Sunday, January 14, 2018

The unbirth of a nation

++Disclaimer++The 2015 data assigns a racial/ethnic classification to 99.7% of all recorded births, while the 2016 data only assigns one to 97.0% of all recorded births. I am unsure why the discrepancy is so large between the two years, but it creates the appearance of a larger decline in births by race/ethnicity across the board than actually exists in terms of total births. There was a 0.9% decline in the absolute number of births between 2015 and 2016.

---

The following table and graph show the change in non-Hispanic white births from 2015 to 2016, by state. Mixed-race births are not included in these counts:

State%▲
1) District of Columbia+3.1
2) Maine(0.6)
3) Mississippi(1.2)
4) New Jersey(1.5)
5) Utah(1.8)
6) Michigan(1.9)
7) North Carolina(2.0)
8) Wisconsin(2.1)
9) Iowa(2.1)
10) Delaware(2.3)
11) Indiana(2.3)
12) Minnesota(2.3)
13) Nebraska(2.4)
14) New Hampshire(2.5)
15) South Dakota(2.5)
16) Alabama(2.5)
17) Kentucky(2.6)
18) Louisiana(2.9)
19) Massachusetts(2.9)
20) Tennessee(2.9)
21) South Carolina(2.9)
22) New York(2.9)
23) Missouri(2.9)
24) Idaho(3.0)
25) Colorado(3.0)
26) Vermont(3.0)
27) Arkansas(3.1)
28) Florida(3.2)
29) Ohio(3.2)
30) Oregon(3.3)
31) New Mexico(3.4)
32) North Dakota(3.5)
United States(3.5)
33) Maryland(3.5)
34) Washington(3.6)
35) Illinois(3.7)
36) Georgia(3.9)
37) Virginia(3.9)
38) Pennsylvania(4.0)
39) Connecticut(4.2)
40) Kansas(4.6)
41) Texas(4.7)
42) Arizona(4.7)
43) Montana(5.0)
44) Rhode Island(5.2)
45) West Virginia(5.4)
46) California(6.3)
47) Nevada(6.8)
48) Wyoming(7.0)
49) Oklahoma(8.3)
50) Alaska(11.5)
51) Hawaii(23.9)


Only the Imperial Capital saw more white babies in 2016 than in 2015. The South and Upper Midwest are doing relatively well holding their own. The Mountain and Pacific time zones are in rough shape, with Mormon Utah managing only to be a modest exception. The writing is on the wall for Arizona and then for Texas, states Trump won by 3 points and 9 points, respectively. The country's two non-contiguous states are in free fall.

As the Derb is fond of saying, numbers are of the essence. We can't rebuild our civilization with someone else's babies. If the trend swings positive in 2017--the data will be released in late Spring or early Summer--Trump will be the greatest president since at least Dwight Eisenhower.

Next we'll look at non-whites. Decline is everywhere.

40 comments:

IHTG said...

Plan A: Reverse white decline

Plan B: Secession/dissolution

Here's my question. Assuming both of these fail, what's Plan C?

IHTG said...

I guess I'll elaborate on my own thoughts.

Even in a future majority non-white America, there will still remain vast areas of the country that are overwhelmingly white. Assuming the United States government continues to exist, the objective of a practical right-wing politics will be to seek out an accommodation that allows those areas to continue to thrive relatively unmolested. This is not as impossible as one might think. Remember even Brazil has majority white locales. Eventually, as white liberalism dies out and non-white birthrates drop down to white levels, some sort of transactional conservative majority coalition (which would include non-white groups) might yet re-emerge. It won't be the America your parents grew up in, but it doesn't need to be an SJW-run strip mall either.

Name said...

Just look at Alaska.
It clearly shows the different mindset of the European man:
1. Europeans practise Colonisation. They leave a Metropolis and go to the wilderness, wastelands, badlands, whatever to make Civilisation there. The Indo-Europeans did that, the Greeks did that, the Romans did that, the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, British, French, Russian, etc.

In contrast with the non-European mindset:
2. They stay still in a mega-Metropolis (Asiatic model of a few gigantic cities, instead of many small ones) and they only think in concentrating into them to leech. They leave the wilderness, the wastelands and badlands to go to the cities, they're not producers of anything but consumers of the fruits of others. This is Migration.

