Wednesday, June 27, 2018

¡Ocasio!'s special occasion

I'd been getting a sinking feeling that Democrats had come to realize doing what they had done to garner big wins in Florida, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, even California was the easiest route to sealing heritage America's fate and ensuring the Great Replacement. Run putatively moderate whites to avoid spooking soccer moms  and then have them, upon stepping foot in the capitol building or the governor's mansion, work relentlessly to keep the borders wide open for all the world's non-Afrikaners to flood in. It could have worked.

Fortunately, the invaders are impatient. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez primaried an old ethnic swamp creature by marrying PoC ascendancy with rank socialism. Here's her well-produced two-minute campaign ad where she calls for "medicare for all, tuition-free public college, a federal jobs guarantee, and criminal justice reform". You'll notice more hijabs than hu-whites and see more words written in Spanish than in English:



"Not all Democrats are the same."

 "We can do it now! It doesn't take 100 years to do this."

There are the old Italian and Irish ethnics and there are the old (((tribal))) Democrats, and then there are the New Democrats--the Democrats who roll their Rs and sport their ninja outfits. Ocasio's cover photo does not include a single member of the old guard:


They need to step aside now. Not in a generation, not in a century--¡NOW!

Yesterday's primary is a harbinger of things to come, but it's already apparent at the national level. Potential white Democrat presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden are geezers--aged 76, 69, and 75, respectively. Odds-on favorite Kamala Harris, in contrast, is 53 and Cory Booker, who rounds out the top five, is 49.

Agnostic thinks the socialist left is going to transform the DNC into a party of immigration He's delusional. What this victory makes salient--and she'll win the district easily in November--to normies and even to many SWPLs, is that socialism in America is about using heavy hand of the federal government to take from whites and give to non-whites.
restriction.

Single-payer? Get out of here. That's nothing more than the plundering of the shrinking number of young whites to foot the medical bills of non-whites and the affluent silents and boomers who signed off on this whole mess to begin with!

In multiracial societies, democracy is a skins game. But in multiracial societies, socialism is also a skins game. As the country fills up with Sun People, this is the political future. It's going to get harder and harder for quisling whites and the 2% to pretend there will be a place for them when the numbers of Latin Americans, Africans, and Arabs reach critical mass.

Three cheers for the invaders in New York's 14th district. Sow, water, and fertilize the seeds of the white left's budding cognitive dissonance. The fate of the West depends on it.

81 comments:

216 said...

A major problem with single-payer is also one of its selling points. If the majority of the population gets Medicare for all, and only the wealthy get supplemental private coverage, a large amount (millions) of administrators become superfluous.

Healthcare admins are disproportionately female, and POC. Sort of like how the USPS is for black men.


Anonymous said...

Ocasio Cortez was a Bernie Sanders supporter and ran on a Sanders like platform, which is popular with many whites. Trump's base is white and also prefers socialistic policies, which is why Trump didn't propose entitlement reform like the mainstream GOP candidates and pols did. Trump's base just prefers a more nationalistic socialism. The people against socialism tend to be the GOP elite and wealthy and upper middle class GOP voters, and the corporate wing of the Dems.

The ruling class were very smart to diversify the country and hype up racial appeals. It’s preventing landslide victories for an Italy type socialist coalition of populist left plus populist right.

Giovanni Dannato said...

Socialist and populist type policies have their appeal but only within the context of pro-White politics. Good redistribution helps people who are like the taxpayers and on the same side as them. This is why the Trump version is the one that's succeeding.
I don't see this Ocasio lady as a Bernie type. Bernie politics are SWPL politics while Ocasio-Cortez is running a redistribution scheme from a paler ruling class just like in the old country.
What we've seen this week is the dem establishment is starting to lose control of its minority cohorts as pressure grows.

Anonymous said...

there is no democracy in america...you cannot count on politicians to fulfill their campaign promises. Hello?
This Ocasio is NOT a socialist. And trump is NOT a populist.
These politicians are out for themselves--they want money or adulation or to be revered or...whatever...but the things they say are not their beliefs.

