Standing Tall

F. Roger Devlin, American Renaissance, September 11, 2013

John Derbyshire is well-rid of “respectability.”

John Derbyshire, From the Dissident Right: Essays on the National Question 2001-2013, Books, 2013, $15.99 paperback, $5.99 Kindle224 pages.

According to the old German proverb:

Ist der Ruf erst ruiniert,

Lebt es sich ganz ungeniert.

“Once reputation is ruined, one may live unabashedly.”

John Derbyshire’s loss of respectability came in April of last year when he published a column (“The Talk—Nonblack Version”) offering advice for the young on how, when, and when not, to interact with blacks. A particularly self-congratulatory session of ritual defamation erupted over the author’s head, and National Review hastened to do its enemies’ bidding by firing him.

Even some of Mr. Derbyshire’s well-wishers were not entirely displeased with this development. Bearing in mind the German proverb, we looked forward to seeing in what direction he would go once he no longer had to look over his shoulder for approval from the guardians of American journalistic respectability. The essays now collected in From the Dissident Right tell that story.

From the Dissident Right by John Derbyshire

The book starts off with the column that sparked the original two-minute hate. Most of what follows consists of pieces written over the next ten months, as well as some public addresses. There are also, however, a few columns on the national question originally written for between 2001 and 2008. At that point, National Review scotched Mr. Derbyshire’s affiliation with VDare, resentful of editor Peter Brimelow’s candor about NR’s founding editor Bill Buckley. Among the blessings of Mr. Derbyshire’s firing has been his reemergence at VDare with a regular weekly column.

The largest aftershock to follow the original “Talk” was sparked by these words from a later VDare column: “White supremacy . . . is one of the better arrangements History has come up with.” The words I left out of the quotation are “in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans.” Most readers seem to have mentally edited them out in the course of reading as well. The result, for the cliché-ridden leftist mind, was something like a vision of an unkempt and tobacco-chewing Mr. Derbyshire whipping frightened darkies across scorching Mississippi cotton fields, a sadistic glint in his eye.

Of course, all Mr. Derbyshire was pointing out was that government by white Europeans tends to produce societies that persons of all races find attractive to live in, as their actions (if not words) invariably show.

Mr. Derbyshire gives “racism” the same dispassionate analysis as “white supremacy.” In a column of July, 2012, he distinguishes several possible meanings that might be attributed to the word, finding nothing morally wrong with the majority of them.

Other topics include “What’s so scary about Darwin?”, “The Roots of (White) Ethnomasochism”, “Combating Anosognosia “ (buy the book to find out what that is), and “The Future of Elite Attitudes on Race” (hint: not a mere continuation of present elite attitudes).

I was present at more than one of the live talks reproduced in this volume, and there is not one from which I did not benefit by reading the text. The moral: Even if you read all Mr. Derbyshire’s columns the day they came out, get the book anyway. You will learn more from them the second time around, and putting them all together seems to multiply their  force.

As for the significance of the events that led to the publication of From the Dissident Right, I am unable to improve on what Richard Spencer wrote at the time:

The conservative movement deserves to die. And it must be fully de-legitimized before we can build something new in its place. The firing of John Derbyshire brought us a step closer.


Editor’s Note:

I certainly share Mr. Devlin’s admiration for John Derbyshire, and I am pleased to publish this graceful tribute to his new book.

However, I do not share Mr. Devlin’s desire to see conventional conservatism die. National Review, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the National Rifle Association, the American Enterprise Institute, Human Events, the Eagle Forum, the Manhattan Institute, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and many other groups are run and supported by the people who are most likely to be our allies.

Of course, we regret that they either do not fully understand race or are afraid to act on what they do understand, but would America be a better place if “conservatism” disappeared?  No, it would be worse. Without it, “anti-racism” would run wild, and I do not believe that the more ferociously the country becomes anti-white the better it is for us.

The truth about race is independent of politics; one can be realistic about race and be an anarchist, communist, socialist, libertarian, conventional liberal, or conventional conservative.  There are many historical examples of people on the Left who had no illusions about race. However, in our own time, those who see the truth about race are more likely to come from conservatism than from anywhere else. We can hope for allies from every part of the political spectrum, but why insult the very people who are most likely to become our friends? When conservatives do foolish things we should certainly point it out but it is mean spirited–and pointless–to want the entire movement to die.

I do not see the people who have been expelled from the conventional right—Jason Richwine, Robert Weissberg, or Mr. Derbyshire himself—spitting fire at their former colleagues. I think they understand that much as we would like others to agree with us, it is not a moral failing if they don’t. I’m sure some conservatives believe what they say they believe, and that they believe we are wrong. If we win them over, it will be by convincing them, not by despising them.

Some conservatives—and even some liberals—may agree with us but dare not say so. Dissent is dangerous, and some people can live with more danger than others. Many people who read American Renaissance do not say publicly everything they believe. We might wish that they did, but each of us must decide how much risk he is willing to run.

We want only one thing: that the truth will prevail and change our society. Is the truth more likely to prevail if we lash out at people who disagree with us or if we try to understand them and act and speak in ways that might win their respect? A generous demeanor will often persuade more skeptics than irrefutable logic.

We should approach all people—on all points on the political spectrum—with hope and good will. Not many people change, but they are more likely to change if we treat them as potential brothers rather than as eternal enemies. Let us be grateful for whatever others are willing to say, and try not to reproach them for what they are not.

Jared Taylor

Topics: ,

Share This

F. Roger Devlin
Dr. Devlin is a contributing editor to The Occidental Quarterly and the author of Sexual Utopia in Power.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Re the “Editor’s Note,” and the mentality presented therein.

    While yesterday’s two recall elections in Colorado were definitely not about race, they were primarily about another non-racial conservative boilerplate issue, it is my understanding that immigration, and the two now recalled incumbents’ votes for illegal alien friendly bills in Colorado, was one of those under the surface issues that drove votes.

    Since one of the two recalled politicians was in Colorado Springs, I wonder if MCS could confirm or rebuke my suspicion.

    • RisingReich

      While I don’t live in Colorado Springs any longer, I’m 2 hours north on I-25 and I can tell you in general, once you leave Boulder and Denver, the level of anger with policy emanating from the state house is palpable.