I'll not be surprised if Alaska changes from being an undesirable cold and harsh place to a highly developed place in the future. And all of a sudden, "everyone" wants to move there.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

Getting as close to a sort of federalist regionalism as is possible, basically what is articulated as plan C in your second post. From there, await singularity/transhumanism.

Name,

No one is moving there now, though that could change. It's been in the back pocket of the Epigones for years.

Jim Bowery said...

IHTG,apparently you are unaware of how things go when, unlike Brazil, there is an "aggrieved" racial takeover from whites as happened in Rhodesia and South Africa. Sure, whites can flee to the countryside and sure they'll not _all_ be hung upside down, their eyelids cut off and left to bleed slowly to death as their wives and daughters are raped and killed as the last thing they see in this world -- at least not all at once. In particular, if you are rich and/or Jewish you'll probably be able to make out OK and, after all, isn't that eugenics at work on the white population?

Generation Zyklon, indeed.

MattinLA said...

So much for the typical Alt-Right support for birth control/abortion. The eugenics agenda has completely backfired on the white race, euthanizing an entire generation and paving the road to extinction.

Sid said...

IHTG,

If the Democrats become the permanent ruling party, I expect the SWPLs will eventually get fed up with black misrule and will apply a "superdelegate" policy for the general electorate.

MattinLA,

It's interesting to look back at the late 19th and early 20th century eugenicists from our vantage point. Most notably, their chief concern was about low IQ whites outbreeding high IQ ones. The idea that Britain would one day be flooded with Africans and Pakistanis would have seemed ludicrous to Galton.

seekerofthetruth24 said...

IHTG
What I fear is “no-plan” C.
1. White country areas secede and organise into self-sufficient armed enclaves, perhaps in a loose trading federation. I would hope that skin color would matter less than willingness to work, cooperate and contribute, but human nature and experience lead me to doubt this.
2. City areas left alone. There will be starvation, gang warfare and all the horrors of third world anarchy. Infant mortality will rise and the populations decline and then collapse.
3. The rest of the world may take advantage of the weakness to invade, but may all be in a similar situation.
I wish I could write – I feel a novel coming on!

Anonymous said...

I'm going to stop reading your blog if you post something like this again. You're either purposely misleading your readers, of you're getting lazy about what you post. According to this data that you linked from the CDC:

—The number of births where the race is not stated shot up from 10,765 (0.3%) in 2015, to 98,882 (2.5%) in 2016. This is on top of a decline of 37,388 (a decline of .94%) in the total number of births. So yes, White births declined by 75,093 (a decline of 3.53%) from 2015 to 2016. But Black births declined by 31,267 (a decline of 5.31%).

—As a percentage of births where the race was recorded, non-Hispanic whites were 53.7% of births in both 2015 and 2016.

—Black births declined from 14.8% to 14.6% when only births were the race is stated are counted, or from 14.9% to 14.2% when all births are counted.



Anonymous said...

Make this post again showing the decline in the number of black births!

Don't make your readers pessimistic just because the number of births where the race is unstated shot up by 90,000!

Anonymous said...

Since the total number of births declined by .94%, and the total number of births were the race was stated 2.55, the recorded number of births to non-Hispanic whites should have declined by 3.49% (0.94 + 2.55) all else being equal.

And do you know what, the decline in the number of white births from 2015 to 2016 was a decline of 3.53%!

So, if anything, births at the top of your chart like Maine and Mississippi saw a significant INCREASE in the percentage of white births.

But yeah, Hawaii is definitely no longer part of heritage America.

IHTG said...

Jim Bowery: I think there's a strong case to be made that "racial grievance" among non-black minorities will die along with white liberalism.

Anonymous said...

I take it AE that you think Eisenhower was a greater President than Reagan. Will admit that he was certainly better on immigration.

Anonymous said...

I don't take anything Derb says seriously and neither should you, audacious.

He is married to a colored woman and has kids with her.

Why is it that self-described "alt-right" or "alt-lite" losers have just as many interracial relationships as white liberals? At least the liberals are being consistent.

Jim Bowery said...

