Friday, April 20, 2018

The Rainbow Nation goes dark

Racial population distributions in South Africa, by age cohort:





This data is from 2011. Farm murders have stepped up since then. So has black immigration into South Africa from other sub-Saharan African countries. White emigration from South Africa has increased, too. The demographic situation is thus even bleaker than the above graphs indicate.

The last civilizational light flickering on the southern end of the Dark Continent will be extinguished--the question is "when?", not "if?". Not long after that, the continent's young, exploding population will stampede north. Or, in what will be an ironic historical twist, sail west in tightly-packed ships as the trans-Atlantic 'refugee' invade commences.

China isn't going to stop it. The Han will manage the exodus--manage it away from the Orient and towards the Occident. Either the beleaguered remnants of heritage America forcefully reject the impending invasion or the Afrikaners' fate becomes our descendants' fate:


28 comments:

216 said...

The Boer, as did the Southern Californian many years later, proved unable to resist the call of cheap labor. And in doing so, both lost control of their own destiny.

Neither has yet raised up a Jabotinsky, and how many among them are willing to forego their upper middle class living standards?

Part of the explanation for the age disparity is the impact of HIV, many of the older generation died, while contraception and anti-retroviral drugs reduced spread in the young.

The blackpill is that most South African whites are still liberals with their head stuck in the sand. They cried uncle in the 80s when their sportsball was taken away. The income they spend on black domestic servants could easily furnish more Oranias for their co-ethnics reduced to squatter camps.

Jim Bowery said...

Ignorance of the network effect leads to a shift of the tax base off of liquid value of net assets -- most essentially farm land -- onto economic activities. Once that happens, it is only a matter of time before sons are replaced with de facto slaves as the labor source and the people die, having been sacrificed on the altar of Mammon.

Feryl said...

WRT modern medicine, food production, and aid (that's resource aid, not the disease AIDS), it's greatly swelling the natural limits to population previously imposed on Africa.

Africans don't belong in high density environments. They are very territorial, impulsive, and over sexualized. It's best for them to be living primitive lives as nomads or small village dwellers. Large populations of blacks having sex with each other, and then living long enough to pass infections on to others (including those from outside of Africa), is what gave us AIDS in the first place. The fast paced, high density, urban lifestyle is going to have awful effects on those with poor impulse control (blacks, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and drug addicts). When Europe began to heavily urbanize in the 1800's, newly discovered STDs were usually associated with "urban" homosexuals. In lower density environments, degenerates have a much harder time finding other degenerates. Degenerate in this case being someone highly likely to engage in frequent and unsafe sex. Better to diffuse their population over a larger area, or keep a lid on it in the first place (as we easily could do in Africa by slashing foreign aid and refusing to provide medical aid and facilities.).

And of course, urbanization worsens the worst proclivities of those with poor impulse control. Restrained and under-sexualized Asians do best in urban hives, Africans do worst.

Perhaps the most resounding legacy of the Boomers will have been their adamant refusal to criticize any nation or ethnic groups unless these entities stand accused of "bigotry" or "not respecting human rights". In other words, the most harsh words are reserved for those who believe in separatism due to intractable cultural differences between nations and ethnic groups, while those who bend over backwards trying to rescue primitives from themselves are considered noble and enlightened.

Excessive meddling in the affairs of others, and not respecting traditional behavioral limits (e.g., don't marry outside your race), is only possible when you come of age in a time of resource abundance that gives you an often misguided sense of man's capabilities. Why should we ever give up on the potential of any human being?, the thinking goes. "Why should we tell people that certain rules and traditions ought to be respected, when that kind of conformity could infringe on a person's desire to live life how they wish to?"

And so we arrive at the modern state of nihilism that pervades much of the world, and is most degenerate in the West, where elites refuse to put any restraints on excesses of militarism, hedonism, greed, and so forth. The same Boomer dominated UK political scene that went to war with Bush (against the opposition of many ordinary Brits) is still in bed with the US military establishment (e.g., the Neo-cons). Boomers like Tom Friedman will go to their grave convinced that the world is "getting smaller", more neo-liberal, and more congenial to those who are "open to experience". Other less privileged generations wish to stop the rampant rootlessness and irresponsibility of a generation of elites who oversaw the decline of their own countries as they insisted on meddling with other countries.

