Top 10 Reasons Conor Friedersdorf Is Ignorant of American Values

I’m going to go ahead and predict this article by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic is the dumbest article from a mainstream conservative political pundit you will read today:

“Last year, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank, published a report titled “Patriotic Assimilation Is an Indispensable Condition in a Land of Immigrants.” It complained that “elites—in the government, the culture, and the academy—have led a push toward multiculturalism, which emphasizes group differences,” and ominously warned against “deterring national unity by requiring Americans to remain sorted into separate ethnic categories.”

Instead, it argued that Americans, regardless of their background, should unite in assimilating to the universal principles of equality, liberty, and limited government.

Since Representative Steve King has complained that political correctness causes people in the United States to “just walk on eggshells,” afraid to address things “that are really on their mind,” I trust he will forgive my bluntness in rendering a judgment about him: King is living proof that some Americans do fail to assimilate in this manner, even when their families have been in this country for several generations. …

If King hasn’t properly educated himself as to the values of the Declaration and the Constitution, he has done better than bygone generations of European Americans whose failures to assimilate were orders of magnitude more profound. …

To keep progressing toward that end, Americans ought to encourage European Americans like King to keep assimilating until they fully embrace the Founding values that made this country’s birth exceptional. …

Thankfully, the unassimilated are a minority of whites. A moratorium on immigration from European countries with a strong alt-right, in hopes of giving European Americans the time and space they need for patriotic assimilation, would therefore be overkill.”

Where should we start?

1.) Slavery was legal in every American colony that declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration of Independence was written by a slaveowner and the Constitution was crafted as a compromise to include the Deep South slave states. This is why it includes the 3/5ths clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause which explicitly repudiate “all men are created equal.”

2.) The Declaration of Independence accuses King George III of being “deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” He is damned for having “excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” In other words, King George III sided with the Indians and slaves over the Anglo-American colonists.

3.) The Constitution was “ordained and established” in order to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which restricted naturalization to “free white persons.” Whiteness remained the racial foundation of American citizenship until the 1950s. The federal courts adjudicated the racial eligibility of immigrants to become US citizens into the 20th century. The Supreme Court ruled in 1922 and 1923 that Japanese and even “high caste Hindus” were ineligible to become naturalized American citizens.

4.) The Constitution specifically excluded Indian nations from inclusion in the American political system. Classified as foreign nations and “Indians not taxed,” the Constitution gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction for dealing with Indian tribes. We were the “Native Americans.” It goes without saying that there wasn’t a single Indian or negro present at the ratification of the Constitution.

5.) George Washington’s administration set about establishing US sovereignty over the Northwestern Indians who ceded most of Ohio to the United States after the Battle of Fallen Timbers. The Founders set the pattern for the Indian Wars of the 19th century.

6.) Thomas Jefferson was a founder of what is known today as “scientific racism.” He outlined his theories of racial differences in his Notes on the State of Virginia. He was an Anglo-Saxonist who believed American liberty was derived from the culture and traditions of Germanic peoples. He also believed that blacks should be removed to Liberia or some other “tropical clime.”

7.) James Madison was the president of the American Colonization Society which organized the settlement of free blacks in Liberia on the coast of West Africa in the early 19th century. The capital of Liberia, Monrovia, is named after President James Monroe.

8.) Thomas Jefferson’s revisal of the laws of Virginia called for banishment of white women who had mulatto children: “If any white woman shall have a child by a negro or mulatto, she and her child shall depart the commonwealth within one year thereafter. If they shall fail so to do, the woman shall be out of the protection of the laws, and the child shall be bound out by the Aldermen of the county, in like manner as poor orphans are by law directed to be, and within one year after its term of service expired shall depart the commonwealth, or on failure so to do, shall be out of the protection of the laws.” The anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states weren’t struck down until the Loving decision in 1967. Perhaps Jefferson and the generations of Virginians who followed him were ignorant of “American values” as defined by the New York Intellectuals in the 1930s?