Anon asks: Why is it that self-described "alt-right" or "alt-lite" losers have just as many interracial relationships as white liberals? At least the liberals are being consistent.

White males marrying non-white females are actually more likely to openly participate in race realism than are white males marrying white females. The reason? Think about if for a minute.

Jim Bowery said...

IHTG: You underestimate the power of mythic narrative. Media and academia dominated by diaspora Jews has created a new universalist religion to replace JudeoChristianity.
This Golem will not die easily after it has dispossessed whites of all of their governments. So long as there is land to be acquired from whites, and so long as hot battle doesn't break out, the narratives of "racial grievance" will be used by all non-whites to gain more territory in the womb war that _is_ "civilization".

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG/Jim,

I'm not confident in my ability to augur what a majority non-white future portends, but it could be South African bad and, at best, it'll be like Brazil, with a lot of social tension, parallel societies, low social trust, corruption, etc. Why take the chance?

Anon,

Ha, I'm working on a post that shows the exact same thing with non-white births. I started working on it as soon as I finished this one. Initially it was my intention to include both in the same post but I ran out of time (it's pretty tedious going) because I have two little white kids of my own. You don't have to believe me--if I was in your presumably hostile shoes, I probably wouldn't believe me, either--but it's the truth.

Anon wrt to presidents,

Yeah, for the reason you acknowledge. Everything is downstream of immigration, so the president who is better on immigration is the better president in my assessment.

Anon,

That's absurd. He's dealt with the issue in detail at VDare. You don't have to find his life choices optimal to appreciate his voluminous intellectual and philosophical contributions to thinking about HBD.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Also, I'm relatively optimistic wrt white reproduction.

IHTG said...


At best? Well, I'd say at theoretical best it could be like Chile.

But yes, of course it's not something that anybody should be anticipating or working towards.

You might think that me saying that a post-white US could be a decent enough place to live in is demoralizing, that it'll make your people fight less hard against their decline. But the other way of looking at it as a statement that the current social justice-oriented ideological regime isn't as resilient as you think, that it can be defeated, that it's destined to be defeated. If it was as mythic and religious as Jim thinks, Donald Trump would not be president today. So never lose hope.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

Touche, although Chile is really white, whiter than the US is presently.

Well said. It's easy to get impatient, but consider how much different the landscape is in 2018 compared to 2008. A lot has changed in a decade.

Jim Bowery said...

But the other way of looking at it as a statement that the current social justice-oriented ideological regime isn't as resilient as you think, that it can be defeated, that it's destined to be defeated.

The social justice-oriented ideological regime isn't at all resilient once you start looking at the physical infrastructure it requires.

What you're doing IHTG, isn't pointing out that fragility but pointing _away_ from it.

You're world view is destined to be defeated and therefore so is the social justice-oriented ideological regime.

All it takes is a clearly stated plausible promise to trigger an open source insurgency that will take it down in a matter of months.

That plausible promise can be a narrative of the original intent of the US Constitution with the hindsight of nearly a quarter millennium.

That's what I've been working on.

Jim Bowery said...

how much different the landscape is in 2018 compared to 2008. A lot has changed in a decade.

Hope for Change!

Yeah there certainly was a lot of change...

Think about what would have happened had Trump not run. Was that inevitable or was it merely a grace period?

Random Dude on the Internet said...

As I've mentioned before, I know of a lot more white married couples having children in the last year. Anecdotal evidence but there were a lot of girls at my work who were pregnant with their second or third child. I don't think Trump had anything to do with it but there is definitely an attitude adjustment where it seemed like the stars had to align in just the right way before you could afford to raise children. I think it's setting in that there is no perfect time and that the longer you wait, the more health complications that arise. Again, anecdotal references that mean nothing but it was very interesting to see how almost all of the women in their 20s where I work had baby bumps last year.

Yeah non-white births seem to be dropping faster than before. There has been low key articles written about the "Hispanic Baby Bust": https://www.theglobalist.com/hispanic-baby-bust-reshape-united-states-population-growth/

If Trump keeps rescinding plans like DACA and TPS, the tipping point will probably get shifted down a couple of decades but it will still happen. It will have to be a combination of tough immigration enforcement and incentives for families (most of which are still white) to have more children.