Feryl said...

We can't afford to be concerned about starving children, or ethnic cleansing, or "ending evil", in every corner of the world anymore. Besides, our alleged support often was a ruse for greedy schemers to line their pockets. Behind almost every putative charity or other such NGOs you will find Boomers who who will be trying to squeeze every penny they can out of the operation. And besides, even if they aren't openly acquisitive, then one could still question just why so many aging Westerners have been so preoccupied with the turd world while the ostensible 1st world crumbled. I blame this kind of folly on a generation being socialized (which then socialized younger generations) to be contemptuous of it's own cultural traditions and excessively enamored with exotic things. The time for Western Boomers to make amends for the nihilistic self-hatred they promoted is running short.

Moral preening can only outrun logistical limits (and populist discontent) for so long. Here we are in the 50 year long experiment to re-shape human "values" (a term the Boomers may not have invented but certainly became very fond of) in the direction of idealistic freedoms (to smoke whatever you want, have sex with whatever you want, worship whatever you want, live wherever you want, spend however you want) and away from the policy of millennia long grasp of limits to human capabilities and tribal responsibilities. Lower class Boomers are in miserable shape (though they may not necessarily understand why), Gen X-ers are alienated (due to growing up in a world of chaos and collapsing institutions that most of them didn't ask for), and Millennials are frequently criticized for not being "tough" enough to be comfortable with the winner take all world created by older generations.

Anonymous said...

Hey AE, Could you make up some pie graphs like this for the United States?
Are have you already?

Anonymous said...

"Or" have you! Duh!

216 said...

Feryl,

Africans appear to leap at the chance to live in cities, even if that means living in a slum. Given the declining utility of subsistence farming, this isn't surprising. Urbanization also seems to increase the incidence of conspicuous consumption for status signaling. A self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist like Malema that simultaneously loves Western luxury goods is almost a perfect distillation of this phenomenon. Ramaphosa is arguably the opposite, he was born in a slum, became a union boss-cronyist businessman, and now LARPs as a farmer.

The segregation policies in South Africa were created to keep the whites in control of the cities, by claiming that the cheap black labor was nominally a resident of some rural area.

Feryl said...

"Africans appear to leap at the chance to live in cities, even if that means living in a slum."

The worst turd world environments aren't caused by bad people per se; it's more the result of putting primitive people in an ostensibly advanced environment . Too much infrastructure that isn't respected or maintained by savages, and too many resources present for populations which have little understanding of how to responsibly use things.

Ill-fated attempts by 1st worlders to "help" third worlders create a viscous cycle, in which "aid" often creates dependency, corruption, and overcrowding which thereby creates (in theory) more guilt among first worlders who feel like they need to do even more to help out.

As for why blacks move to cities, well, that happens when they are "allowed" to and when the old ways aren't as attractive or practical anymore. For example, the great migration of blacks that happened in early-mid 20th century America came about because largely agrarian Southern living seemed like a drag after more and more reports about the North's fantastic industrial economy reached the South.

It's remarkable just how much the black population has soared from circa 1800-the present. If we left blacks in Africa, and never bothered to build anything there, grow the food supply there, or provide medical aid there, the world's overall black population would be much smaller. Black tribes would eke out a meager living via small scale farming and hunting/gathering, and the four horsemen would take care of the occasional spike in the population.

BTW, we wonder why for example, black classrooms are so raucous. Blacks need to keep their distance from each other. They're so impulsive and domineering that trying to keep several dozen of them calm and attentive is virtually impossible, esp. if they're young and male.

We'll all know that things are changin' when more Western countries flat out refuse to provide anti-AIDS measures to Africans. Know matter how hard we may try to fight nature, nature always wins. AIDS is a direct product of the defiance of nature, being that it came about exactly when the world's black population began to soar past it's historical numbers in the 1950's-1970's. Meanwhile, the homosexual population of all races also fell victim to nature's revenge, but as with blacks the culling hasn't been allowed to take it's full course because do-gooder Westerners want to "save" everyone (and in the process are creating even greater problems by not allowing nature to correct itself in a timely manner). We should treat gays like lepers (as we did before the late 1980's), yet ironically, AIDS actually created greater sympathy for gays.