      That’s why some Counties are trying to become N. Colorado and I support that 100%. Not that it will ever happen or really change anything, but on premise I support it.

      So – I’d say you are correct that this was about more than just gun-control. It’s about the change in direction in general – on all fronts.

      • Puggg

        Why were those recall votes successful?

        I heard talking heads complain that the Republican Party officially was nowhere to be found in Colorado. Turns out that was a blessing in disguise. No Stupid Party hands in it means no RINOs and therefore none of their world renowned ability to, put it politely, FSU, and I don’t mean Florida State University.

        “We” won because the official Republican Party was NOT involved.

      • Sue

        Like your name, like your symbol and like your words!

    • It was a recall of elected Democrats, so only registered Dems were able to participate.

      • Are you sure about that? I heard plenty of Republicans voted in the Colorado Springs one.

      • paul137

        Perhaps Mr. Scott is being tongue-in-cheek.

        If not, then his remark is rubbish.

  • anew

    The editor misses the point on why the mainstream right must be de-ligitimized; it is competing with us for mostly the same people, and is viewed as the safe alternative, and thus helps to perpetuate our political/cultural marginalization. The mainstream American right is just a bunch retrograde liberals who simply want to pause liberalism. Their ideas are of no use to us.

    • David Ashton

      Any delegitimization must include arguments to pull over conservatives into race realism so that the presently marginalized become the mainstream (again?).

    • cloudswrest

      The mainstream American Right is basically ballast. They resist change of the status quo. They’re like the shock absorbers on your car. The “dissident right” like the left, is a force for change from the status quo.

  • Bo_Sears

    Let’s kick this discussion off with this phrase from the essay above, “…National Review scotched Mr. Derbyshire’s affiliation with VDare…” The use of scotch as a verb is as problematic as the use of jew, shanghai, or welsh as verbs. Now, it is “offensive”? Probably not to most of the diverse white Americans, but it illustrates the Derbyshire Question, and that is the use of naming, labeling, defining, and describing.

    In a very general way, Derbyshire opened himself up to the storm that broke around his head by speaking out of his white voice (although he may have thought he was speaking out of his American voice) about black conduct. O’Reilly can get away with it, but Derbyshire is relatively powerless in the racially-tainted cultural war going on around us.

    The cross-cultural/racial wars in the Multiracial Society (that the Multicultural Society has given birth to) have a transparent set of rules, and they go like this. The diverse white Americans will be victimized when & if they speak out explicitly about Others not in their demographic affinity group….the same is not true for Others, they are free to speak out quite vividly in their ethnic voices about the diverse white Americans.

    The reason it works this way is that conservatives, like Derbyshire, have resisted the deconstruction of the unified American nation by attacking, in general, those speaking from a white point of view…in order to combat what the Derbyshire’s probably perceive as tribalization or separatism.

    The problem that conservatives have is that the battle should have been joined when pluralism was jammed down our throats at the beginning of the last century, not now! Pluralism morphed into multiculturalism in the Sixties, and then into multiracialism in the late Nineties. By staying blind to these realities, conservatives have shot themselves in their feet.

    Any aware white American would figure out a way to say what they need to say in a way that doesn’t point a finger of disgrace at a major segment of a race in which they are not a member. Others can do it, we cannot without that steaming load on our heads.

    If these remarks are taken as saying that the diverse white Americans lack elements of freedom of speech, you will be correct, and Derbyshire ran right into that trick bag. If conservatives would only wake up to this level of understanding, perhaps we could get back into the fight without both our arms tied behind our backs.

    Don’t shoot the messenger, we’ve worked this problem out in our own on-line syllabus since 1989.

  • Antipodean WN

    I for one will not be doing anything to financially support this race traitor and his mongrel brood. The day Derbyshire ships his family back to China so that his kids will not displace the kids of white Americans, is the day that I shall gain a modicum of respect for him. But until then, the likes of Derbyshire have no place in our community.

    • Germanacus

      OK but what if he became racially aware AFTER he went the Eastward route for a wife?

      • Antipodean WN

        Derbyshire has said on many an occasion that he is not a ‘race purist’. That is Derbyshire is not against race mixing of any sort.

        We all know that white women with black men is disgusting.

        White men with Asian women is equally disgusting, and the results are equally horrific in their destructive effect on the white race.

        • JohnEngelman

          Chinese women are crème de la crème.

          • Germanacus

            No they are not John. That is, they are, for Chinese men. Our women are white women! Following your logic, the white race would cease to exist. Some eagerly look forward to this, little Timmy Wise comes to mind, but I don’t! White race, good, John. Mixed race hybrids, not good, John.

          • OlderWoman

            John Engelman is obsessed with East Asian women. I bet he’s never ‘been’ with one. His obsession is akin to stalking.

          • While some Chinese women are pretty enough, I love the earthier sense of humor common to Japanese women. Since I’m already a 3/16-breed, and a married non-competitor for white women, maybe I get a free pass here for Sayaka.

            The aspect of Mr. Engelman I find peculiar is that he didn’t marry one of them. Maybe his parents didn’t want him doing that, but my mother remarked at the start that Sayaka was “movie star pretty”, and that she hoped it was serious.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            I disagree. Russian women are the greatest. (But then, I am prejudiced).

          • Caledwych

            Slavic women are stunning.I like the classic Celtic ginger and strawberry-haired look but I’m Celtic myself and therefore biased.Spent a lot of time down in Argentina and the women are gorgeous.Contrary to what many Americans think,Argentina is a very Europeanized country…a street in Buenos Aires can be indecipherable from Paris or Rome.There are no blacks living there….always been curious as to the per-capita crime rate comparison between Argentina and the US.Probably shocking.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            Ah yes, to each his own. My beloved has made me deliriously happy for the past 15 years. That said, I have heard about some guys who went the internet route and did not wind up so happy.

          • Caledwych

            Yeah, I considered the Internet route but I’ve heard horror stories.Actually was on a Russian women dating site for a bit but it just seemed to good to be true…and a lot of these women seemed a lot more interested in getting to the US than getting to me.

    • alex

      And what exactly have you done so far for our community?

      • JohnEngelman

        Antipodean WN comes to the American Renaissance and expresses his hatreds and fears. They give this website, and race realism a bad image.

        Race realism is not a cause. It is a scientific theory, for which the evidence is pretty one sided.