Democracy comes from the structure of the gov't and the laws that the public can use against politicians...what am i talking about? I am talking about gov't structures that put power in the hands of the people...for example, a parliamentary gov't structure puts more power in the hands of the people because the power is concentrated in politicians elected from smaller districts...the larger the district, the less control the voters have...

also, laws that allow recall of politicians...that is real democracy...

direct democracy--where the people can put referendums on the ballot...by signed petitions and then voting on the laws they themselves create...that is democracy...

this idea that politicians we elect are actually gonna follow through on their promises to cut immigration, to provide single payer healthcare, to simplify tax returns....what foolishness...

snorlax said...

If the majority of the population gets Medicare for all, and only the wealthy get supplemental private coverage, a large amount (millions) of administrators become superfluous.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Whoo. That's, as they say, a good one.

Over/under on number of "POC" who lose sinecures because of single-payer: negative 15 million.

DissidentRight said...

They are impatient, arrogant, and overconfident. They are also disarmed and defenseless.

I'd been getting a sinking feeling that Democrats had come to realize doing what they had done to garner big wins in Florida, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, even California was the easiest route to sealing heritage America's fate

Come now, AE. What is the average IQ of the Democratic Party these days? ;-)
Their institutional rudder was set a generation ago. All that's left is for them to dash themselves into the rocks.



Trump's base is white and also prefers socialistic policies, which is why Trump didn't propose entitlement reform like the mainstream GOP candidates and pols did.

There is no point in attacking Social Security and Medicare until Boomers start to get senile.

Dan said...

I think Trump got a head start on the gimme battle with the tax cuts. Now there are big deficits. If Democrats want to hand out more gimmes they will have to raise taxes strongly, which would instantly harm the stock market and the job market.

This is not an accident. Cutting taxes, creating deficits, and making increased government spending impossible is the strategy, begun with Reagan in the 1980 presidential debates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

In terms of my own sensibility, I'd much prefer a balanced budget, but unfortunately that is just leaving us to be robbed. Instead when the gimmes crack open the federal til at some point in the future, they will find it empty. Attempts at massive spending would bring a bond crisis.

It may seem cucky to praise Reagan but in deficit spending I suspect he was right.

Dan said...

The clear losers in the "Starve the beast" strategy are the socialists in this country. Too bad, morons. Socialism and open borders are mutually exclusive and you went with open borders. (Didn't the unions know that you have to limit membership in the club to keep pay and benefits high?) A diverse, 'culturally enriched' country can still prosper with Dickensian capitalism a la Hong Kong. But the door is shut on Scandinavian-style social welfare.

Sorry, Bernie-ites, If leftists were honest back in the day, you could have had the nice things you wanted. But leftists aren't honest and so you weren't told the truth. Now your dream is gone. (Obama was president for eight years, but he couldn't increase social spending that much and certainly nothing like what he promised.)

Issac said...

It remains to be seen how effective mestizos are at the game of low level left machine politics. It is premature to say they are going to challenge the left's leadership caste, but the odds of a significant unforced error increases with every new coalition tribe asserting itself.

DissidentRight said...

It remains to be seen how effective mestizos are at the game of low level left machine politics.

At this point, all that matters is whether they can conduct 4th generation warfare better than us.

Anonymous said...

I don't see this Ocasio lady as a Bernie type. Bernie politics are SWPL politics while Ocasio-Cortez is running a redistribution scheme from a paler ruling class just like in the old country.

Are you familiar with Bernie's proposals? Medicare for all, free college tuition, and the jobs guarantee are policies Bernie promotes. NYC SWPLs love Ocasio Cortez and she was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Anonymous said...

There is no point in attacking Social Security and Medicare until Boomers start to get senile.

Despite all the hatred directed at Boomers by the alt-right, Boomers are the biggest Trump supporters:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/18/florida-senior-citizens-vote-election-2018-218758

Moreover, the alt-right generally prefers socialistic economics.