216 said...

Feryl,

I don't see AIDS leading to collapse. The ARV drugs are out of patent, and given time either the West or the Far East will develop something that puts the virus in remission.

The population explosion has also increased the number of the high IQ blacks at the far right end of the bellcurve. Economies only need so many people to fulfill the key roles, especially in a time of increasing automation. India and China can also easily supply the needed professional class.

A large portion of aid appears to be lost due to corruption, so I'm skeptical of its dependency creation. The root of it seems to be the legacy Cold War mindset, though PRC aid has the advantage of being physically built by the Chinese. Aid also acts as make-work jobs for Western white women, err...sex tourists.

Malthusian collapse appears harder to produce than it looks by the math alone, a geological black swan is needed. Especially when it comes to people that like eating rats and insects. Thinking that disease will cull the population seems wishful as thinking that Africans would freeze to death in European winters if Russia cut of the gas supply.

Feryl said...

"I don't see AIDS leading to collapse. The ARV drugs are out of patent, and given time either the West or the Far East will develop something that puts the virus in remission."

It may not be AIDS per se, but some other mega-bug.

Throughout history, man has paid dearly for it's excesses. We've had plagues come about due to over crowding, promiscuity, poor sanitation, poor animal husbandry, and too much migration (people being rapidly exposed to germs that they aren't accustomed to, ask the feather Indians and also see the "Spanish flu" that came about in the Ellis Island era).

Your (optimistic sounding) opinion seems rooted in post-WW2 idealism which has basically remained supreme among Westerners (and in an increasing portion of Easterners).....With the exception of the 1970's when people widely thought that the planet was due for an ecological castastrophe, whether it was running out of a particular resource or another ice age.

I foresee an imminent collapse in globalism/neo-liberalism caused by generational factors. Many Millennials are comfortable living at home with their parents.....Do you really think that they will embrace traveling abroad, romanticizing foreign cultures, rebelling against traditional culture, and so forth, like their parents did?

There literally is no other generation in world history that went so far out of their way to reject past norms as the Boomers did. Boomer dominant institutions (esp. the Leftists ones) so far have almost totally marginalized any opponents of the reigning CultMarx ideology that white people must always bend over backwards to atone for being horrible oppressors of POC.

As soon as Boomers gained a lot of institutional clout in the 80's, it became markedly more difficult to advocate for ethnic separatism, a Christian white Western identity, and tribal responsibilities superseding individual rights. When you are born into an era of unprecedented affluence, you take things for granted.

The world is getting smaller; in case you haven't noticed ethnic and national tensions are at their greatest level of unease since the 1930's/40's. Well-intentioned and in hindsight, Quixotic attempts to create international bodies that settle grievances aren't going to hold up that much longer. Ultimately, will traditionalists and liberals be able to peacefully settle their grievances? I'm not sure of that, but no matter the nature of the conflict I'm pretty confident that the outcome will bring about changes that reassure traditionalists.

We've gone from Western conservatism in the 1980's and 90's (when Boomers were young-middle aged adults) being predicated on abdication of social responsibilities so that you'd have more time and money to spend on.....Yourself basically, to conservatism (now heavily infused with Gen X and Millennial input) being much more tribal in nature. The culture that I grew up with, that conservatives just wanted everyone to be left alone, doesn't really practically exist anymore. Reason.com caters to a unique niche sociopathic status strivers who now represent only around 1/4 or maybe 1/3 of current conservatives.

Crises dramatically lower the appeal of individualism and experimentation. As decadent modern elites try and celebrate the rise in gender freaks, out of the closet homosexuals, and race mixers, more and more people are demanding a return to economic and cultural stability.

216 said...

Feryl,

Brimelow and Taylor like to mention the "interglacial" of the 90s when their positions could be discussed in mainstream politics. Both are of the Boomer generation. The only prominent Xer in dissident politics is Richard Spencer.

I would put the ideological closing as beginning in the 1960s, with the passing of the Lost Generation which pulled back from the 1920s decadence. The WW2 generation, the so-called Greatest, had only the memory of childhood deprivation and then unimagined prosperity when they came home from the war. They understood sacrifice, but they didn't understand why. Capra's WW2 propaganda never explains the reasons why Fascism arose. When the Boomers rose up to protest Vietnam in the US, and in May 1968 in France; their Greatest generation parents wilted under pressure. White identity politics became associated with those who refused to accept defeat in the Civil Rights Revolution and Decolonization.