        The basic idea of race realism is that race is a valid biological classification, that the races differ significantly in average ability levels and behavior, and that these differences are due to evolutionary pressures lasting for thousands of years.

        Urban civilization selects for intelligence, while it selects against physical aggressiveness.

        Race realism explains why Orientals and whites tend to be more intelligent and law abiding than Hispanics and blacks.

        John Derbyshire’s good taste and good fortune in choosing and attracting a wife, and his apprehensions about blacks. are not consistent with white nationalism. They are consistent with the insights of race realism.

        • Germanacus

          On the other hand, you don’t believe in race realism at all. You could care less about the preservation of the white race. In your mind, race traitor Kate Gosselin is a hero.


          • JohnEngelman

            A race realist acknowledges that Ashkenazi Jews and Orientals tend to be more intelligent than white Gentiles.

            The white race is not in danger. I am more concerned with the preservation of paleolithic peoples, such as the Bushmen of southern Africa, the Pygmies of central Africa, and the Australian Aborigines.

            By studying them we can learn about what our ancestors were like before they developed agriculture. The study will inform us about our own human nature.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            “The white race is not in danger.”

            I wish I were so optimistic, but last I heard, we made up only 8% of the world’s population, and our countries are being inundated by brown and black skinned parasites.

          • proudwhitegirl

            These trolls that come on to this allegedly pro-white site have two agendas. To complain about how badly they are treated in society and to try and convince us that mongoloids are equal to caucasoids. Obviously mongoloids are a magnificent group, just look at how they were the first pioneers in space, the first to discover radioactivity, the first to create antibiotics, the first to create hygienic waste disposal systems and mass agriculture…oh, wait. That’s right. Those were white inventions. Mongoloids invented nice ceramic dishes and used gunpowder for firework displays. Yes, they obviously are our equals. These trolls should not be fed. They only post to distract us from uniting together as white people for white people.

  • sbuffalonative

    After the Zimmerman verdict, we have it on record that blacks have ‘the talk’ with their children about how dangerous white people are. We all know that blacks are far more likely to be killed by other blacks but black parents don’t give their kids ‘that talk’.

    • Puggg

      Let ’em think we’re that dangerous, sadistic and evil.

      • Sick of it

        If they actually thought that, they would not dare attack us so often.

    • HamletsGhost

      “The Talk” is a crock.

      • OlderWoman

        You, of course, are referring to the racist talk that black parents give to their children.

  • Spartacus

    Common sense is certainly dangerous these days…

    • Erasmus

      In the last days of the Old Soviet Union people continued to read and publicly spout the party line, but no one believed it.

      Even the smartest of the leftists don’t believe the kumbayah k-rap, which they spout. Most of the American rank and file certainly don’t. Plus, the best part of it all is because reality is on our side, we will ultimately win. As I’ve stated before, the sad part is that the arßeholes will take down so many good innocent people with them.

  • Erasmus

    I’m sure Kris Kime’s parents wish they’d given their son the Derbyshire talk. Poor, innocent, well-meaning kid was in from the burbs visting Bantu-friendly Seattle on Fat Tuesday, tried to rescue someone and then was kicked to death by a bunch of naggers…but it wasn’t a hate crime.

  • Romulus

    I for one would not choose the same selection of mating partner as mr. Derbyshire. I believe that behavior to be racial suicide. I do engage with people daily everyday of the week without fail. My goal is to guide people to SEE what is happening to our people on all levels. Some will come back to the flock, some wont. I wont give up. I carry notes and information with me everywhere i go and at a moments notice , I’m ready with material supporting my case. If i can persuade others to join the awakening, i know I’m making a difference.

    • Antipodean WN

      The problem is the damage Derbyshire has done is pretty much irreversible, short of shipping his family back to China. I don’t think Derbyshire has any inclination to do that.

      • JohnEngelman

        What damage? Marriages between whites and Orientals usually work well.

  • White Mom in WDC

    Once one’s reputation is ruined, one may live unabashedly. – I love that statement and frankly more whites to repeat this to themselves 80 times a day. Who gives a damn anymore about what our government or ‘elected’ officials think if us. They certainly don’t care about what we think. Freedom is a state if mind, an intellectual state. We are free, we just need to believe it and act accordingly. If people find phrases such as purple penis offensive, well it is their right to be offended. We can turn this country around. We can

  • [Guest]

    One of the things that strikes me about Mr. Derbyshire is that he rarely says or writes anything that would upset honest, reasonable people. It’s an indicator of how far we’ve sunk as a nation that his words upset anyone.

    From the Editor’s Note: “…Is the truth more likely to prevail if we lash out at people who disagree with us or if we try to understand them and act and speak in ways that might win their respect? A generous demeanor will often persuade more skeptics than irrefutable logic.”

    If that is accurate—and I do prefer to believe that it is—then how do we account for the fact that the wrong side won the culture wars in a rout while lashing out and acting and speaking in the least respectful ways imaginable … and without the supposed advantage of logic?

    Which side owns the country, that represented by the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers or that represented by the likes of John Derbyshire and Jared Taylor?

    In principle I’m all for a “generous demeanor.” But I’ve never known it to win over a corrupt mind.

    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      The wrong side “won the culture war” because of World War II. Peter Brimelow’s term: “Hitler’s Revenge”:

      “There is a sense in which current immigration policy is Adolf Hitler’s posthumous revenge on America. The U.S. political elite emerged from the war passionately concerned to cleanse itself from all taints of racism or xenophobia. Eventually, it enactedthe epochal Immigration Act (technically, the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments) of 1965.

      “And this, quite accidentally, triggered a renewed mass immigration, so huge and so systematically different from anything that had gone before as to transform—and ultimately, perhaps, even to destroy—the one unquestioned victor of World War II: the American nation, as it had evolved by the middle of the 20th century.

      “Today, U.S. government policy is literally dissolving the people and electing a new one. You can be for this or you can be against it. But the fact is undeniable.”

      • dukem1

        It is curious to me, to an extreme, that no public figure has ever, to my knowledge, advocated repeal of the Act of 1965.
        It becomes more obvious by the hour that it may have been the worst law ever passed.
        Perhaps when someone – anyone, anywhere – makes this an issue in an election, it will force the issue to the forefront.
        I think that most Americans are not really familiar with this law, only its effect on our society to date.
        People know where all the Mexicans come from, but I don’t think they realize how the rest of these third world get here.