There's basically no constituency against socialistic economics except for GOP and corp Dem elites and the wealthy.

Dan said...

No constituency against socialist economics? What about GNON, the only vote that matters? GNON stands over us ready to smash us on the skull if we break His law, with a bat that never breaks and arms that never tire.

Jim Bowery said...

This Declaration of War For The Culture of Individual Integrity is longer than your typical "declaration of war", but reasons are self explanatory.

Whites need to a universal morality for which to fight but it needs to be maximally supportive of social capital for whites despite their congenital individualism -- meaning that has to build on "the politics of exclusion".

What do white nationalists, opposed to their notion of "individualism" (actually a Judaized notion) need beyond that offered in the aforelinked Declaration?

Anonymous said...

I believe the growth of the welfare state, with its "from the cradle to the grave" social security aims, is a contributing factor to low birthrates among Whites.
One of the reasons people had so many children in the past was to ensure they were taken care of in old age.
The welfare state now assumes that burden.
Rather it transfers it to other people's children.
The amount of Social Security one draws should be made dependent on the number of children they raise to adulthood.
I know there were other factors involved, urbanization and industrialization, for instance.
But one thing at a time.

Lance E said...

I've been saying for a while that the best thing white racially-conscious Americans can do is join the Democratic party (or other Progressive institutions) and agitate as often as possible to make them as dark as possible.

I don't know if that's really happening, or if earnest progs are just doing it to themselves because of their twisted and delusional ideology, but either way, it's a huge gift to their opposition and we should continue to encourage it.

Dan: deficit spending has nothing to do with "starving the beast". The USA is already collectively insolvent, and a debt dollar is just a promise to print more Monopoly money in the future. That's why no one, Republican or Democrat, actually cares. The system will immediately collapse if non-U.S. entities switch to a different primary reserve currency, but until then, the debt is just an imaginary number that Republicans use (mostly ineffectively) to scare moderate voters. Trump cut taxes so that businesses would start bootstrapping, investing and hiring again.

Audacious Epigone said...

216/snorlax,

Snorlax's cynicism seems right to me. Every college and university now has a whole department for diversity and inclusion, blah blah blah. Lots of hospitals and independent care providers that are going to need oversight on that front!

Anon,

Sanders cannot win the Dem nomination because he can't win black voters. If he runs in 2020, he'll square off with Kamala Harris. She's dumb and uninspired, but blacks will vote for her 85%-15%, maybe more. Sanders will have to grovel even lower than he did with Hillary--think the two land whales who shut down his Seattle rally--and will simply lose whenever he tries to brandish his Diversity! bona fides against hers. When SWPLs see blacks backing Harris by such huge margins, they're not going to negate that by backing Sanders by similarly large margins because that would be waaaycist.

Yes, socialism is in the ascendancy but that's because of--and will be further strengthened by--the PoC ascendancy. Latin America is socialist just about everywhere. That's our future, and Ocasio is a perfect illustration of it.

DissidentRight,

Touche. Can't argue with the results, eh? The Dems beg to differ!

Anon,

No one on the GOP side campaigned on Medicare and SS cuts. Maybe Rand Paul mentioned it, I forget. Yeah, the guy on the end of the stage with 1% support. We are way past the point of being able to reform federal entitlements. A crash is coming via GNON. That'll be the fix.

Audacious Epigone said...

Lance E,

Hah, we must've been typing those responses at the same time. Great minds sir, great minds!

Anonymous said...

AE,

Harris will make racial appeals to blacks and appeal to the Clinton corporate wing of the Dem party. She will be less socialist than Sanders, and her racial appeals to blacks is what will allow her to be less socialist than Sanders and win. Sanders is more socialist and supported by whites.

