Follow the Money

The revolution will have to be monetized.

Diversity is monetized because corporate America sees the growing non-white population as the future. Once the demographic shift in the US was set in motion, business had no choice but to pursue the new non-white consumer dollar. Its long-term planning necessarily became modeled on that population shift. It became invested. And advertising became propaganda for diversity.

Leaving aside the cultural and political forces that brought us here, American business is invested in the diverse future because that's where the consumers will be.

It gladly cooperates with government social engineering, which is itself massively monetized, and its advertising, in appealing directly to minorities over declining and taken-for-granted whites, over-represents them wildly. This poz propaganda (pozprop?) thus reinforces the confidence of the non-white consumers and further demoralizes whites.

Corporate America is invested in diversity because of demographics. But all profit really needs is demographic increase, not replacement. All of this came to mind while watching this from Frame Game Radio:



Regardless of how it got there, Disney remains invested in the diverse new order because that's where the money is. It won't be detached from it unless there's money elsewhere. White identity and reproduction need to be monetized at some point soon for white Americans to rehabilitate themselves as a people.

Recently Team Diversity was alarmed by new projections deferring that Glorious Moment when white America loses majority status by five whole years. A demographic shift accomplished overnight by historical standards--and they're angry and alarmed at this speed bump. Trump is deliberately trying to raise the percentage of the white population!

It wasn't good for morale. On the other hand, it's good (if not huge) for the morale of beleaguered whites. Ten years would be even better.  Right now, most whites remain conditioned against explicit racial awareness, and prohibited from speaking in favor of it. But that's changing along with the increasing intensity of anti-white culture that's found a focus point in the "Resistance",  itself aroused by the stirrings of white identity that is Trump, which, following the hate spiral back in time, was really produced by long years of anti-white propaganda culminating in the disaster for whites and racial comity in general that was Barack Obama.

Team Diversity points out correctly it matters little because whites aren’t having babies and non-whites are. Right now white Americans who aren't utterly de-sensitized see the projected future before them--as represented by film, television and advertising--as non-white. It's made to seem inevitable. But white cultural identity is taking shape, and it's only a matter of time before someone realizes there's a dollar to be made there.

Implicitly white artists are emerging (against their own wishes), and at least one recent project, Justin Timberlake's "Man of the Woods", appears as, at least, an unashamed celebration of rural white origins.



"Man of the Woods" was panned by critics and called out as problematic by the usual sources, but is proving popular. There's a cultural market out there business is afraid to go after. Diversity remains monetized, but all of a sudden there's...this. Money that has to be left on the table. Whatever the case, Justin Timberlake and any like him need to be encouraged in this direction.

Combining a cultural shift with sensible policies that at least do not subsidize non-white birthrates, would at the very least push that day of demographic reckoning wherein whites slip into a despised plurality farther still into the future. It's worth it just to see the look on their faces.

Who knows, before long, with rehabilitated white birthrates and depressed non-white birthrates, we might even be talking about a demographic shift back. If you will it, it is not a dream, as the man said.

Let the demographic bomb pass through the nation like a pig through a python. You may say I’m a dreamer...

New World Order

Kevin MacDonald quotes from evolutionary anthropologist John Tooby's article about "coalitional instincts" in response this year's "annual question" at Edge.org, "What Scientific Concept Should be More Widely Known" (emphasis added):

Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, her friends, and her cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.

I think Tooby's right, and maybe more than he knows or would care to admit (MacDonald writes that evolutionary psychology was created to bowdlerize sociobiology under another name and apply an evolutionary analysis of human behavior that circumvents difficult problems regarding racial differences in IQ).
Religious mystery in the West under Christianity became sufficiently remote from the worldly to allow incredible advances in science and technology, because those advances, for the most part, posed no threat to it. Western thinkers were given room to roam--not nearly total, but enough to create the modern world. Paradoxically, it seems the replacement of a religious moral order with a rational moral order (predicated on human equality) has taken away that room in the most exigent field of study there is: human behavior.
It reminds of something I wrote a couple of years back (in response to another Occidental Observer article about an academic proposing a ban on the study of genetic variation in intelligence among populations):

The religious believe a fantasy about God and the afterlife; the believer of the current state religion of human equality believes a fantasy about human biology with ongoing implications for the here and now. Which holds more potential for destruction?