9.) One of George Washington’s first acts as commander of the Continental Army was to sign an order forbidding the enlistment of blacks. Most blacks fought on the British side in the American Revolution. In 1792, the Second Congress passed a federal militia law which only included White men and excluded blacks. Blacks weren’t finally integrated into the armed forces until the Korean War. As we have seen, Americans didn’t care about “racism” until the 1940s.

10.) In 1798, the Secretaries of War and Navy issued separate directives forbidding the enlistment of blacks in the Marine Corps and on naval warships. This was cited by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision of 1857 which found that blacks were not American citizens. They didn’t gain American citizenship until the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The 14th Amendment was passed during Reconstruction because of its dubious constitutionality.


  1. To do it your way:

    I don’t know how to take an IQ 85 Somali refugee and make him understand the minutiae of separation of powers. You can write comic books, but that dilutes the argument where it is no longer an argument. And there are other comic books.

    The other problem is those who have trouble assimilating? Do we water-board them, use electric shocks, drugs, will bending indoctrination so that the immigrant who is capable of understanding then is the American equivalent of a “Manchurian Candidate”?

    Even assuming you allow immigration into America, it must be those who already accept American values and would voluntarily undergo the mind-control which would only need to tweak things on the margins. That is not true of 99.44% of 3rd worlders, including those here and even those who are citizens.

    Among those who’ve failed to assimilate over the years are millions of white Americans. True, but it includes Hillary and her henchpersons. The blue-whites need to find a home, perhaps Stockholm if the Vikings don’t get their act together.

    That anti-American banner [Confederate Battle Flag] was flown by whites who preferred rebellion in
    defense of a slave state to the values of the Declaration.
    , no it was flown by members of States that wished a divorce from the Constitution which had become tyrannical in practice. It was MORE American in the true sense of independence and small government than the stars and stripes. We need “I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the confederate states of America, and to the non-democracy…”.

    (Aargh! The left is pushing me farther into the alt-white!)

    But there is one basic flaw, one thread. When you have big, intrusive, micromanaging Federal government telling you how to live, it becomes a point of control. And the left made it bigger. Now the giant leviathan has Trump in the saddle and holding the reins.

    The South, and most states would like to mind their own business, and their citizens can cross to the best managed locales. (Now with Trump, California wants to secede – good!).

    Perhaps the Left will discover that small government is good, and that Mississippi and Tennessee are never going to be like New York and California, which themselves differ.

    But until we can dismember the Fed and the Feds, and establish a neo-virtual-dixie, we just have to fight.

    Oh, and I’m not sure this will be the stupidest thing I read today. I expect worse before midnight.

  2. “Gender Studies” in a nutshell.

    Islaminatrix is the latest ‘perversion’.

    In a way, all this gender-madness sort of makes sense. No matter what the race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, cult, or community, all humans are sexual beings, and we all exist because of sex(of parents). For most of humanity’s existence, sexuality was animal-and-functional. People went into heat, had sex, and produced life, and that is why humanity survived. It was on the level of eating raw meat and veggies to survive.

    But with civilization, order, and more freedom, sexuality became like cooking. Not just animal and natural but cultural and complicated. Also, the need for moral order and social repression made sexuality go in the closet or remain in the bedroom. Sex became associated with moral-social-cultural duty or with romance & cult of beauty.

    Some spiritual systems even forbade it because flesh got in the way of spirit. Jainists and Shakers. Buddhism and Christianity didn’t forbid it but preferred that their followers gave up on sex and marriage and become totally spiritual.

    Also, intellectualism also worked against sexuality or at least against basic sexual drive. To be an intellectual is to elevate the mind over the stomach and the groin, even above the heart. It is as if the mind is separate from the body mired in the primal stew of base drives and desires. So, philosophy tackled the Higher Subjects of life and sought ‘meaning’ and ‘significance’. Mind moved upward whereas body plowed downwards. As the mind advanced into new loftier realms, it sought closer proximity to the gods of wisdom. In contrast, as the body sought freedom and release, it slid back into the primal soup of instincts and drives.