Jim Bowery said...

I don't think Trump had anything to do with it

What does the GSS say about the contributing factors to white TFR?

Quite a while ago, I put together a qualitative stock and flow diagram of white TFR and posited related causal factors such as stress hormones from the two income trap and white male mortality rate. It would be productive to see others put up their diagrams as well as to figure out if there are proxy measures in the GSS, US census, etc. that can test those models.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

I don't buy that Hillary would've been better because she would have been an accelerationist. Trump is bringing plenty of cultural things to a head. There is no going back from the Trump presidency.

Wrt white fertility, it's something I need to look at. Simple regression analysis is easy to do. I'll take a look, thanks.

Random Dude,

I sense the same thing. That's not enough to assume it's the case, of course, and it would be remarkable if an uptick is detectable. That said, I wouldn't be entirely shocked to see it.

Feryl said...

" Media and academia dominated by diaspora Jews has created a new universalist religion to replace JudeoChristianity. "

Hmmm. There are far more Jews in Russia than there are in Sweden. Before WW2, there was often open and sanctioned animosity/segregation between Jewish ethnic groups (e.g., Russian and German Jews). You might be surprised at just how few Jews there are in most countries, including some European countries. Jews are too few in number to be held responsible for the crap that we do to ourselves.

Prior to WW2 ending, Lost and GI Generation people took it for granted that nations were intended for particular ethnic groups, and what's more, "multi-ethnic" societies were something of a misnomer given that typically state and community sanctioned segregation existed in America and most other countries outside of Latin America.

The horrors of WW2 (many of them perpetrated at the behest of Lost Gen leaders) convinced GIs and Silents that ethnic chauvinism/isolationism was dangerous and antithetical to human decency and progress. It just so happens that the worst excesses came out of ideology associated with Teutonic founded countries (America and Scandinavia in particular). And that's why these countries were so quick to abolish themselves, turn their back on their history, after WW2. I should add the caveat that atrocities committed by commies and Asians have been memory holed in the West because Stalin was our buddy during WW2 and because self-hating whites beat themselves up while letting still ethno centric Asians off the hook.

Religious zeal was actually quite weak in Teutonic founded countries from about circa 1900-1960. Those were periods of rapidly growing literacy/education, industrialization, and the secularizing of political rhetoric (Jim, again you might be surprised at just how rarely God was adamantly invoked after Reconstruction and before the 1960's). It was Boomers who insisted on public expressions of intense religiosity in the 60's and beyond, with the bleak ramifications of over zealous sanctimony still visible. Most generations believe that religion is intensely personal and should not form the foundation of ideology, or moral judgement. Per Strauss and Howe, it's "prophet" generations who insist on injecting spiritual stuff into everything, often to the annoyance of other generations.

Audacious Epigone said...

atrocities committed by commies and Asians have been memory holed in the West because Stalin was our buddy during WW2 and because self-hating whites beat themselves up while letting still ethno centric Asians off the hook.

A nation has to put itself on the hook. If it refuses to string itself up, it doesn't have much to worry about. There's a blatantly obvious lesson there for Western countries.

Feryl said...

" I know of a lot more white married couples having children in the last year."

Natalism tends to correlate with the national mood, which generally is more positive under a Republican (unless said Republican has recently screwed the pooch, e.g. Nixon lying, "Read my lips" for G. Bush, and Yellow Cake for G.W. Bush). High birth rates seem to occur when two things happen: 1)People feel good, 2)The economy has picked up. So the early 1950's, the mid 1980's, and the early 2000's, were periods of optimism that kicked off higher birth rates which then peter out when a Dem is elected president and/or the economy declines.

Note also that the above mentioned Republican mistakes invariably lead to Dems being elected in subsequent elections (Carter in '76, Clinton in '92, Obama in '08). Under these Dem presidencies, we take a look in the mirror, don't see a lot to like, and are discouraged from having kids. Nihilism in pop culture spikes after several years of a Dem president (e.g., the late 60's, the late 70's, and the mid'90's), which parallels plummeting birth rates. During the all time peak of natalist culture (the late 1980's and very early 90's), birth rates for all ethnic groups surged, only to be headed off by the Clinton regime several years later, under which animal rights took precedence over fetus rights. White births plateaued in the 90's, while black/Hispanic/Asians births fell quite a bit in the 90's.