Traditionalists face two threats, the rise of Islam and the threat of generational eclipse. The Boomer-dominated nature of conservatism in the Anglo world means that our traditions will die in 10 years unless Zeds rally to them in record numbers. The Alt-Right needs adult supervision via a formal institutional structure to arbitrate the ruinous infighting, I say this as a millennial.

The millennials are often observed to prefer travel and restaurants over traditional consumption patterns such as cars and housing. There is no traditional culture for many of them to rebel against, but few seem interested in restoring our traditions. Much of the rise of Sanders-style socialism is because many previously white middle class Millenials studied abroad and learned about free healthcare and no tuition during the times they weren't consuming intoxicants.

Conservatism as it has been known since 1789 can't continue to exist without separatism, failing that only an anti-elite populism that attracts non-whites to the legacy base has electoral potential. Sort of like deceased Toronto Mayor Rob Ford but under a pseudo-socialist banner. The Fords come from wealth, so I can't see them abandoning free market fundamentalism.

Feryl said...

"I would put the ideological closing as beginning in the 1960s, with the passing of the Lost Generation which pulled back from the 1920s decadence"

There's political decadence, and then there's behavioral decadence.

Both of these things are related to cycles of behavior and culture. We go through cycles of progressiveness and reform (like 1920-1970), and cycles of reactionary narcissism that eventually culminates in arrogant elites who need to be taken down a peg (like 1870-1920, or 1970-the present). On the other hand, we also have cycles of hedonistic behavior among adolescents and young adults.

In the case of the Lost Generation, they came of age during a decade of self-indulgence (the 1920's) but simultaneously popular outrage at elite corruption was growing. So as they shook off the reckless behavior of the 20's in the 30's and 40's, they helped spur much needed reforms. As youngsters, they experienced the gangland gambling culture of circa 1900-1930, and as aging adults they spearheaded reform.

In the case of the Boomers, they came of age during the free wheeling era of circa 1960-1990. However, those decades actually saw a rising number of young and middle aged adults who promoted a political culture of declining restraints on greed and corruption.

Boomers are now too old and set in their ways to fully embrace progressive reforms. The oldest Losts were 40-50 years old in the 1930's (when the mood turned sharply toward collectivism and tribalism), while the oldest Boomers were 40-50 years old in the 1980's (when the mood turned sharply toward individualistic gain).

As for GIs, they were too old to embrace the hedonism of 1960-1990, while they also were too old to fully embrace the culture of arrogant elitism that took off after 1980. They may have promoted naive policies as aging adults, but they certainly didn't damage society like newer generations would do. Worth noting is that with the exception of the US presidency, GIs largely stepped aside in the 1980's and early 1990's, to the point that by the mid 90's Silents and Boomers had almost complete control of our politics and culture.

By the 1970's, the Boomers were regularly called The Me Generation, and if that doesn't indicate the kind of culture they created I don't know what does.

Feryl said...

"Brimelow and Taylor like to mention the "interglacial" of the 90s when their positions could be discussed in mainstream politics. Both are of the Boomer generation"

There was a backlash toward PC from about 1992-1995. Some Dems recommended lowering immigration limits (even Clinton paid lip service to these concerns), but that wasn't going to happen in a cycle of rising decadence. The NY Times ran an editorial in 1995 recommending lower immigration levels so as to benefit native workers. Many GOP partisans are largely clueless about the fact that the GOP was a much bigger supporter of high immigration levels in the 70's-mid-90's (The GOP's sphere of influence includes business owners who rely on low-skilled labor such as farmers, and the GOP's is tied to the Pentagon which encourages greater movements of people for Geo-political games).

Hollywood produced Falling Down in 1993, a movie that perfectly summed up the frustration of middle class white men in the early 1990's.

The 90's economy really took off in the later part of the decade, and PC pretty much came back with as much strength, maybe more strength, than ever before.

