamentally spiritual one and the cultural and social deficits so easily observable now are simply the manifestations of this fact.

Until the Revolution

Years ago, I was having a conversation with a far left friend of mine about some flavor of the week prog issue that I’ve long since forgotten. I kept thrashing her (verbally, of course), challenging each of her stupid assumptions, and taking great delight in watching her flounder in the morass of her retard ideology. After I determined that she was sufficiently triggered, I jokingly asked her how it was that she could manage to maintain friendships with the opposition. She responded: “what’s the big deal? We can be friends until the revolution.”

Until the revolution. I never forgot those words. She said them with such certitude, such gusto. Even though what she said stuck with me, I never really considered the meaning behind those words and I never questioned the fundamental validity of her assertion of the inevitability of revolution. Recently however, it’s dawned on me that the course of events has recently begun to accelerate towards the left singularity, and I don’t believe that any of the elements of civilizational disruption are discrete or acting at hazard. I think that the cultural forces making their presences felt of late have been cultivated, coordinated, and engineered. That there is a puppetmaster goes without question. What purpose this havoc is ultimately intended to serve is still up for debate. This entire blog is devoted to speculation in that vein.

I think that my friend was right, to a certain extent. At this point, a major conflict of some sort within this nation is inevitable. There are too many pressures building: too many identity based interest groups vying for power, too much repression, too much dependency, too much indebtedness, too much immigration and too many sustained assaults against the culture and the people and principles deemed to typify it. Pressure seeks release; it cannot continue to build indefinitely. The release will be chaotic, unpredictable, and destructive.

There is now a hodgepodge, ascendant leftist ideology that has become the de facto law of the land and of the political establishment after years of stealthily advancing its cause. Proponents of this ideology will brook no dissent, working to root out all positions standing in opposition to it and destroying all individuals and institutions attempting to advance alternative perspectives. This malignant leftism seeks to be the sole ideological product for sale in the marketplace of ideas, the only respectable outlook, the only opinion that one may properly hold-if one values one’s livelihood. Many have become cognizant of the intolerance inherent within this new state religion of tolerance and reaction is beginning to foment against both it and the ruthless progressivism that buttresses it.

What my friend got wrong is the form that the conflict will take. There will be no revolution. The chief agitators are not the least bit interested in any structural or organizational changes, in spite of what they may tell themselves and the public. They aren’t interested in throwing off the shackles of the present corrupt leadership. What the various social justice parasite movements actually desire is a repurposing of the machinery of the state, to make it possible for them ensconce themselves within the bloated system as permanent & exclusive client classes of the present ruling patron class.

The conflict will be a civil one, as the schism grows between those Americans wanting to maintain civilization and to improve upon it by establishing a durable & antifragile (and anti democratic) mode of governance built upon principles of virtue, truth, logic and order and those Americans who prefer to be clients of a massive (but decadent and brittle) patron state that purchases fealty in the form of votes & has been built and predicated upon theft, lies, superstition and dysfunction. The coming conflict will be between those who desire to break away from a system that has become a tool to satisfy the caprices of an ultra liberal plutocracy while making Kulaks out of any average man with the temerity to question this liberal New World Order. It will pit the generative & productive against shiftless appropriators and traditionalists against libertines.

She was absolutely right about one thing: none but the most durable of relationships will last as the world is pulled even further towards the poles.

When Values Collide: Cecil the Lion Edition

Cecilgate has been providing top KEK. For one, it’s been hilarious to watch as liberals trip over themselves to sanctimoniously signal to each other how Good and Concerned About the Animals they are. For another, it’s fascinating to watch as they shit themselves trying to slide Cecil and his fellow beasties into the progressive stack and eat each other now that two of their pet concerns-the welfare of black Africans and conservation/environmentalism-have been pitted against each other. In the battle between charismatic megafauna and the third world denizens they prey upon, who will emerge victorious?

Goodwell Nzou, a Zimbabwean from a small village frequently plagued by lions, tees off on the goodwhites wringing their hands over Cecil’s death.

M[y] mind was absorbed by the biochemistry of gene editing when the text messages and Facebook posts distracted me.

So sorry about Cecil.

Did Cecil live near your place in Zimbabwe?

Cecil who? I wondered. When I turned on the news and discovered that the messages were about a lion killed by an American dentist, the village boy inside me instinctively cheered: One lion fewer to menace families like mine.

My excitement was doused when I realized that the lion killer was being painted as the villain. I faced the starkest cultural contradiction I’d experienced during my five years studying in the United States.

Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being “beloved” or a “local favorite” was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from “The Lion King”?

Goodwell is observing up close and personal, likely for the first time, just how maudlin and sentimental goodwhites become about issues of animal welfare. And he’s not liking what he sees. He’s had some run ins with this particular apex predator, you see, and he’s not about to shed any tears over another Mufasa dispatched to the netherworld.

In my village in Zimbabwe, surrounded by wildlife conservation areas, no lion has ever been beloved, or granted an affectionate nickname. They are objects of terror.

Wait, wut? Africans don’t like lions? You mean to say that the views of a Portlandia doula and a biochem major from some African shithole are divergent on this issue? Why?

When I was 9 years old, a solitary lion prowled villages near my home. After it killed a few chickens, some goats and finally a cow, we were warned to walk to school in groups and stop playing outside. My sisters no longer went alone to the river to collect water or wash dishes; my mother waited for my father and older brothers, armed with machetes, axes and spears, to escort her into the bush to collect firewood.

A week later, my mother gathered me with nine of my siblings to explain that her uncle had been attacked but escaped with nothing more than an injured leg. The lion sucked the life out of the village: No one socialized by fires at night; no one dared stroll over to a neighbor’s homestead.