        • Caledwych

          Won’t ever happen.Even toying with the idea of repealing the 1965 Act is political death,just the same as suggesting that Social Security(the biggest Ponzi scheme ever constructed)needs to be overhauled or discarded.

    • Sick of it

      Because people began to believe lies they heard 24/7 every year of their lives, over multiple generations. Voltaire started these lies in the early 18th century. They got progressively worse every generation thereafter. It’s like a cult without moral restraint.

      • Brian

        What does Voltaire have to do with it?

        • Sick of it

          Read up on the Jacobins (you’ll find materials on open library dot org for free). He was the founder of the Jacobin conspiracy which ultimately led to the French Revolution and a radical change in European thought. Rather than being pro-freedom, he was pro-libertine and anti-Christ.

          • OlderWoman

            Weren’t the Jacobin in league with the Vatican?

      • NorthSea

        Voltaire was a hypocrite, as well. In the south of France, a Huguenot couple offended the Church authorities, I forgot how, and Voltaire was in the front ranks of those howling for a tortured death. Enlightenment, right.

        • Sick of it

          De Sade was one of his close friends. That really says it all right there. And yes, I’ve read through his disgusting writings before.

    • Bo_Sears

      Guest, as you point out, the editor says, “We want only one thing: that the truth will prevail and change our society. Is the truth more likely to prevail if we lash out at people who disagree with us or if we try to understand them and act and speak in ways that might win their respect? A generous demeanor will often
      persuade more skeptics than irrefutable logic.”

      In fact, this society was reduced from a fairly unified USA by the lashing out at opponents of pluralism by nothing more whatsoever than a vicious campaign of defamation. (The word used to mean pre-war an argument by the slave states for coexisting with free states.)

      Then pluralism was morphed into multiculturalism in the Sixties & Seventies by the lashing out at opponents of multiculturalism, and similarly its morphing into multiracialism in the Nineties as a political doctrine about which conservatives seem to have no understanding whatsoever.

      So when you talk about lashing out, you are talking about how to win in an open society. You definitely need to attack back at purveyors of lies in a highly personal way, just not at the demographic affinity group of which they are a member. All the changes in America, and a few wars too, have been instigated and advanced by vicious personal attacks.

      Conservatives are a funny bunch…I don’t think you can treat them as more than that group which shores up the walls created by the leftwing machine as it tramples through society, destroying all the ancient truths and respectable natures. Conservatives are the janitors of the leftwing tyrannical state, dusting out the corners where dismissed crap from the crisis before last is tossed.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    May we ask who the Editor is? Is it Henry Wolff or Jared Taylor? I ask because he refers to himself in the first person, and I don’t know for whom he speaks, or if he represents a consensus of opinion at Amren. Just to clarify. For myself, I’m deeply ambivalent about these things, and my opinion will be different depending on which day you ask me.

  • alex

    “By not marrying out of his race, he’s done good. Even if he is single.”
    Are our standards really so low?

    • Antipodean WN

      My efforts and achievements are meager, but at least I have never done anything to harm ourrace.

      I’m sure you would take a dim view of any white person who assisted in bringing three Mexicans, say, over the border and helping them through the process to American citizenship. Such a person, I’m sure most here would agree, would be rightly labelled a race traitor.

      Yet Derbyshire has done the same. He has brought his Mongoloid wife to a white country, obtained US citizenship for her, and added two mixed race children to the population. Those two children of his are part of the tidal wave of non-white denizens engulfing white America.

      • alex

        Can you give Derbyshire a break?
        I assume Hitler is your hero, but he made exemptions for some Jews and partial Jews.

        • Antipodean WN

          I’ll cut Derbyshire some slack when he removes his family from the US, and admit to the evil of miscegenation.

          Hitler’s ‘Jews’ proved themselves by their actions. Derbyshire is yet to, when it comes to the absolute litmus test of racial solidarity.

  • Yes, by all means, let’s persuade away, but It does not follow that saying that conventional conservatism must die means that individual conservatives must be despised, or that it is a call for the rest of us to be immersed in a sea of Leftism. Conventional conservatism needs to die down at least as far as being reduced to third-party status, on their way further down the chute, replaced by radical traditionalism, white nationalism, or whatever you want to call it, partially made up of former conservatives who were converted to sanity. Unfortunately we don’t have countless decades to debate the ghost of William F. Buckley. These people, from their acceptance of porous borders to the iconic status of MLK, have the American people boxed into inexorably sliding ever leftward toward oblivion, because most voters only have the choice of voting for a ‘conservative,’ at best, or a liberal Democrat. Just like liberal Democrats, conservatives need to be defeated at the polls and factually discredited in writings and debates. It is almost always better to be civil, but I’m not worried overly much about bruising their feelings. They are fat and happy, providing a distracting sideshow as they merrily go along with obliterating the West and their grandkids’ grandkids, and our own.

  • Hal K

    Conventional conservatism does need to be done away with if “conventional conservatism” means implicitly pro-white politics without explicit white identity politics. This is a very important distinction. The mainstream conservative elite keeps explicit white identity politics out of the mainstream. They are the problem, and we have to make sure they get the message.

    • Bo_Sears

      Hal, I wish you would expand on your thought in this matter a little. I understand the distinction between implicit support for policies that help the lives of the diverse white Americans and explicit support for white Americans, but I don’t see the slightest evidence that conservative legislators or politicians see the white Americans as other than a banal backdrop against which the vibrant non-white ethnic groups organize and make demands. I know of no example regarding war & peace, tax policy, or hate speech against white Americans about which it could be said they were doing anything to implicitly support white Americans.

      (Oddly it is the hard-left commentators who seem to recognize us as a demographic group. Usually it is to condemn us or to apologize on our behalf to everyone else. We have to articles documenting this on our Facebook page called “Resisting Defamation.”)

      Of course, conservatives are part of this. In their circles, the idea that white Americans are similarly entitled to speak out of their “white voice” instead of their “American voice” is viewed much the same as their attitude toward rabid dogs.

