This week I thought we’d do a show for conservatives. If you’re a conservative, why in the world should you listen to the very same people who lie about you when they tell you who these modern day Nazis are? What? Do you think that in this case, they’re probably telling the truth and they only lie when they’re talking about you?
This is an up front and honest discussion about who we actually are not the caricature that is so often painted of us. Thus if you’re a conservative what do you have to lose?
An hour of your time? Trust me, you’ll wind up laughing and it’ll fly by before you know it.
You may have noticed the removal of most social media icons from the top of our page. This reflects a new strategy: social media is dominated by Leftists, so we who are not Leftist should remove ourselves, so that social media has to reveal its actual bias instead of claiming to be a public space.
American law has gotten around to classifying some privately-owned spaces as public for the purpose of speech rights, but has not yet extended this to virtual town halls like private media has become. Social media is abusing this.
These companies act this way for a simple reason. Their business model is failing. As it turns out, internet advertising is not all that profitable. We have known this for almost a decade because of two crucial studies. The first tells us that the internet audience is smaller than we think:
The updated results based on March 2009 comScore data, and presented by comScore chairman Gian Fulgoni and Kim McCarthy, manager, Research & Analytics at Starcom, at the iMedia Brand Summit in San Diego on September 14, 2009, indicated that the number of people who click on display ads in a month has fallen from 32 percent of Internet users in July 2007 to only 16 percent in March 2009, with an even smaller core of people (representing 8 percent of the Internet user base) accounting for the vast majority (85 percent) of all clicks.
Eight percent of the userbase accounts for eighty-five percent of the clicks. A followup study confirmed these figures. Even worse, these studies showed that most of these users were from households with less than $40,000 per year in income, which is not the demographic that advertisers desire.
. . . . .
Add this up, and we see that the social media industry is using a small number of users to represent a much wider audience, because mostly they are advertising to bots and people who spend all day on the internet because they are impoverished, disabled, retired, or otherwise out of the mainstream of commerce. The traffic is fake.
The industry responded to this with a series of crackdowns that, judging by the recent Facebook numbers, have not worked. Instead, it has focused on its core audience: bored Leftists, who consume more media and tend to have less demanding jobs, because it can use them as “warm bodies” to keep its numbers up and continue hiding how ineffective its strategy is.
. . . . .
Instead of giving credence to this illusion, conservatives should fight back by removing themselves from these sites. We want to be able to speak freely, instead of having to fit within narrow confines defined by the opposition. We want the hivemind to be blind to anything but its own view. We also want these sites to fail.
By reducing them to their fanatical SJW/PC audience, conservative withdrawal from these sites will reveal them as what they are: echo chambers for the Left. In doing so, the Right can remove the assumption of legitimacy from these sites and force a separation of audiences.
Steve Sailer is fond of characterizing the Democrats as the “party of fringes” as they make their primary appeal to minority groups. When they run short of minorities, they create them by finding a way to slice off some portion of the majority, declaring it an oppressed minority. The result is we have one party that is the default for the white majority and another party that is for blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, depressed single women and sexual deviants. It’s the circus acts attacking the audience members.
This is an amusing way of putting it, but it misses a larger phenomenon that is a consequence of democracy. That is, democracies must always seek to expand the electorate.
This is an easily observed pattern. In the 19th century, as the West began to experiment with limited democracy, the franchise was sharply limited. The vote was limited to men, usually over the age of 25, and limited to property holders. In the early years of political liberalism, less than 10% of the adult population could vote.
The franchise slowly expanded, even in places where monarchy was still the form of government. The German Empire had universal male suffrage by 1871. Italy expanded the franchise to all men over 30 by 1912 and then lowered the age to 21 in 1918. The British followed a similar pattern. Universal male suffrage became the norm and then it was the call for female suffrage. Unsurprisingly, women voting got going first in Germany, the birth place of every bad idea in human history, and then spread around the West.
In the United States, the presence of a large black population, as well as a sizable indigenous population, added another wrinkle to the process. The urban immigrant population of the early 20th was another group exuded from voting. Eventually, these groups were handed a ballot. Immigrants became a powerful political force, pushing aside the heritage population in major cities. Of course, blacks have become a key part of the Democratic constituency, once granted full voting rights in the 60’s.
The history of liberal democracy since the late 18th century has been a steady expansion of the voting base. At each turn, various arguments have been put forth in support of expanding the franchise, but the one thing that has always been true is there is never a move to narrow it. After every reform effort, every crisis and every war, the arguments are always in favor of expansion of the franchise.