I'm not sure what your point regarding socialism is. Are you suggesting whites on the left don't support Sanders and socialism? "Socialism" is a dirty word on the right due to years of successful GOP messaging, but it's clear that white voters on the right that comprise Trump's base and the alt-right prefer socialistic economics, just a more nationalistic version of socialism. White voters on the right prefer a more nationalist socialism; white voters on the left prefer a less nationalistic socialism. There's basically no constituency for free market economics outside of the wealthy and donor class.

Anonymous said...

LE,

Trump's tax cuts didn't address the demand side of the economy. They were supply side tax cuts. The theory is that giving the wealthy and corporations tax cuts means that they will spend the money in ways that grow the economy. That's not what happens. Corporations do things like stock buybacks and the wealthy spend the money on securities, real estate, yachts, art, jewelry, etc.

Sid said...

First, I am stoked about Ocasio's win! The sooner the NAMs and the SWPLs come to a head, the better.

AE,

"When SWPLs see blacks backing Harris by such huge margins, they're not going to negate that by backing Sanders by similarly large margins because that would be waaaycist."

It's crazy to think that this showdown will start happening in a year.

At this point, I agree, SWPLs are still too cucked to do anything seen as racist. That said, the tensions between NAMs and SWPLs are worsening, as we saw with Ocasio's win. It wouldn't surprise me if white Democrats start to unify against black candidates in 2024.

I think Bernie or Warren can win in 2020 if Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and maybe Deval Patrick split the black vote up. No idea if that scenario will occur.

On a final note, young SWPL men are increasingly taking the red pill because Diversity is screwing up all of the career aspirations they ever had. SWPL women, however, still benefit immensely from Diversity. Here's to hoping they start losing out soon. If unmarried white women started voting like married white women, we'll have quite a lot of breathing room.

Giovanni Dannato said...

"Socialism" in America has become synonymous with handing out resources to parastic outsider groups. The concept has grown so radioactive that they can no longer conceive of tribal redistribution in the conventional discourse.
But if we consult common sense, when Bernie says "socialism" he means helping out his SWPL base. When Ocasio-Cortez says "socialism" she wants to buoy up Mestizos. Everyone loves "socialism" when the resources are channeled to the in-group. Dissidents will not truly grow into a real power until they make this key distinction.

Dan said...

"The USA is already collectively insolvent, and a debt dollar is just a promise to print more Monopoly money in the future."

That depends how you count it. The Federal government has a massively negative net financial position but households, businesses and state governments have a substantially positive net financial position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States

Households in the United States have a net worth presently of $99 trillion, which is rather more than the Federal debt of $20 trillion.

Trump is just hitting it out of the park and prosperity and wealth are just outstanding. The only way from here is down. Democrats are screwed, because they cannot deliver improvement over Trump.

I have said it before and my stance remains: I think Trump is delivering the peak of *all of human history* in the way that we most commonly measure, which is wealth.

There is a wave that is cresting right now. It is bigger than Trump. It is a 1500 year wave that began when world prosperity bottomed around 500 AD after the fall of Rome and has been rising ever since. Trump is surfing the crest quite nicely but the greatness of the age of Trump will only be properly understood in retrospect.

The left cannot build the tower higher. They cannot do it. And worse for them, Trump has all the knobs optimized pretty well. 3% or 4% GDP growth may not seem like a lot, but sailing into the teeth of declining global IQ, that is tremendous.

It is now up to history. History will unfold, the tide will go out, and in retrospect people will see the glory that was now.

The greatest laugh on the 2018 SJWs is that history will show that they threw a nonstop tantrum through the greatest golden age of all time.

Dan said...

I said
"Households in the United States have a net worth presently of $99 trillion, which is rather more than the Federal debt of $20 trillion."

Here is the link.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/03/08/stock-market-lifts-u-s-household-wealth-98-7-trillion/407768002/

Trump wins history. I am sad that the Trumpian peak seems unsustainable in the long run, but then, if Trump gets the all time high score, that is pretty awesome right there.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

I don't think most Trump supporters would characterize themselves as supporting socialist economics. A lot of them think they're getting screwed by socialist governments--ours and others--and want the USG to fight for them rather than against them. Could you expound on what you mean?