      • Hal K

        The meaning of “implicitly pro-white” I had in mind is policies and rhetoric that tend to appeal to whites, without explicitly saying that this is the intention. The question of whether these policies actually do benefit whites is another matter. The way they appeal to whites (without saying this is what they are trying to do) is by scapegoating liberals for all societal problems related to race. In this way the implicit racial solidarity of whites gets hijacked and twisted around into anti-“racism” directed towards liberals.

        The political spectrum is broken because of this phenomenon I just described. Ordinary mainstream conservatives would be explicitly pro-white if it weren’t for the wall put up by the conservative establishment that keeps out explicit white identity politics. Loyalty to ones group is a conservative trait. This is explained in the book “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt. The left is a coalition of marginal identity groups that feel threatened by the core of society, which is whites (and white males in particular). Explicit white disloyalty comes from the left. Nonwhite loyalty is allied with white disloyalty on the left. The key to repairing the political continuum is to break down the wall that keeps white identity politics out of mainstream conservatism, since these are the people who would ordinarily be explicitly loyal to the white race.

        • Bo_Sears

          Thanks, I see what you mean. May I suggest that the thin edge of the wedge that could be used to get started would be to demand that conservatives recognize and oppose the anti-white narrative? You know, the massive publicity that creates images & tableaux vivants that seek to brand white people as evil by over publicizing hoaxes (like the famous hoax known as the march on Skokie) and real events by bad white people which can be cannon balls to denigrate all the diverse white Americans.

          It’s free, it doesn’t have to be complaining about sensitivity or offensiveness, and it can be based on an objective basis, and who could refuse to oppose the anti-white narrative? It’s not even “grievance mongering,” but it does ask the question:

          How can we work against hate speech and hate acts against our children on the playing field, on the school bus, and in the classroom by bullying and bigoted teachers and students?

          It’s a start. See Facebook page Resisting Defamation.

          • Hal K

            I will look it over.

  • Antipodean WN

    The race-mixing Derbyshire does our cause more harm than good. Critics will rightly point to him and the support he receives from white nationalists as evidence of deep hypocrisy within the movement.

    • JohnEngelman

      Growing up in the South I only saw whites and blacks in person. When I was about seven years old I watched a television documentary on school children in Japan or Taiwan. I thought, “With white girls some are pretty, and some are not. With Oriental girls all are pretty.”

      • Nobody cares what you thought.

      • Martel

        I am not sure what the added value of this statement is besides trying to put down white women. I never had any feelings for Asian girls, they look odd and infantile. A great portion of them have enormous heads which don’t seem to fit with the structure and size of their unappealing bodies.If black females don’t use make-up and cut their hair short, they are difficult to distinguish from black males, especially if they wear a baggy outfit.

        Only white women embody a sense of true femininity.

      • Sloppo

        You apparently must not have seen them all.

    • JohnEngelman

      The race-mixing Derbyshire does our cause more harm than good.

      – Antipodean WN

      Your hate characterizes your “cause” and harms it in the eyes of every decent person.

  • Antipodean WN

    If Derbyshire ships his family back to China, or perhaps ‘arranges’ a car accident or something similar for them, then I will welcome him as a brother. But not before.

    • JohnEngelman

      Your desire that John Derbyshire’s family gets killed should be removed by a moderator.

      • Antipodean WN

        You don’t get it do you Engleman?

        I have nothing against non-whites —as long as they are not living in white lands.

        Similarly I like wolves – on TV – but not in my neighbourhood.

        And snakes behind a glass window at the zoo are fascinating – but if they come into my house I will smash them on the head with a shovel.

        Asians in white lands are a bacillus that requires eradication, preferably by removal, but in the end by any means necessary. And race mixers are even worse than non-whites.

        We are in a fight for survival. During WWII our traitorous leaders had no compunction about fire bombing German cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. And our survival as a race was not even at stake.

        • JohnEngelman

          If anyone has the right to claim America as their own it is American Indians. Orientals tend to be more intelligent than white Gentiles. They also tend to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy. That is why they are present in large numbers at America’s most prestigious universities and corporations.

          It is why they usually earn more than whites.

          It is also why I admire them.

          This is what Eric Hoffer wrote of your “fight for survival”, “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.”

          Excellent whites do not share your fears and animosities.

          • Bossman

            Okay, so you admire East Asian intelligence and their pacific nature so does that mean that you would gladly have them replace you and your offspring in the USA?

          • JohnEngelman

            Orientals compete with whites for university positions and jobs. They do not “replace” them.

          • Martel

            You have to be aware that whites are not performing at optimum levels under the effects of the prevailing nihilistic culture. The main concern of whites should be to ensure the best education for young whites as possible, allowing them to compete with those who grow up in a well structured pro-education environment only puts them at a cultural disadvantage which ensures they will not be as productive as they might have been if they were granted a spot at a university. This only further reduces the academic status of whites.

          • Sloppo

            Do whites immigrate in masse to China and Korea and compete for high level positions in their societies?

          • Hal K

            If anyone has the right to claim America as their own it is American Indians.

            There is a difference between claiming American land and claiming the right to live among and breed with white people. Whites have the right to look out for their group interests and maintain their group gene pool however they see fit. This can be done through both cultural and political means.

          • JohnEngelman

            Hal K,

            Please explain why whites deserve to live in the United States, but Orientals do not.

            Please explain why the growing number of Americans who choose to marry inter racially should not be able to.

          • Hal K

            The immigration policy of a country should be determined by the group interests of its citizens. It is not in the group interests of whites to allow high levels of Oriental immigration. Orientals have different group interests than whites. Orientals want more Oriental immigration. Orientals occupy desirable jobs and spots at universities.

            I think the culture should be changed so that interracial mixing is discouraged, especially with low IQ minorities. At the very least this tends to undermine the cohesiveness of the white population, which will lead to further demographic displacement.

          • Sam

            I’ll explain it to you in terms you can understand John.

            Say that in 1965, the Japanese government decided on an immigration policy that would open the floodgates to anyone and everyone. It was wildly unpopular amongst the common people, but the elites, knowing it would benefit them either through votes or profit, voted almost unanimously for it. Throughout the next 50 years, Japan goes from 99.9% Japanese to 65% Japanese, with no end in sight. By 2060, the Japanese people would be a minority in the land the nation their ancestors created, all through a policy that the vast majority of the citizenship did not support.