One of the funny things about the Current Year is how over optimistic many people are starting to get (see: the Stock Market bubble), whether it makes any sense or not, because after 5-8 of a Dem president we all want to blast off the whiny and overly analytical mood that occurs under a Democrat.

Jorge Bush presided over a ludicrous pandering economic/political scheme, which goosed Hispanic birth rates in the 2000's.

Ron Pavellas said...

If we could import more immigrants from European-culture countries, it might help, but...
https://pavellas.com/2016/05/13/where-have-the-new-citizens-to-the-usa-come-from/

Peter Johnson said...

Could you do the same analysis for African-American births? Hispanic might be less interesting, due to big immigration effects, but that would also be interesting. Perhaps the three columns could be lined up in one table?

Thanks for the clear and thoughtful data analysis.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

I read the Derb article you talked about. It essentially boiled down to Derb saying "I can have an interracial marriage but other people should not, because interracial marriage is ok as long as it is below x% of all marriages".

Even Jared Taylor wrote his own article in response to Derb's article. Taylor is a twat but at least he displays logical consistency. Here is his argument against Derb: "John Derbyshire argues that, since only about 9 percent of whites marry out, there is no justification for anti-miscegenation laws. But this is a slippery slope. What percentage would justify proscription? Twenty-five percent? Fifty percent?"

If Derb can have an interracial marriage then so can everyone else. And it's not just him being like this. You know fully well that in your "alt-right"/"alt-lite" online communities there are SO many white men who have a relationship with a colored woman or used to have one. They do it at least as much as white liberals, perhaps a bit more so.

Ron Pavellas said...

Interracial marriages don't bother me as long as Western civilization's values are observed in the union and progeny, if any.

jnc said...

@Audacious Epigone said...

"Touche, although Chile is really white, whiter than the US is presently."

I'm Chilean and I can tell you it really isn't. Genetic studies (I'm at work and too lazy to find source, I might do it later if you are really interested) seem to indicate that roughly 40% of the descent of the population was of Amerindian origin, 55+% European, and the rest African.

US whites are near 100% European, and IIRC US Hispanics are not far off Chilean numbers in terms of European descent. Even US blacks are roughly 20% European.

Regarding life here, IHTG is right that it's not bad, that is assuming you have a reasonably high IQ and/or valuable marketable skills. On the other hand, given the low-ish average IQ, it's unlikely we'll ever get much further than where we are now (we can't really blame communism).

It should be noted, however, that there are several ongoing factors that are likely to affect the development and the general governance of the country in the years to come:
a.- Immigration: Traditionally we received a number of Peruvian immigrants who did "the jobs Chileans won't do" (don't get me started about how retarded that argument is in the local context -and political narrative- of the problem of high economic inequality and low educational levels/performance of the population). Their numbers were not that high (compared with Mexicans in the US), although every now and then there was virtue signaling in the news about the "racism" they suffered and how they "enriched" us (to be far their food is very good, though diminishing returns in that respect started kicking in long ago). Though they are racially distinct, overall they were fairly assimilable. But recently (7-10 years) we started getting high numbers of immigrants from other Latin American countries (Colombians, Dominicans, Ecuadorean), and since many of them are black we were further enriched by their presence and the virtue signaling from the press and political class increased significantly. With exceptions, they tend to be rather unskilled. During the last couple of years all this has been crowned by the arrival of *masses* of one-way tourists from Haiti an Venezuela, Haitians alone were over 50.000 a year and increasing (in a country with 1/20 the population than the US). Venezuelans are actually the best group of immigrants we get in significant numbers, they are fairly skilled and the girls are considerably more attractive than the local average, however, I do worry about that once the beachhead is established we'll star getting the lumpen-proletariat. Haitians, well ... I'll say for them that at least the do work (you can't live form welfare here, yet), but mostly as illegal street vendors and the most menial jobs. The press has been ecstatic, with constant reports about how they help the economy, how oppressed they are and the great "diversity" they bring. Needless to say this further depreciates the wages of unskilled, dilutes the already low human capital and takes us from a relatively homogenous country in terms of culture/identity to one enriched with victimology and ethnic pandering (I give it 10 years before we start getting high-crime ghettos, and 15 years before we start getting affirmative action). No one with any power dares to campaign against immigration.

