The truth often not understood about the negro's response to "how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?" is that it doesn't come from low IQ or a lack of comprehension of the question... No, it comes from a genetic predisposition to an innate understanding of human will as predetermined, constrained, lacking in freedom. The negro feels, he would say knows, that he could not have not eaten breakfast this morning, because he did in fact eat it. He has an internal and unbendable understanding that the world is predetermined, that everything just be as it do, and that he couldn't have acted differently than how he had acted. He feels that your question is absurd, and he cannot even imagine believing in free will, in the ability to make choices, and so he doesn't understand why you would even ask such a thing.

You don't support niggers replacing you? Here's why your epistemology is flawed:

While race clearly matters, you've mistaken proximate for ultimate causes. The dissolution of proper hierarchy and traditional authority creates the conditions for demographic transformation — not the other way around. When a civilization abandons divine order for commercial values, bureaucratic management, and the endless pursuit of "freedom" from all constraint, it loses the ability to maintain any coherent identity or structure, racial or otherwise.

The issue isn't replacement but rather the liberal acid that dissolves all proper bonds and hierarchies, replacing natural order with artificial equality. A society that maintains proper authority and traditional order doesn't fear demographic change because it maintains the power to assimilate and order all elements within its hierarchy.

Consider: modern society responds to difference with either enforced homogenization or endless fragmentation. True order, by contrast, maintains distinction within hierarchy — each element in its proper place, serving its proper role. While the modern world either eliminates differences or explodes them into conflict, proper order allows for both unity and distinction through right relationship.

I didn't read the most recent posts. Are they based or cringe

I am incapable of posting cringe, for just as one who truly knows good cannot do evil (as such would contradict the knowledge itself), one who recognizes cringe cannot produce it. The very knowledge that makes me aware of cringe makes me incapable of posting it.

Alright, no more silly political talk. Time for something far more important: hymns sung by Yoopers

Average seatbelt use in the UP is down, officials say.

Who wants pizza?

It's over, guys... I forgot that having a pizza oven is proof that I'm not poor. The cat is out of the bag. The channel is caput.

Now how someone worthy of power behaves. Remember, the first step is to become worthy.

Rusty responded, "So the big takeaway is we should keep H1B visas, but limit them to White immigration."

This made something click in my head... If that was what Elon said, pretty much none of these white advocates would have complained.

They don't actually have a framework that leads them to think Americans each have some sort of "right" to individual houses and jobs. No, they just don't want brown people coming in, and this nonsense about that "right" superficially seemed like a good argument because it leads to "stop importing browns."

As @Phocron put it the other day, when considering the current state of your civilization, when thinking about why things are so abysmal, you ought to give notion to a certain possibility...

Perhaps consider that you are currently being punished. Perhaps consider that you are currently living in the rack and ruin left in the aftermath of your own civilization's unfathomable hubris

Very important point in the development of American history, of "progressive" history:

Roosevelt was, in fact, with the help of what he considered the best expert advice, although always making final decision himself, trying experiments, and occasionally he frankly said so. In these experiments he has been motivated by two objects — one the overcoming of the depression, and the other the making over of the economic organization of the nation, the latter being what he called in his campaign speeches “the New Deal.” It is this which appears — it is too soon to speak positively — his chief objective, and it is difficult as yet to judge what his conception of the new society may be. In his first year he has shown enormous courage but has, apparently, not seldom changed his point of view, as well as his advisers.

As the latter loomed large in the administration, to a considerable extent displacing the regular Cabinet in public sight, the so-called “brain trust” requires some comment. Of recent years college professors have been more and more frequently called into consultation as “experts.” Hoover made frequent application to them when President; Roosevelt did the same as Governor of New York; and foreign governments have done likewise. However, they have never been so in the forefront of affairs as since Roosevelt entered the White House, and this, together with the vagueness of what the “New Deal” might signify, helped to hinder the restoration of confidence. The lack of ability to foresee the future, to say nothing in too many cases of the absence of personal integrity, had indeed thrown the “big business men,” the bankers and captains of industry, into the discard, but on the other hand the American has never had much belief in the practical ability of a professor, and the “experts” have disagreed among themselves as notably as doctors are said to do.

Moreover, Roosevelt chose many of his advisers from the distinct radical or left-wing group, the names of most of them being utterly new to the public. At first among the chief of these appear to have been Professor Raymond Moley, Doctor R. G. Tugwell, and A. A. Berle, Jr., all of Columbia University, New York. In the summer of 1933 there were added to these and many others Professor G. F. Warren of Cornell, a leading advocate of the “commodity dollar,” and Professor J. H. Rogers of Yale. At least twenty or thirty others could be mentioned. It is to the “brain trust” that we owe the carrying out of the vague “New Deal,” or as a great admirer of the President prefers to call it, “the Roosevelt Revolution.” What the final result may be, no one can yet say, but as we shall see at the end of the chapter, they have presented a staggering bill for the American citizen to pay.

— James Truslow Adams, The March of Democracy: A History of the United States