Today, the debate is over handing a ballot to children, the retarded and foreigners. San Francisco has now granted the vote to illegals.
There was a time, maybe, when a debate over social contract theory and its relevance to American politics, would have been interesting to me. Today, it seems about as relevant as a debate over the proper way to saddle a unicorn so Sasquatch can ride it without falling off. Like the state of nature model, popular with Enlightenment philosophers, we know without a doubt that there is no such thing as a social contract. The current American conception of it is most certainly nonsense. America is not an idea.
That’s a point I often write about here and others take up in other places. It’s not the conclusions of liberal democracy that are the problem. it is the premise of it. When you start from the social contract and the state of nature, the conclusion is inevitable.
That’s the problem with liberal democracy. It can only lead to one end and that is the obliteration of culture, which is what defines a people. Once the culture dies, the people soon follow, which explains the falling fertility rates, marriage rates and the migrant invasions.
The Sarah Jeong story has probably been the best thing to happen to our side since Trump came down that escalator.
The challenge of this age is in convincing typical white people that it is not socialism they should fear, it is extermination. There are still people waddling around in their tricorn hats talking about the socialist menace. Mention race to them and they start hyperventilating about their constitutional principles. What the Sarah Jeong story does it make it impossible for the normies to avoid the elephant in the room.
It’s not so much that this Asian airhead hates white people. Blacks have been out in public talking about how much they hate white people since the Civil Rights era. Typical white person has been trained to accept this, by assuming it is meaningless. Blacks are powerless, so their hatreds are no threat. Then you have the subversives like Ben Shapiro telling them that black hatred of whites is really bad for blacks because it keeps them from showing up at CPAC every year to take selfies with adoring white people.
Asians are supposed to be different. They are the model minority. Typical white people just assume that Asians are on their side. They work hard. They avoid crime and social dysfunction. They come here looking for a chance, give their kids nice names like Sarah and send them off to good colleges. You’ll note that you never hear anyone suggest we should end immigration from Asia. In the blossoming race war, Asians are never in the discussion, because white people just assume they are on the side of Team Whitey.
All of a sudden one of the model minority has revealed that she hates white people as much as the black street hustler.
Even more disturbingly, the people known for eating dogs apparently think white people smell like dogs.
. . . . .
Normie white people will try hard to rationalize it and force themselves back into the comfortable role of doormat to the Left, but the scales will fall from the eyes of many whites.
Who would have thought, that women experience more ‘rudeness’ and abuse from other women more so than from their male counterparts in the workplace? No shit. We apparently needed a study from none other than the party capital of post-secondary—University of Arizona.
We have already gone through, at length, how women today make great liabilities in the workplace and for the most part, the worst and laziest of employees. It turns out that they are toxic when it comes to working with their other empowered sisters.
You have to understand that women and men go to work for different reasons; men go to work to work, women go to work to dick around and collect a paycheck for breathing.
Women treat the workplace like high-school 2.0 as they never seem to mature past the age mentality of a 16-year old suburbanite princess. Women, instead of being able to compete based on merit and the ability to do the job, they instead take the path of least resistance and rely on passive aggressive behavior—manipulation, gas lighting, spreading rumors—in order to move up the ranks and sabotage anyone in their way. If women could do the job, they wouldn’t need to pull this bullshit.
. . . . .
Once all the men leave CorporateLand you will see its demise because an office full of just women will ultimately implode on itself. Women cannot run a business amongst themselves. This study says it all.
Does anyone remember that one season of Survivor when one camp on the island was just all women and the other, all men? Remember how the male camp was organized, pristine, shit was getting done, huts were being erected, food was being hunted and gathered; a system was in place. While over at the women’s camp everyone was laying around, sun-tanning; no food, place was a fucking mess, no one had built any shelters.
Women cannot lead themselves or each other. It’s not in their nature to do so.
Women experience more uncivil and rude behavior from other women than men in the workplace, according to a study by the University of Arizona.
“Studies show women report more incivility experiences overall than men, but we wanted to find out who was targeting women with rude remarks,” said Allison Gabriel, assistant professor of management and organizations in the University of Arizona’s Eller College of Management.
While men are behind the vast majority of sexual harassment, Gabriel and other UA researchers found women experience more incivility at work from other women.
“Across the three studies, we found consistent evidence that women reported higher levels of incivility from other women than their male counterparts,” Gabriel said. “In other words, women are ruder to each other than they are to men, or than men are to women.”