            This is the scenario that every European (I include the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand in this) nation is facing/has faced: A small group of elites at the top pushing forth an immigration policy that the vast majority of the people do not want. White Americans – although this is stronger in Europe – deserve to live in the United States because the United States was created for them, just like Japan was created for the Japanese.

            What this site is about – and its not just about “race realism” as you proclaim falsely – is preservation of culture, specifically white American culture and more broadly the individual European cultures. Its not about “Who is smartest at this, who is best at this”. In a sense, its about diversity on a global scale: Each culture should be able to thrive and grow on its own. What you want to see is the death of Japan, the death of Sweden, the death of Germany, etc. You want them to just become accented versions of the United States, where we can obviously see that multiculturalism creates nothing but problems. So why do you want that?

            Furthermore, if you love Asian culture so much, you should – as many have suggested – move to an Asian country. Why don’t you? I know plenty of people who work abroad in Asian countries, so what is your excuse?

            Finally, John, I hope your daughter decides to marry a black man some day. We will see your liberalism put to the test, knowing how “racist” you are against that particular group of people.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            He won’t mind if only it is an intelligent black man.

          • Antipodean WN

            Please explain why the growing number of Americans who choose to marry inter racially should not be able to.

            Simple. Because every multiracial person represents the evolutionary dead-end of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years of separate evolution.
            If you love white civilization you have to people a country with white people. Note half whites.

            I don’t want to live in a half-white civilization. I want to live in a white civilization.

            Losing 50% is a bloody rip-off.

          • JohnEngelman

            Throughout human evolution, when two sub races inter acted they inter bred.

            Miscegenation has been accelerating since the Age of Discovery.

            Miscegenation is beneficial for human evolution. The good genes are perpetuated. The bad genes are bred out of the population.

            It does not matter what you want, Antipodean WN. The amalgamation of the races into one hybrid race is inevitable. There is no point in trying to stop it, and no rational reason.

            Besides, Antipodean WN, who are you to tell people who they can’t get married to?

          • I’m already 3/16 Amerind. You wouldn’t want me with your sister or your daughter, so what you lost is really only 13/32nds in my case, and I’m still your ally.

          • People who are pure White and without serious genetic defects should only breed among themselves. I don’t care what the rest of the world does.

          • IstvanIN

            Whites deserve to live in the US because people of European descent built this country.

          • I’ll do it. Whites and a very few civilized Amerinds built this nation.

          • 1. If the White race goes extinct, we’ll never have another Leonardo Da Vinci, another Nikola Tesla, another Isaac Newton, or another Thomas Edison.

            2. Miscegenation produces unhealthy offspring, physically and mentally.

            3. Their offspring will be a threat to the racial purity of the race of round faced, squinty eyed, yellow skinned… Hey Johnny, pull your pants back up!

          • emiledurk16

            “If anyone has the right to claim America as their own it is American Indians.”

            Well except it wasn’t America then, and the concept of rights is an abstraction at best. The land was conquered and developed, fortunately for us (current conditions notwithstanding).

            The Milosians I know felt the same sentiment towards their Athenian counterparts, with their arguments falling on deaf ears.

            Might might not make right, but it can, and I suppose should, conquer and tame a land.

            “Orientals tend to be more intelligent than white Gentiles. They also tend to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy. That is why they are present in large numbers at America’s most prestigious universities and corporations.

            I’m aware of the IQ results showing Asians slightly ahead, and yet they flock to American universities as opposed to the Asiatic schools?

            “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.”

            I would humbly disagree with the learned Mr. Hoffer and his “Enlightenment” notion towards individualism; for, IMO, the more excellent a man the more he embraces himself and his race, which gave him his genetic excellence.

          • OlderWoman

            ‘It is also why I admire them.’

            Don’t you mean to say “It is also why I am obsessed with them?’

          • WR_the_realist

            I would say that it is Antipodean WN who is “obsessed” with Asians, not John Engleman. I’d like kids who look like me. So I’d prefer to marry a white woman. But when I learn about some intellectual accomplishment that wasn’t done by a white person, it was almost always done by an Asian person. If Chinese people move into my neighborhood I won’t have to worry that crime will go up, or that the schools will get worse. There may be some cultural conflicts, but then, there can be cultural conflicts between Irish and Italians.

          • Martel

            The US Chinese have chosen sides, and they have not chosen us.

          • Neither do us excellent ‘breeds.

          • You’re just trying to justify your (admitted) fetish for Asian women. Maybe if you weren’t a pervert you’d actually care about the survival of your own people.

          • proudwhitegirl

            The “American Indians” are asians that came over from Mongolia and thereabouts. They are native to East Asia. Which is probably why you admire them so much.
            Also, your stamp of approval for what excellent whites are is about as relevant to me as a bantu’s idea of what an excellent white is. You are a troll that is determined to take every subject and turn it around to make it about asians and jews being superior. There is something deeply wrong with you. Please seek professional help.

        • Sick of it

          Wolves can make for good pets if raised from birth properly. You can count on them far more than non-whites, who will turn on you, despite past friendships etc., at the drop of a hat.

          • Antipodean WN


      • Antipodean WN

        So Amren has a self-declared Asiaphile to police this site?

        • Bo_Sears

          It’s probably not fair to blame Amren for Engelman, but his role is to distract legitimate discourse. At Resisting Defamation, we read him to see what the other side is thinking, but not to regard his positions close enough to ours to make it worthwhile to debate him. His arguments slide around the discourse instead of allowing point-by-point comparison. So he’s not a valid debate partner, but he is a very valid teacher in the ways of distraction…a skill valued highly on the other side.

          Every minute you debate his wobbly positions is a minute you will never regain in your life.

          • Antipodean WN

            Amren would not share the blame if Engelman was just a regular poster like you and I.

            However, the fact that he gets to write a lead article on this website means that Amren approves of his views – at least to some extent.

          • proudwhitegirl

            Thank you, brother. You said it perfectly.

          • JohnEngelman

            In other words you cannot refute my arguments.

    • WR_the_realist

      I presume you feel the same way about Michael Christopher Scott. The above post shows why I consider myself to be a race realist, not a white nationalist. I’m not going to tell a man that he can’t marry the woman he loves. If he wants to marry a black woman I would recommend that he take a very close look at her family, to be sure he knows what he’s getting into.