b.- The other problem are the political changes. Basically the electorate has moved to the left. While "Chilezuela" was avoided in the last election, the "right wing" candidate won by campaigning like a left wing candidate of 10 years ago, both economically and socially, and basically vowed to defend most of the reforms of the previous left wing government. The political direction the country is moving is clearly not conductive to further economic growth, which during several years has been fairly low anyway.

DissidentRight said...

I don't take anything Derb says seriously and neither should you, audacious.

He is married to a colored woman and has kids with her.


Classic ad hominem attack.

I know it’s very hard for spergs & Alt-Retards to understand, but issuing general condemnations does not imply that one must personally disavow all violators and ignore their positive contributions. Cernovich and Milo are leading lights in the Alt Media, whether you like it or not. Didn’t your mother ever tell you, “If you have nothing nice to say, shut your damn mouth”?

There is absolutely nothing we can do about interracial marriage right now, besides issuing general warnings. Disavowing potential allies is a worthless maneuver.

Actually, there is one thing you can do about interracial marriage: marry an American girl and do your part to raise the birthrate.

Audacious Epigone said...

Peter,

Yeah, hoping to have it out tonight. Dealing with a hard drive crash and getting stuff moved over that wasn't in the cloud so not sure if that'll happen.

Anon,

If we're talking categorical imperatives, not having any children is worse than miscegenation. That, it seems to me, is the glaring problem with the Alt Right--and Heritage America more generally--at the moment. If you're 28, unmarried, and childless, casting aspersions on someone who has a genetic legacy, whatever that legacy, is misguided.

I'm with Taylor on this. It's suboptimal for children to be halflings who, when out with one parent or the other, are not obviously the children of said parent. There is reduced shared culture among extended families, etc. That said, people have certain proclivities, the mind wants what it wants, and people choose to act accordingly.

As for calling Jared Taylor a twat, it's highly unlikely anyone reading this (including you) has done 1/1000th of what he has for people of European ancestry. I don't police anything but the n-bomb here--because it draws censors--but that sort of petty insult reflects poorly on you.

Ron,

Separating genetics and values is difficult. Unnecessarily so, I think.

jnc,

Thanks, I was unaware. Doing a little digging, it looks like a genetic study in 2014 put it at not much over 50% European with most of the balance as Amerindian with a little African left over. If accurate, that makes Chile less European (though also less African) than the US.

The CIA fact book, in contrast, gives the impression that Chile is as white as Colorado.

jnc said...

@ae

Not that it matters much, but there a other studies that show a percentage o European descent that a bit higher. 60/40 with negligible amount of African (until the recent immigration wave, of course) is a good rule of thumb.

One thing Americans seem to always forget, is that the "one drop" rule that tends to be applied there is for the most part unique from the US, and quite damaging if you ask me since in the current context it facilitates the "flight from white" and gives room to ridiculous arguments about who is and isn't white from both right and left.

The numbers you see at the CIA factbook and other places are people who consider themselves white, in other words, people of majority European descent who by local standard "pass" as white. This is somewhat inflated by the fact that here being white is correlated with high status and therefore desirable, though given the impulse to copy the worst trends from the "developed world", this might start to change, but so far it hasn't. This also applies to Uruguay and Argentina, the numbers of 90%+ whites are not real, at least with regards to with the American criteria.

Feryl said...

"Cernovich and Milo are leading lights in the Alt Media"

Cernovich and Alex Jones were gold from 2015-early 2017. Lately it seems like Cernovich has been cajoled into going easier on the puppet masters who babysit Trump, possibly because Cernovich doesn't want to lose access to whatever sources he has left in the Trump regime (it looks like the people who used to feed him anti-globalist intel within the Trump White House have all been kicked out of the Trump regime). I haven't regularly kept up with Cernovich's Tweets since late summer/early fall of '17. Cernovich built up his "I tell it like it is" tough guy gimmick for several years, and then poof, he no longer calls out some of the globalists he used to call out.