    For much of Western History(or any history of any high civilization), sexuality had to be kept under wraps, in the back-burner, in the closet. In that sense, everyone was like an ersatz-homosexual, which may explain why even straight people root for or identify with homos. Homos had to hide the fact that they were homo. Straight people didn’t have to hide their sexual orientation, but they still had to hide their sexuality and sexual expression, the Beavisy ‘boing’. So, homos were in a closet within a closet, and straights were in a closet. So, when homos found ‘liberation’ and ‘came out’, even straights piggybacked on their ‘liberation’ and ‘rebellion’. If homos, once demeaned as lowly, can shamelessly celebrate their sexuality, then why not straight people? So, homos were seen as the vanguard of sexual liberation since they had more to struggle for and more to gain. (But homos are strange because they are both most natural and most unnatural sexually. Studies show that homos tend to be more horny than straights. Homo men have many many more partners than straight men. So, homos hump each other like wild rabbits. In this sense, they surrender most to natural drive of sexual energy. But their kind of ‘sex’ isn’t real sex. It’s involves weird combination of body parts, some of which weren’t meant for sex. Also, sex is, at its biological root, process of reproduction, but homos can NEVER produce offsprings with homo male stuff or homo female stuff. Penis up the anus or two vaginas grinding isn’t real sex. So, on some level, homos know they are a strange breed, especially as some of them have a strange blend of female and male attributes. So, despite their raw naturalness in sexual drive, they are also unnatural in their creative escapism from the basic laws of nature. So, homos tend to be over-represented in both the most base raunchy kind of sexual culture and the most elegant & refined domain of high art & intellectualism. Indeed, given the natural strangeness of homosexuality, homos have had to cook up intellectual rationalization for it and its practices. Also, since the basic facts of homosexuality is pretty foul or funny — penis up the anus is ewwww — , homos have had to conjure up creative magical displays, like ‘homo rainbow’, to make the West sway ‘gay’.)

    In a way, every profession is repressed because they are essentially asexual or above-sexual. Almost every profession requires that sexuality be kept under the lid. A judge, accountant, lawyer, professor, engineer, pilot, truck driver, policeman, and etc cannot be sexual on the job. Also, some professions or calling are seen as noble, wise, and holy. Like being a rabbi or priest, and such people are supposed to be above ‘base desires’. And yet, they are humans too, so they must be hiding something in the closet, be it normal-natural or deviant. A rabbi could have sexual fantasies about wife eating pork while a shikse whips him. A priest can have feelings for a young teenager. Even if a Catholic priest’s desire is normal and healthy — for a young attractive woman — , he is not supposed to express such feelings like a Negro might.

    Their professions are either un-sexual or above-sexual, but they are still humans, and who knows what lurks in the hearts and loins of people? So many parents trusted Sandusky as an elderly coach and mentor to young boys, but…

    For most of civilizational history, the ideas moved upward and upward, toward greater complexity and higher meaning. (So did classical music.) Consider the trajectory of rational philosophy in the West or moral philosophy in the East. Since it favored the mind and/or the heart, the animal drives of loins had to be suppressed. Sexuality was something to tame, control, and keep in the cage, like the ‘lovebirds’ in Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS.

    And this repression directed human energies toward higher forms of thoughts, values, and expressions in the arts. Though Western Art has lots of nudes, they are not pornographic. That’s where Paglia is wrong. Sure, some are sensual and have elements of eroticism but beauty is manifested in sublime graceful ways that anesthetize animal feelings…. though Caravaggio was edgier. Classical Western nude art, especially in Christian era, is sensuality spiritualized. It’s like Adam of Michelangelo’s SISTINE CHAPEL is NOT like a Playgirl model.

    Also, the sexual element in art was also restrained by flaccid penises on sculptures and rounder figures than sexy hourglass figures on the women. Flaccid penis gave the impression that even a nude man had something on his mind other than the beavisy boing. And the rounder figures on the women made them look maternal than babe-ish.