WRT to the "good" Boomers, yes they do exist. But there aren't enough quality ones at the elite level to make much of a difference. Left-wing Boomers are too invested in hardcore ID politics and hatred of Western culture, while Right-wing Boomers are often way too invested in laizze faire economics. The former doesn't want to manage the bedroom, the latter doesn't want to manage the board room. We've got to be willing to do both things to get real change in the right direction.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Yes. If we had a time machine our mission would be to go back and tell our founders and South Africa's to tend their own crops.

Re: sportsball.

Feryl,

Imagine is the song that characterizes everything wrong with the quixotic boomers, the generation that could've saved the West but instead will likely be the generation most responsible for its downfall.

Good times create soft men, soft men create hard times, hard times create... we will see.

Anon,

Sure, will do.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

On second thought, maybe not. Not finding age distribution stats with Hispanics separated out. Without that it's not informative.

Feryl said...

Another reason for the perception of greater intellectual freedom in the 90's is that the 90's were a "chill" decade that came after 3 straight "wild" decades (the 60's, 70's, and 80's). People were resting a bit, and tensions between warring camps diminished.

I seem to remember the 2000 election non-sense (Bush and Nader "stole it", doncha know?) being a prelude to the drama to come.....9/11 seemed to make people paradoxically more outgoing and unpretentious, but by 2006 or so we seemed to enter a downward spiral of cynicism and resignation toward the idea that we could get different sides to amicably reach any kind of resolution that would benefit everyone.

And whereas the 60's-80's had "hot" disagreements (because the culture was hedonistic and outgoing), the more recent battles over culture and politics seem like a glum drag because people are so cautious and boring these days. The 90's were a transition time between the exciting 60's-80's, and the dour period of the late 2000's-present. I've often heard people say that it's difficult to make any general statements about the culture of the 90's, and that's probably because the decade lacks any kind of forward (or backward) momentum; things were kind of at a standstill.

Feryl said...

"Imagine is the song that characterizes everything wrong with the quixotic boomers, the generation that could've saved the West but instead will likely be the generation most responsible for its downfall.

Good times create soft men, soft men create hard times, hard times create... we will see."

Yes, and Millennials are running out of patience for the idea that a generation of spoiled and decadent people should be "allowed" to enjoy their toys as they retire and near retirement. The Losts in the 30's and 40's saw to it that they not be given too much wealth or comfort, lest they be scorned by younger generations as avaricious and selfish. But that was before the Losts had much of an opportunity to get such things. Easier to deny yourself something you never had, than to relinquish that which you've already attained.

Also, it's indicative of the times that many early-mid Gen X-ers are less hostile towards the idea of material gain than they are the fact that they didn't get in while the gettin' was still purdy good in the 80's and 90's. There's a difference between ethical outrage and utter envy, and in the case of many people born in the late 60's and early 70's I have a hunch that they are closer to envy of Boomers who got to "make it" than they are to ethical opposition to avarice.

Jim Bowery said...

It's very important that Boomers be impoverished so as to relegate them to Medicaid custodial care. This will permit their government-compensated caregivers --- affirmative action people of color -- to remove them from the welfare rolls and voting rolls through premature death from neglect and abuse. Aside from the vicarious pleasure of revenge afforded Gen Xers and Millenials, this will, in turn, remove a voting block that is not only predominantly white, but votes more reliably for smaller government than Gen X or Millenials. The point of all this: Accelerate the capture of government by people of color so they can vote themselves the freed up resources to then butcher the younger white cohorts who, as they hang upside down, skinned alive and watching their wives and daughters gang-raped to death, will at least find comfort in their ability to blame the dead and buried Boomers in their dying thoughts.

Jim Bowery said...

Did anyone read my first comment above? If your diagnosis involves Spoiled Boomers hoarding assets while younger middle class families are paying taxes on their inheritance, income, capital gains and purchases, why not get behind my proposed shift of the tax base off of economic activity and into liquid value of net assets? Has hatred clouded your thinking to the point you can't make any positive proposals for remedial action?

I was proposing this shift of the tax base clear back in 1992, including a homestead exemption for family formation and elimination of the welfare state -- including social security -- through what is now called unconditional basic income.

How about sticking your head above the parapet for just a split second and proposing a superior alternative?

And by the way, what is it with "white nationalist leadership" that they haven't proposed anything like this?