      • Antipodean WN

        Scott is of mixed race himself. I could not care less who he marries.

        • WR_the_realist

          Well, apparently you’d have wanted some of Scott’s ancestors to be murdered too, whichever ones married an American Indian.

          • Antipodean WN

            Let’s keep things simple. Whites should marry whites and have white babies.

        • Surely even you wouldn’t want me fathering children with a black gal. I know I couldn’t do it.

  • scutum1

    Please google “American Freedom Party”. This looks like it may be a viable alternative to the Soviet style, one party Democrat-Republican establishment that is presently in charge of our government. I was briefly interested in the Libertarian party but their open borders, cheap labor policies have turned me off completely. We need to re-establish our industrial base, and if we must engage in mercantilist policies to achieve this, so be it.

  • Hal K

    Asians earn “desirable jobs and spots at universities.”

    If you believe in group differences then the term “occupy” is just as valid. The fact is they take these spots and whites would be better off without them. Whites don’t need Orientals to take all the best scientific/technical positions. Whites did just fine without them. Similarly, the high verbal IQ and in-group loyalty of Jews allows them to occupy many of the top spots in our institutions, but just because they occupy these spots using their own strengths that doesn’t mean this is good for non-Jewish whites.

  • Antipodean WN

    Well there is nothing stopping you from divorcing your Asian wife and encouraging her to return to her homeland. If you have mixed race kids they can also go back. They will be OK. I have heard mixed race individuals do well in Asia – the Orientals love their features.

    Once you do the above, you can be one of us.

    • I wouldn’t want him do do these things, and I wouldn’t want to be one of “you” under any circumstances.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Sailer writes intelligently on an extraordinary range of realities associated with the concept of “human bio-diversity.” His election theories/strategies are a small part of those writings.

    More importantly, he has exactly the right enemies, you and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Google, for example, the SPLC report, “Extremist Steve Sailer is Source for CNN’s ‘Black in America’ Series”.

  • Funruffian

    This is our dilemma. We don’t have a crystal clear outline of who our allies or potential allies are. Jared Taylor thought it was futile for Republicans to reach out to Latino voters to gain favor and allies. Since we cannot reverse the clock this late in the game, appealing to Latinos may be our only hope. We cannot rely on Gays since they are largely liberal and Anti-White. There are conservatives who profess to be ant-racist, and perhaps they fail to fully understand race realism.

  • Dunnyveg

    I’m afraid I’m going to have to side with Devlin on this one. The problem with the modern conservative movement–or what I’ve seen termed Conservatism Inc.–is that it is more liberal than conservative. And the Republican Party, which is now, and always has been, a right-liberal party, is the biggest poison pill of them all. Liberalism needs to be thoroughly exorcised out of the Western consciousness before it completely destroys us, and there is no better place to begin than the so-called conservative movement.

    Finally, I would add that from reading Mr. Devlin’s piece carefully a second time, nowhere does he give me the impression he wants other than corrupted institutions to die, and not the people in them.

    • evilsandmich

      I think the point might be that at least there’s a possibility of ‘flipping’ people in the GOP; quite a bit less likely (though not unheard of) with the DNC. I’ll say that both sides make valid points and I don’t know what to make of it myself.

      • Dunnyveg

        Taylor is right that these people are the stock from which racially sane policies must be constructed. But, again, not before liberalism is thoroughly exorcised away.

        The admixture of liberalism with conservatism is actually as old as the republic itself, and explains why both hard liberals and conservatives can come up with appropriate quotes from the founders to buttress their positions. This admixture of liberalism and conservatism is what Ralph Waldo Emerson called double consciousness, or race versus rights. And it should be no mystery which side of the “race versus rights” conflict we should be on.

  • IstvanIN

    All non-white immigration needs to be banned. Non-whites should be encouraged to emigrate.

    • Antipodean WN

      Agreed. Non-whites including Derbyshire’s family. He can go himself as well if he will miss them so much.

  • IstvanIN

    In response to all of you criticizing John Derbyshire and Michael Scott: in a mixed-race society miscegenation is going to occur. Sometimes two people meet and hit it off. It isn’t always about looks. Every Oriental woman who marries a White man is not a schemer. Not every White man who marries an Oriental women is a loser. Sometimes people get married for love and compatibility. It happens and it doesn’t make the people involved bad. Nor does it automatically invalidate all their statements. In a generally homogenous society mixed-marriages would be rare and of little consequence.

    What makes it bad is the fact that White societies are no longer homogenous. Japan has mixed-race marriages, but there is little danger to the Japanese being overwhelmed by half-breed Japanese because of the rarity of such unions. We, on the other hand, do face being subsumed by other races.

    As for John Engleman, he should be banned. While I am loathe to label someone as a “troll”, especially since I have my own liberal leanings (yes, there are WN liberals), he is obviously against EVERYTHING we believe in. He treats human being the same as motorcars: you should buy a Ford because it is more reliable than a Dodge. What he falls to see is that we are living creatures, and as such we want to survive. We are not widgets than are completely fungible. I, and many of us here, would still want our people to survive, even if we were the dumbest and least creative people on earth. Should pygmies voluntarily stop having baby pygmies because they are an archaic human form and the Chinese are smarter and more advanced? I would say not. We deserve to survive just as much as any endangered species. And that is what we are, an endangered species.

    • Epiminondas

      Engelman is a gentile-hating Jew. I’ve met many, many just like him. They are a vengeful lot. Not all Jews display such rage and hate. But many do. Just ignore Engelman but let him know we’re on to his “final solution” for the European race.

      • IstvanIN

        Funny thing is, without Gentiles, in particular the British, there would be no Israel for him and his people.

    • I honestly suspect Mr. Engelman is at some sort of crisis point in his life. He says he honestly loved some Chinese women, but never married any of them. That’s really sad. He liked them enough but probably never put his butt on the line and said “I love you. Will you marry me?” He has recently been talking online with Tim Wise, who is just as vile as the rest of us would have expected. He wanted something different out of Wise, and if he’d put that much trouble into a relationship with one of his Chinese friends, he’d be a grandfather today.