    Because ideas were separated from the ‘boing factor’, the trajectory of Western Civilization was once unpredictable. The mind has countless permutations of possibilities in theory and speculation. In contrast, the human body has a basic formula. Let it free, and it just settles for a few variations of ‘boing’. Mind like a Boeing plane. It soars and explores all sorts of new terrains. Loin is like ‘boing’. There isn’t much difference among dogs, chimps, and humans when it comes to basic sexual drives. In our shameless culture, the trajectory of culture has been easy to predict since the ‘sexual revolution’. More Afro-jungle-ism and more homo-decadentism. So, from ass-shaking to bumping-and-grinding to ‘twerking’. What’s next? Nude musical stars screwing while performing. It’s the simple trajectory of shameless sexuality. Homomania is more complex than Afromania. If black men and women wanna be crazy studs and ho’s, homos have this aristo-mentality that wants to be revered and worshiped. If Afromania couldn’t be contained the church and came out of the church(like homos came out of the closet), homomania wants to enter the church and take over as the new god. Black gospel singers used to sing and dance wild in the church until the realized their minds were more about partying with ho’s than praising da lawd. Because white ‘racists’ of the past sought to contain black savagery, they forced Christianity on the blacks, and Church life defined black culture. But as time passed and blacks got more freedom, they figured it’s more fun to be dancing in the streets than in the church. In contrast, even though homos remained in the closet, their orientation was never thought of as holy or good. If anything, the Bible says homos are wicked. But homos being creative, sensitive, refined, and vain, were not satisfied with mere raunchy and wild sexuality. As natural aristocrats in emotions, they want to be adored and revered. So, once the homos got tired of prancing in the streets, they began to preach from the pulpit as the new holy icons of decadent christianity.

    Anyway, sexuality is a basic drive, like hunger and thirst. As such, it has a considerable hold even on people with respectable occupations like professor, priest, rabbi, scientist, statesman, judge, and etc. It’s like that Mishima short story, “Priest and His Love”. It’s like the homo military commander in MERRY X-MAS MR. LAWRENCE.

    While some people just settle for basic sexual morality of love, courtship, and marriage, the fact is modern freedoms have allowed all sorts of people lots of leeway to ‘explore’ their sexuality. And this is where ‘gender’ identity becomes crucial. It’s not just about male and female but all sorts of variations in between depending on one’s leanings, neuroses, hangups, fetishes, obsessions, and etc. (Gender-Quest has become a kind of rite of passage among millennials. The difference between the past and now is this. In the past, genuinely weird sexual types were marginalized or persecuted, and therefore, they had to pretend to be normal or find subtle or subversive ways to express their true nature. In contrast, most people who go on Gender Quests today are perfectly normal and would be happy with real sexuality, the kind where men and women like one another. Or like the All in the Family Song where men are men and women are women. BUT, because kids are hit with Gender Politics and Homomania from such a young age — and bombarded with pop culture filled with deviant images cooked up by homos and decadents — , even the normal ones think maybe there’s more to their sexuality or ‘gender’ than normal stuff. Besides, you earn extra pokemon points the less normal you are. So, it’s no surprise that over 40% of British millennials say they are unsure of their ‘gender’. Just feel what you have between your legs, idiots.)

    Also, as noble as high-minded or complex ideas may be, ideas are easily lost or forgotten. Maybe Kant and Descartes were great thinkers, but ideas are dead unless people are constantly disseminate them and keep them alive. Ideas don’t spring from one’s basic nature.

    Also, high ideas are understood only by a few. How many people read the great works of western philosophy or understand them?

    In contrast, there is something ‘democratic’ and spontaneously-generating about ‘gender’ since everyone, from the most intelligent to the most dumb, shares in sexual drives. Granted, ‘gender politics’ has become associated with elite academia and culture, but sex culture, like food, is ‘understood’ and experienced by everyone, rich and poor, smart and dumb. So, even though Western folks may not get much of Islamic religion or philosophy, the image of Islamic woman in hijab as sexy babe has immediate appeal. If Muslim woman is reduced to a sex object, even non-Muslims ‘get’ it.

    The strange case of Freud was that his ‘philosophy’ moved up while plowing down. Freud came up with highfalutin theories and played the role of scientific thinker to the hilt. He was a mental Boeing soaring high and mighty… but on the subject of Boing. He was like a bomber. Not flying higher and higher to reach the stars but flying just high enough to gain respectability in bourgeois society to drop Truth Bombs of Boing on society.

    This contradiction of Freudianism was very much in keeping in modernism where ultra-intellectualism reconnected with primitivism, like Picasso’s complicated artistic expression inspired by African sculptures.