Feryl said...

Jim:

As the safety net was shredded from 1980-the present, so too have race relations diminished and elites have become ever more contemptuous of racial and cultural solidarity and homogeneity .

In FDR's America, we simultaneously had expansive government and (relatively) conservative cultural policies. Whites and blacks still were fairly segregated, yet few (conservatives) would argue that both races enjoyed greater over all peace of mind.

Something that Right Wing Boomers and Gen X-ers need to understand is that "big government" is not part and parcel of Leftist cultural decadence.

The more that older generations of conservatives have tried to eviscerate the size and scope of government, the more that Leftists have been able to gain the upper hand in cultural mores.

Greatly favoring the individual at the expense of institutions, as has happened since circa 1980, has dramatically lowered signs of civic quality and engagement. Fewer people join institutions, which are held in increasingly greater contempt. It started with Boomers attacking Churches, the government, and private industry in the 60's and 70's, then in the 80's and 90's almost all contempt was thrown at unions and government while private enterprise was glorified (since I suppose any given person can start a company and make it big).

Attacking institutions so as to generate an excuse not to play along better with others is basically what happened. At a certain point you'd think that the constant worship of the heroic individual would wear thin; it has for later Gen X-ers and Millennials (who grew up around narcissistic adults) but I'm not sure that those born before circa 1970 will ever grasp just how tiring their act has gotten.

"- to remove them from the welfare rolls and voting rolls through premature death from neglect and abuse"

The Lost Generation never asked to be treated like royalty, nor did they receive such treatment in the 1940's-1970's. They were youngsters during a period of elite excess, which made them anxious to not do anything that would smack of a return to the Robber Baron culture of their youth. It would appear as though those born since the early-mid 70's have a similar sense of modesty and a desire to rein in the elitism, arrogance, and greed that's been a fixture of our culture since the mid-80's.

And we've been showering the elderly with generosity since the 80's (starting with the GIs, and continuing with Silents and early Boomers). I'd say it's about time we start devoting more effort to shoring up the wages and working conditions of young-middle aged workers.

Feryl said...

In my experience it's Gen X-ers who hate Boomers. Most Millennials appreciate what their parents did for them to some degree. Gen X-ers (especially the ones born in the early 70's) tend to really loath the moral pomposity and hypocrisy of Boomers, who are generally held out to be sell-outs who betrayed any good thing that they ever did. This would indicate to me that periods of rising individualism and corruption create animosity between generations, who tend to spend as much time or more time finger pointing as they do accepting responsibility. That being said, since many Gen X-ers loath themselves and grew up with a world that didn't care to hear their opinions, it's easy to see why they take issue with particular generations (be it Boomers or Millennials) who are seen as vain, entitled, and mouthy.

I certainly envy Losts and GIs who aged in a period of diminished individualism (the 1920's-1950's) and actually got things done, instead of being drowned in a morass of narcissism, greed, and buck passing.

216 said...

Feryl,

The US has always had the least expansive welfare state of every developed nation, as we have also had the least regulated labor market. Yet the expansive Swedish welfare state hasn't prevented the same racial tensions, nor has highly unionized France managed to integrate recalcitrant blacks and Arabs.

Decadence is something that fuels the support for big government, but I agree with you that elites (through their support of feminism) are the cause rather than bureaucracy. Would South Africa need such an expansive welfare state if one-fifth the population wasn't infected with HIV? Would millennials be demanding debt relief if they retained social conservative values and married at earlier ages, leading to household savings? Would our healthcare costs be so high if our obesity rates matched those of European whites?

Feryl said...

"Yet the expansive Swedish welfare state hasn't prevented the same racial tensions, nor has highly unionized France managed to integrate recalcitrant blacks and Arabs."

Sweden didn't have practically any non-whites until the 1990's. France had almost zero non-whites before the 1960's. America was never racially homogeneous, and the high point of ethnic homogeneity was probably the 1940's-1960's, because Silents and early Boomers were extremely white generations that were heavily American born (Silents were the most American born generation in US history).

People who are basically aliens are not going to get along well with the natives. That was true in the Ellis Island days of America, and it's true of Western European countries where diversity is still a novel thing (I recently read that England has admitted more foreigners since the end of WW2 then it did in like the previous 300 years).