      Sayaka and I met in Kyoto when she was separated from her school trip in 1994. She was 13 and trusted me BECAUSE I look white, rather than in spite of it. We got her hooked back up with her school group an a few hours. She wrote to me the whole time I was locked up in 2000-2003. You can’t beat that. In our case, Sayaka said “I love you”. My reply was “Will you marry me?” We’ve been married seven years.

      John could have done something like this. He’d probably be happier today if he had.

      • IstvanIN

        A childless bachelor facing the end alone. Sad.

  • Are you divorced yet? lol

  • Epiminondas

    As long as the Republican party is dominated by the moneyed interests of the old yankee families like the Rockefellers, nothing can be done. They own the store.

  • Carney3

    Brilliant afterword by Taylor.

  • Poor God is called onto all sides of every conflict.

  • Mergatroyd

    They will flee to Israel after the ugly transformation takes place.

    • Jacobite2

      I don’t think so. If Israel didn’t burst at the seams with new immigrants after WW II, I see nothing coming up that would equal that as an emmigration spur. And Israel has many enemies from among the Jewish population around the world. Many, many Jews are Leftists first, last, and always. And that’s why they have problems living in European societies. 1) Leftism is, and is perceived to be, the relentless enemy of any society its’ adherents happen to live in. 2) Jews are, have been, and are perceived to be, predominantly Leftists, and leading lights among Leftists at that. 3) Normal humans are social animals and will resist efforts to destroy their societies. 4) Jews, being the perceived enemies of existing societies, will be resisted by normal members of those societies — to whatever extent neccessary. Take the ACLU, for example. Please.

  • Hal K

    Nonwhites are not going to voluntarily give up something that benefits their own groups. As long as whites are the only group that doesn’t advocate for its own interests explicitly the status quo will continue.

  • Antipodean WN

    You are completely off-base with your comments.

    Interracial marriage was seen as wrong right up to the 1960s and their were laws against it throughout the US. That was while the US was >95% white.

    Just like gay marriage is wrong and paedophilia is wrong, interracial marriage is also wrong, whether between a white man and an oriental women, or a white woman and a black man.

    We should oppose interracial marriage regardless of the number of non-whites in the West.

    And by keeping up our opposition to it, we create a culture and maintain a society that would never ever roll over and accept non-white immigration in the first place.

    By tolerating interracial marriage, you are on the slippery slope to ‘tolerating’ non-white immigration, civil rights, affirmative action etc.

    • JohnEngelman

      We should oppose interracial marriage regardless of the number of non-whites in the West.

      – Antipodean WN

      The vast majority of Americans favor interracial marriage. A growing minority of Americans practice interracial marriage. How do you intend to oppose them?

      • Antipodean WN

        The ‘vast majority’ of Americans are hopeless racial egalitarians.

        Does that mean then that Amren should close down?

        • JohnEngelman

          No of course not. Nevertheless, you have no right to force your will on the vast majority of Americans.

          • Antipodean WN

            Who said about ‘forcing’ my will on Americans (actually I’m located in Sydney, Australia). I’m just presenting my point of view.

            I believe that interracial marriage in any form involving whites is an abomination. Who non-whites marry is none of my concern – as long as it is not with whites.

            Is that OK? Am I allowed to say that, Mr Asiaphile?

          • JohnEngelman

            Of course, and I am allowed to disagree.

            In this dispute your opinion and mine are facts about each of us, rather than truths about the universe.

            I am more interested in arguments where facts and logic matter, and were decisive victories are possible.

  • QuinnTheEskimo9

    And, the military weaponry to defend it with deadly force.

  • I still think the conservative movement should die.

  • Exactly. The wolf in sheeps clothing is always more dangerous than the wolf who is open about his intentions to devour you. Tim Wise is utterly discredited in the minds of White American conservatives. Conservatism Inc? Not so much.

    It’s no coincidence that the ONLY major accomplishment of the conservative movement over the last 30 years has been tax cuts.

  • proudwhitegirl

    I see. So the offspring of your tryst with a non-white is what? A half-breed and a non-white. How are you doing anything other than contributing to our genocide? How dense and ridiculous these miscegenists are with their rabid illogical beliefs. Such hypocrites. They cry about how the white man is treated and then turn around and contribute to our demise.

  • proudwhitegirl

    We should absolutely not cheer white women committing miscegeny with non-whites, nor should we condone it when white males commit miscegeny with non-whites. Ever.

  • Agree with the above comment. Ten years ago I was a conservative with the vague notion that somehow the GOP was more closely aligned to free choice and individual responsibility. However, I really could not debate or clearly outline what I believed at the time.

    I have come to be more politically active with the GOP but became concerned about “demographic trends” thru reading history as a hobby. This led me to further research in this area and eventually to finding Amren. I really see not a competition, as membership in these groups (AmRen & GOP) is not mutually exclusive but see the GOP more as a pool which has a varying amount of overlap. I believe that merely being a Republican at this time automatically makes one subject to being labelled “a racist”. Thus many GOPers may already feel somewhat outcast from “proper society”.

    I’d guess that further evolution in policy may mirror what happened to US parties around the time of the US Civil War. Starting in the 1840’s there was a transformation in the political parties. The Whigs split with the “Cotton Whigs” eventually drifting into the Democrats and Northern Whigs moving into Republicans.

    Thus I forsee an education campaign, largely directed towards GOPers but also towards thinking Democrats as a useful policy. I don’t believe that an ecumenical policy is good at this time as it is important to have a moral basis but neither do I think it’s wise to exclude white groups on the basis of religion or some other traits.

    Despite having some freedom at work, I too don’t state in public what all my beliefs are. Also in a non-sequitor, I’ve found Mr. Derbyshire’s essay on “the talk” not to deviate from what I think is statistically evident and will probably be similar to what I discuss with my little one when he gets older.

  • Analitykiem Zycia

    Mr. Taylor is a true champion of our times. It’s wonderful to notice that Mr. Derbyshire has joined him in advancing open communique. When time permits Derbyshire’s recent labour will be purchased. There’s the hope that Taylor’s Paved With Good Intentions will go through another reprint. Should EuroMan survive Taylor’s noted work will become a classic. Sto Lat (may he live a 100 yrs.) to Mr. taylor.

  • Philo Vaihinger

    JT, if there is one book to read or one string of essays that encapsulate your vision of “the truth about race” – no doubt actually many truths – please point it out. Thanks.