    Freudianism was useful in its time because society was still moralistic and respectable. If someone like Howard Stern had come along then, he would have been locked up(maybe in a loony bin) in most civilized places. But Freud could get away with his stuff on sexual drive of Boing because he maintained the proper composure as an intellectual Boeing. Sure, he was talking about base drives BUT from a scientific perch to understand it better.

    But with the passing of yrs, as modern society became more permissive and shameless, the need or the pretense of serious thought was no longer necessary to deal with Boing. No need to soar to score with the whore. Just go boing in a straight and direct way. We now live in a world of massive homo celebration festivals in big cities. We now have high school dances where young ones dance like prostitutes aping African tribal women.

    And there is rap culture and afromania. If the cultural trajectory of the West was difficult to ascertain in the past because mind-centricism cooked up many ideas, values, and visions — consider the differences among various philosophers among Greeks, Romans, French, German, Anglo, Russian, Jewish, etc. — , the trajectory is now easy to predict since the Rule of the Body is pretty simple: hunger, lust, comfort, fun.

    So, in music, sex, pop culture, movies, and etc., we are moving toward more raw sexuality and more perversion, or perversion as the reversion.

    It used to be the West was about conversion to higher truth, spirit, or values.

    Now, it’s about reversion to animal drives and sensual fetishes.

    Afromania tends to be raw and raunchy. It’s like African tribal behavior. It’s a world gone bongo.

    Sensual fetishes tend to be more complicated because, despite their excesses, they feed on taboos, repressions, and subversion. Afromania is about shamelessness. It’s about black man and black woman on the dance floor hump-dancing without complexes or worries.

    In contrast, sexual fetishes are vestiges of repression or anxieties. And we see this in the Islaminatrix. Islam is sexually repressive. It is highly moralistic, even puritanical.

    And yet, its anti-sexualism poses a challenge and ‘delicious’ possibilities who seek to go under the veil. It spices things up if handled in a ‘creative’ manner. It’s not about the reversion to jungle-ism but artful game of repression & release toward ‘creative’ perversion.

    Without such taboos, fetishes are not possible. As society becomes more libertine and permissive, can fetishes survive? In a way, yes, IF there are new modes of repression.

    Indeed, even Afromania can become fetishized. White Liberals are repressed in their own way due to their ‘anti-racism’. They tell themselves that race is just a social construct, and there are no racial differences among races, which is all pseudo-science cooked up by ‘nazis’.

    But they can’t help noticing differences despite their ideological puritanism.

    White liberal men can’t help noticing that Jack Johnson whupped white butts and that blacks dominate NFL and NBA. They can’t help noticing that their white female friends express interest in the Negro as Superfly.

    But how can that be when race is just a social construct and there are no racial differences?

    According to Liberalism, a Japanese is just a yellow Nigerian, and a Nigerian is just a black Japanese. And a Jewish person is just a Semitic Peruvian Indian, and a Peruvian Indian is just a mesoAmerican Jew. The problem is reality doesn’t play out that way.

    In a way, the white liberal male is both approving of and perplexed by interracism. After all, if all races are the same, why shouldn’t white females mix with black males? People are people. But if some white females prefer black males over white males due to racial differences, then interracism undermines the liberal narrative and proves that racial differences do exist and account for why some women prefer men of certain races over others. This leads to anxiety that leads to fetishism.

    Thus, there are three levels of fetishism in the white Liberal cuck. On one level, he tries to exorcise his own ‘racism’ at the discomfort of a white woman going black. After all, even white Liberal men admit that, despite conscious rejection of ‘racism’, they may be unconsciously ‘racist’. On another level, he is turned on by the superior Negro with the white woman. But then, the idea that the Negro is superior to the white man as humper undermines the Liberal narratie of racial equality. It means racial differences are real. And that leads to third level of anxiety.

    With Afromania and Homomania such a big part of Western popular culture and sexual iconography, maybe the only to add spice and flavor is to somehow tie Islam with sexual licentiousness. It is surely a challenge given the nature of Islam, but then, sexual perversion and fetishism feeds on problems and obstacles.