When the lion was finally killed, no one cared whether its murderer was a local person or a white trophy hunter, whether it was poached or killed legally. We danced and sang about the vanquishing of the fearsome beast and our escape from serious harm.

So? It’s not like lions pose a real danger to African villagers nowadays, right?

Recently, a 14-year-old boy in a village not far from mine wasn’t so lucky. Sleeping in his family’s fields, as villagers do to protect crops from the hippos, buffalo and elephants that trample them, he was mauled by a lion and died.

Oh. Um…cool story, brah. Who cares. Sacrifices must be made for Simba! Let’s see what the goodwhites have to say about this:

“What an insensitive and appalling article. Lions do not kill humans intentionally. They don’t hunt them down and kill them and cut off their heads for a trophy. It is exactly this kind of thinking that is really responsible for the extinction of species. Money, greed, and stupidity are the real causes.”

Oh. I didn’t realize that the lions had to be acting intentionally to justify controlling the population of this vicious animal predator. 

“Mr. Nzou offered food for thought, so to speak, but when he mentioned “nine of my siblings” (there’s yet more?), I mostly thought “uh oh, that’s your biggest problem right there.”

If Africans just had less children on the whole there’d be fewer Africans for lions to maul? Makes sense, I suppose.

“So to summarize, the writer’s arguments are 1) American’s shouldn’t focus on any of Africa’s problems unless we are prepared to solve all of Africa’s problems, 2) Americans shouldn’t “cast the first stone” because we and our ancestors are also guilty of the same sins of deforestation and hunting animals to extinction, 3) we shouldn’t pity Cecil because because wild animals are by nature wild animals who kill to survive.

All straw man arguments at best. In an era of global warming that’s rapidly killing our planet, we really need to stop identifying as “American”, or “African”, or “Zimbabwean”, and instead identify as “Earthlings”. As such we are all responsible for the problems we have created and we are all responsible for creating the solutions. Or we can keep on finger pointing, arguing with each other, and even denying any problems exist. In the end the problems will get solved for us. Good bye planet. Thanks for playing.”

Well, you were really the only person “straw manning” here. His argument was simply that American sympathy with Cecil in particular and vicious apex predators in general might be misplaced, considering how much damage they do to the people who live in close proximity to them. And yeah, sure “Earthlings” and all that. That’s beautiful. But it doesn’t obviate the fact that the safety concerns of some histrionic faggot keyboard jockey living in Seattle are different in nature from those of some black dude in some shit part of Africa, who lost a leg to some venomous bush viper and spent his life hobbling away on his peg leg from lions on the hunt.

Aderemi Adeyeye (possible badblack? Is there such a thing?)

“Interesting that you think lions, not Mugabe, form the source of your problems in Zimbabwe. I was not aware that lions and people share communities in Zimbabwe. Why then is the Zimbabwe’s government seeking extradition of the American child who killed this lion since, by killing Cecil the lion, he saved the lives of many Zimbabweans? Your piece sheds a lot of light on the reason Mr. Mugabe has been able to remain in power.”

“The issue isn’t lions mauling your fellow villagers to death, it’s your corrupt & incompetent leadership. Trying to prioritize immediate questions of life and death over distant philosophical ones of good governance is retarded.”

“Hunting a lion that poses no threat to humans has absolutely no justification. You are a fool for thinking otherwise.”

“If people are attacked by lions and other wild animals, the people should be protected by staying away from these animals. Why should the world be deprived of seeing such magnificent creatures because humans lack the common sense to stay away from them.”

“This is unfortunately the view of a small minded immature person ill equipped, apparently, to see the big picture. That lions and other wild animals are in many locals [sic] heading for extinction is apparently lost on this guy who sits fat and happy (on whose nickel by the way?) on a U.S. campus many thousands of miles from the leonine horrors he claims to have grown up around tells you all you need to know about him.” 

This one takes the cake. Completely true, but irrelevant to the issue at hand, but illustrative of something I’ll discuss after the jump:

“I can find Zimbabwe (formerly Southern Rhodesia) on a map. I also know that it has been run by an incompetent, flailing despot for decades, and that it is one of the most anti-gay bigoted countries on the planet. Don’t tell us to stand by and allow psychopathic American trophy hunters to assist driving lions into extinction because you want their money poured into a country that has been destroyed by your own incompetent dictator.”

This is first time I’ve ever witnessed liberal whites (NYT’s primary readership) so openly & vehemently attacking blacks…well, for anything. And they broke ranks over a lion. Not over crime, not over welfare, not over their general dysfunction and lack of achievement, not over their overwhelming hatred of whites, but over a lion. If this is all it takes, it’s clear a schism is coming. By now, the Left must realize that it has patched together a very uneasy coalition. The identity politics of the Nutroots Nation/La Raza crowd, the gimmedatology of the hoodrat set, the chauvinism of the gay/trans rights mafia, the female supremacists, and the suicidal environmentalism the typical blue state yuppie is a volatile hodgepodge bound to explode the minute any one of those constituents attempts to capture the organization. As we see with these comments, one group’s efforts will necessarily come at the expense of all other groups within this coalition.

No black person, African or otherwise, gives a damn about the Cecil situation. They’ve told the world how they feel: all lives matter [only] black lives matter. Get it? Not lion lives, not white lives, not azn lives: black lives. God help the goodwhite who has the misfortune of getting underfoot of these jungle bunnies as he eagerly tries to save the King of the Jungle. Similarly, no white Leftist is willing to watch lions go extinct to save a few raggedy Africans, as we can divine from a cross section of the comments left on this fellow’s article. Once the Left’s motley crew starts waking up to how mutually indifferent they are towards each other, it’ll be interesting to see how things pan out. But one thing is clear: the cracks are beginning to show.