At some point various people in our cultural/political-sphere get The Talk, and realize that if they continue to be too candid and irreverent then they'll be sent to cultural/intellectual Siberia where they can talk to a small(ish) cult audience who won't threaten The System. This is what's happened to Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire, neither of whom desire to be full-time journalists who regularly consult with insiders. Cernovich could go down that road if he didn't care about losing his insider sources (and/or getting his remaining sources in trouble, like he did with several former Trump admin sources who got booted partially for talking too much with Cernovich). With the slight exception of Pat Buchanan, paleo-con isolationist types are persona non grata to The System. In the later 1990's, guys like Peter Brimelow were swiftly ejected from "respectable" conservative circles for being too hostile to the NWO.

Alex Jones went all in on Trump in early-mid 2016, and it looks like feelings of nominal loyalty (and the sense that Trump might be flawed but he is the best we could get at this point) are causing him to do some spinning to make Trump look better than he is. Particularly WRT the economy.

It looks like Milo is driven by triggering the Left, more so than being a full fledged journalist. So he doesn't seem to have changed all that much. Since he's a goof, the Right establishment leaves him alone while the Left makes a big deal out of him.

Audacious Epigone said...

jnc,

That makes perfect sense. I'm embarrassed to say I've never given much thought to it. Thanks.

Corvinus said...

IHTG...

"Plan A: Reverse white decline. Plan B: Secession/dissolution. Here's my question. Assuming both of these fail, what's Plan C?"

Plan C--> Generation Z, generally inclusive, socially liberal, and ethnically diverse, gaining political traction, and secession/dissolution merely a pipe dream.

Name...

"It clearly shows the different mindset of the European man...In contrast with the non-European mindset."

Here is the reality. European and non-European men explored their world. They migrated to different areas of the globe to engage in colonization. There is observably no difference here. You are simply making a purposeful effort to distort this immutable truth.

DissidentRight...

"Actually, there is one thing you can do about interracial marriage: marry an American girl and do your part to raise the birthrate."

Today's American white men and women are generally unconcerned about white birthrates. They simply want to date, mate, and procreate with whom they believe is the best fit for them physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Conversation starters such as "What is your position on the white birth rate? Do you not believe that we whites must outbreed nonwhites lest we be overrun by darkie hordes?" are buzzkills. Now, more power to those whites who have this mentality and want to do their part to "preserve their race", but there is going to have to be a helluva indoctrination campaign by the Alt Right to move the needle.

Jim Bowery said...

I had said...
"Media and academia dominated by diaspora Jews has created a new universalist religion to replace JudeoChristianity. "

Feryl said...

"Hmmm. There are far more Jews in Russia than there are in Sweden. Before WW2, ... Jews are too few in number to be held responsible for the crap that we do to ourselves."

Sorry, Feryl -- I've run the numbers in a first-order causal structure analysis and Jews (more precisely, Jewish percent of whites) comes out on top in the US. You'd better do a lot better than pull out a few anecdotes as a critique of my inadequate disaggregation of "Jews" in a casual comment here if you want to invalidate my causal hypothesis -- a causal hypothesis that is certainly worthy of debunking as it is held by a large portion of a the Alt Right.

Run the numbers yourself and do so with more data points and measures than I did.

Then get back to me. Get to it. As you said to me: "You might be surprised."

The Post WW II world was dominated by the United States and the influence of the United States was far greater outside the Soviet bloc.

And the Post WW II United States causal structure was dominated by a zero-sum conflict between whites and Jews.

That's what the numbers say.

Feryl continues:

"It was Boomers who insisted on public expressions of intense religiosity in the 60's and beyond, with the bleak ramifications of over zealous sanctimony still visible."

"Boomers" like Hillary Clinton. Talk about inadequate disaggregation! Run the numbers...

"Most generations believe that religion is intensely personal and should not form the foundation of ideology, or moral judgement."

Most generations of whites are suffering from lower total fertility rate than are whites suffering from the JudeoChristian religious zeal.

Again, run the numbers as I've asked in my comment of 1/16/18, 7:39 AM