    • “The superior negro with the white woman.”

      When is this troll going to stop posting these off topic novellas? For those not familiar, Andrea/Gubbler/etc. is a homosexual interracial cuckhold fetishist who has been polluting nationalist comment sections for many years.

      He copies and pastes boilerplate white nationalist material and inserts his racial cuckhold lines. Idiots will even upvote him because they are too stupid to understand what he is doing.

      Can we erase this garbage and ban him?

      • Yeah I could tell that was “Andrea”. Nobody else writes 3,000 word essays in response to a 200 word article.

        But I’m surprised somebody actually read far enough to get to the superior negro.

      • He actually has some brilliant, original insights from time to time. But it’s highly annoying how his rants are always off-topic and often tl;dr.

  3. I’m going to go ahead and predict this article by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic is the dumbest article from a mainstream conservative political pundit you will read today

    You mean there was more than one? You mean to tell me there was a competition and this one was the dumbest?

  4. As I have said before the (((enemy))) is not hiding their anti-White, anti-American agenda, they just expect the lowly goyim to keep their mouths shut about it, out of fear of being called names.

    • Conor Friedersdorf is still hiding his identity. His wikipedia entry doesn’t say he’s a Jew. And I’m sure there are still a number of stupid White people that have a subscription to the Atlantic. It means they don’t understand what’s going on.

      People may have noticed the government and the media are not exactly pro-White, but it’s obvious that most of them still don’t understand that the main ambition of the media and half the government is to kill the White race. And also, most of them still don’t know it’s a Jewish thing.

      I hope awareness of the Jewish genocidal project will surge among White people in the next few months. At first, thanks to the internet, there were a few dozen people learning about the JQ every month. Now, it’s probably a few thousand people every month, soon to become a few million.

  5. Great history piece. The Freidersdorf guy quoted here is either an idiot or a purposeful subversive. How can anyone with any concept of American history argue that America was anything other than a free white Republic from day one until 1950 or so? Even the radical left antifas type know this, and thus try to attack monuments of the Founders and Confederates -symbols of our white Republic past. If this Freidersdorf dude and Ted Cruz are he future of “conservatism”, then it is of no use to America whatsoever. What happened to conservative meaning one was actually conserving something, maybe even the people who founded and built the country. Good grief. Wow, that was a typing tirade I just went on.

    • I actually have more respect for leftists than the controlled opposition on the right. At least a lot of leftists are honest about their intentions. Cuckservatives policies and ideals will lead to the same ruin as those of the left, but they’ll pretend the whole time that they’re upholding the values and traditions of the founders or some bullshit like that.

      • Also they are honest about the past, they have a different agenda for selecting elements though.

      • Leftists may be honest about their intentions but few are honest about history. And frankly I think most cuckservatives genuinely believe their bullshit. The human capacity for self-delusion is infinite.

  6. Point number 2 re: King George – why are Whites so willing to betray each other, on behalf of the Other? Divide and Conquer? This is a centuries-old flaw. We need to correct this.

    • The definition of “the Other” varies from person to person.

      George III valued control over the colonies over 21st century notions of Racial Loyalty. Losing the colonies ultimately meant losing power relative to France.

  7. I just noticed that Play-Doh Face (Ted Cruz) is in the above photo standing next to Rep. King. I don’t trust him any more than I trust Lyin’ Paul Ryan.

  8. There are two contradictory ideologies that have always been in constant competition as both were present at the formation of the United States and both can be seen in the Declaration of Independence. One is Universal Egalitarianism (…that all men were created equal) the other is white Ethno-Nationalism.(The reference to a common Consanguinity and references to merciless Indian savages. Plus the Citizenship Act of 1790 restricted the franchise to white property holding males and the U.S. had a immigration policy geared towards people of white European-especially Northern and Northwest Europeans ancestry until 1965

    • Universal egalitarianism is as invalid as Voltaire’s “best of all possible worlds.” The problem exists in the fact that the deists were trying to reinvent the total depravity of man, by tacitly ignoring it. We now have empirical data that clearly shows it is a fallacy. And we need to de-legitimize that concept completely, in every single utterance we make, against the The lying press folk.

Comments are closed.