Plus ca change

From the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin:

In my journey to Boston this year [1754] I met at New York with our new Governor, Mr. Morris... 

One afternoon in the height of this public quarrel we met in the street. "Franklin," says he, "you must home with me and spend the evening; I am to have some company that you will like," and, taking me by the arm, he led me to his house. In gay conversation over our wine after supper he told us jokingly that he much admired the idea of Sancho Panza, who, when it was proposed to give him a government, requested it might be a government of blacks, as then, if he could not agree with his people, he might sell them. One of his friends, who sat next to me, says, "Franklin, why do you continue to side with these damned Quakers? Had not you better sell them? The proprietor would give you a good price."

"The Governor," says I, "has not yet blacked them enough." He, indeed, had labored hard to blacken the Assembly in all his messages, but they wiped off his coloring as fast as he laid it on and placed it in return thick upon his own face; so that finding he was likely to be negrofied himself, he as well as Mr. Hamilton grew tired of the contest and quitted the government.

Here you have both a variation on "electing a new people" and the present practice of calumniating a stubborn majority. May our governor take his blackening and quit his government too.

The Magical, Mysterious, Absorptive Alchemy of Success

Time, time, time is on my side, yes it is...
--The Rolling Stones

Regarding this Freddy Gray post at TAC, I wouldn't assume that today's stenographers of the royal court aren't correct about the perception, if not the truth, of current events as they will be viewed a generation on, at least here in the States. A stable, oil-producing Iraq garrisoned by US troops and an absence of the "whole cities lost" bogey may prove all this weary and distracted nation needs to shunt the horrors of the war into the memory hole (hands in pockets, looking away in affected nonchalance, whistling, surreptitiously sweeping the carnage into the chasm with the outside of our foot). Today's crimes will be tomorrow's heroic mythology. The day after tomorrow and the ultimate sentence of humanity is for suckers in modern America, where things must be compressed to conform to the timetables of individual ambitions.

Consider first the situation at the moment: over 130,000 troops (a number that should be routinely doubled to account for the mercenary force that exists as a sort of creative accounting dodge--of blood, manpower and legality) bogged down occupying a "liberated" nation where there is nary an acre sufficiently subdued to the point that troops can move about in anything but combat strength and where no westerner can expect to survive (at this rate it may very well take a hundred McCain years before a US troop can indulge in liberty outside the wire, another century and perhaps he can find a drink), a trillion spent and counting, more or less, and no exit strategy.

This is precisely the consequence of failure that was predicted before the invasion. Yet it is framed as success by comparing the daily blood loss against the astonishing levels of two years ago, levels that had to abate as the ethnic cleansing we at this point are complicit in as we literally wall Iraqis off from one another, ran its course. Having worn down the foreign terrorist element by arming our erstwhile (and future) mortal enemies among the Sunni, we square off against new ones (the erstwhile "liberated") among the Shia--with a whole new foreign element in the form of Iran (stop, take a breath), newly ascendant in stark contrast to its position pre-war; a nation with which we are now engaged in a pointless embrace of hostility that seems destined to end in a kiss of death. This Orwellian success is used to discredit those who predicted it, and rehabilitate those political figures who, it appears, have escaped justice for the crime of the century, even if they will spend their retirements in a sort of reverse exile, unable to show their faces abroad for fear of arrest (Don't it make you proud?). With success like this, who needs failure?

It should appall us that people are even allowed to venture this "twenty years on" argument, as if a generation of horrors visited upon Iraq will be vindicated thereby as the only means by which Saddam and his system were to be retired. Forgotten too will be the haste of the hysteric run-up to war, the increasing rigidity of the Bush administration's demands leading up to it revealing their fear of peaceful resolution of their trumped up concerns. Already we appear incapable of recognizing the straight jacket that the interwar sanctions regime placed us in along with Saddam. Already there is little cognition of the myriad possibilities unpursued by which Saddam may have been forced out, by which Iraq may have been allowed to progress on its own terms observing its own necessary logic. But that's always been the point. We've been engaged in the very costly process of ensuring that post-Saddam Iraq resolved on our terms, ultimately because of all that oil in the ground, since we liberated Kuwait. Tragedy plus time equals comedy. Failure plus time divided by denial equals success. Reality bites (the dust).