America after circa 1920 went to great lengths to encourage assimilation (cutting off immigration, shaming those who adhered to the old country, etc.). The gains that were made in the 20's-60's, in terms of Americans feeling like, well, Americans all in the same boat, would not have been possible if high immigration levels and multi-cultural ism had been permitted.

"but I agree with you that elites (through their support of feminism) are the cause rather than bureaucracy."

Elites get whatever they want, dependent on consensus. E.g., if the consensus is that white working class people are lazy and whiny (as elite conservatives have been saying for 30+ years and elite liberals have been saying for 20 years), then let's bring lots of cheerful Mexicans to do the jobs that American's just won't do.

What's really galling is the recent hysteria about "democracy" dying, when in reality it is the elite consensus that's been under attack from below. Even amongst non-whites in California, there is opposition to really high levels of immigration. "Community organizer" types, lawyers, ethnic activists, academics, and politicians, etc. all fawn over foreigners, when working class and many middle class people are sick are tired of the feeling that we've been invaded. I wish I remember the survey or study, but it found that even many non-whites in highly liberal areas have fairly un-PC views. And when an elite breaks from the consensus like Trump did, they are treated as lepers and traitors who are threatening to unleash a mob on elites who've largely escaped scrutiny since the late 70's.

Elites want to have their frivolous culture war crap like fag marriage, while the commoners are resigned to getting some table scraps and are grateful for whatever they can get.. I remember an NPR host and another reporter nervously talk about Steve Bannon's hostility toward "elites". Many elites have lived in a bigger and bigger bubble since the mid-80's. If we don't puncture the bubble every once in a while (as was common from the 1920's-early 70's), then sheesh, no wonder elites get so clueless about things. And they're so convinced of their superiority that they are affronted by the idea that an angry mob could ever take action to deal with corrupt forces.

216 said...

"Community organizer" types, lawyers, ethnic activists, academics, and politicians, etc. all fawn over foreigners, when working class and many middle class people are sick are tired of the feeling that we've been invaded.

==

Many working class non-whites might recognize that immigration is building an underclass, but they really want to sponsor their relatives. Tragedy of the commons.

"Democracy" to the average person simply means holding free and fair elections, where the government has to abide by constitutional norms. To the average median voter, there is nothing "undemocratic" about a conservative party winning office and wielding power. But to the neoliberals, "democracy" means a societal commitment to liberal values and ever greater amounts of liberalism, the EU treaty mentions "ever closer union".

Democracy to South African blacks is something quite different. It seems to mean that the majority can legally steal from the minority, and the minority has no right to question this without being convicted of sedition. The average South African black has far-right social views, in contrast to the far-left social views of ANC leaders. Alas, they also have double digit IQs, so they are yet to realize this contradiction.

Jim Bowery said...

Feryl, Come on, guy, stick your head above the parapet.

I've set forth specific policy recommendations to address the hoarding of assets by the Boomers. Where are your specifics? I see nothing from you but critique of strawmen and and polemics interspersed with some vague descriptive statistics.

Jim Bowery said...

To demonstrate how specific I've been, I programmed a javascript calculator in a blog post at Majority Rights some years ago.

The transfer side of the proposal is basically some form of very substantial unconditional basic income, as I proposed in 1992 but which Charles Murray has also proposed with more detailed analysis in his 2004 book "In Our Hands". I even laid out a strategy by which nationalists in Europe could capture their governments with this platform. A modified strategy would be required in the US but its getting to the point now that something is going to have to give with the entitlements, or the system is going to collapse.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Jimbo, you piss in the wind. Its not policy, its race. Law is a meaningless distinction at this point.

AE, China doesn't WANT to stop it. They can take South Africa EASILY when Whites are gone. They can extend a line of credit to Wakanda, and then repossess with the Tienanmen Square Plan. Its rather ingenious really.

China included South Africa in BRICs. Its because its the Last White Country, which means most of the infrastructure is salvageable. These idiot blacks rack up debt and CANNOT EVER REPAY IT. When they go far enough underwater, China now has The Grand Army to TAKE IT.

Zagg said...

All this War of the Generations stuff is as shallow as it is destructive of building a white identity movement.