Sid,

It wouldn't surprise me if white Democrats start to unify against black candidates in 2024.

When I assert that there is no winning the Dem nomination without black support--overwhelming support, because black support always is--I'm aware that at some point that will cease to be the case. Maybe it'll be as soon as 2024. Once it is no longer the case, though, we're in a much different political landscape.

Deval Patrick has dropped off the market lists. Not sure why--I must have missed something. Funny, too, since he's legitimately black, both in his DNA and in his upbringing. He'd beat Sanders 10-to-1 or more among black voters.

Giovanni,

Well put. The SWPL socialists always defer to the PoC ascendancy socialist when push comes to shove. Long before the pushing begins, actually.

Dan,

Audacity captured for posterity!

Sid said...

AE,

During the holidays, some of my shitlib relatives were gloating about how Doug Jones won Alabama because of the black vote. I smirked and said, "Oh, I thought you wanted Bernie to have won!"

One thing that stood out about the Democrats in 2016 was how they had crowned Hillary as their nominee before she even formally announced her run. It wouldn't surprise me if the DNC and the donors are telling Deval Patrick to get lost. Even Biden gave a speech in which he said he's not interested in running. Who knows.

The rumors are that they will get behind Kamala Harris, because she's an ideal token puppet much the way Obama was.

One reason why I'm not all that judgmental about "literacy tests" is that blacks during presidential elections vote for one candidate like it's Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I don't know how blacks vote, however, when they have multiple black options to choose from. The one way I can see Sanders or Warren beating Kamala is if she has to split the blac vote with Cory Booker and loses.

216 said...

Sid,

We can't ignore the exponential growth of DSA within the Dem Party. Right now DSA is running unrestricted, the media has run interference to make them appear normal when it is the same people that make up Antifa black blocs. The Dem establishment thinks they can control and channel this anger, but it won't hold. We've already got DSA in positions at the state level, and now in the House. A DSA Senator or two is not out of the question by 2020.

The ideal result is that DSA breaks off from the Dem Party, as a splinter DLC party would never exist, they'd just slink away into the GOP. Hopefully a DSA party would support the partition of the US. More likely is that "racist" acquires a similar meaning as "kulak"

It is something after all of the accusations of Obama being socialist 10 years ago, that we now have outright Communists back in our politics.


In spite of the fact I despise DSA, I do admire their organizational capabilities and their apparent ease at managing the constant infighting that usually occurs within dissident politics. Of course at some point we are going to have to kick them out of this country.

Dan said...

Circling back to the headline of this post, Ocasio Cortez's qualifications are nil. Kamala Harris praises Ocasio Cortez abundantly.

Neither has any executive experience to speak of. Neither could ever build anything of consequence themselves. Ocasio Cortez's experience consists of mixing drinks.

The Democrat party is becoming fully converged, to use Vox's concept. They cannot run our gargantuan economy and the reason is that social justice advancement *displaces* advancement by competence.

I got an oil change and tire rotation today at Jiffy Lube. There was, oddly enough, a young lady working on my car. Everyone else was a guy. I drove off and the car was smoking and the smell of burning filled my nose. Circled back. Turns out she spilled oil all over the engine and way overfilled it. She had one job. A dude came around and drained the oil and started over and cleaned off the engine and fixed her work. She also stripped a lug nut so it would no longer even screw on, and I had to track down a replacement. In 20 years of car ownership, I have never had a lug nut stripped. She must have misaligned it and started torquing away.

This was no big deal, but it made me think. That the left would put people with no evidence of competency in charge of America is insane. They are simply not a viable party any more.

Trump was already riding pretty near the top, but the total convergence of the left and the global IQ decline simultaneously with his reign seals his glory forever.

Tough noogies, SJWs.

Dan said...

To be clear, I dont regard Trump as a success because there is no wall and he hasnt achieved on the national question. However, wealth, gdp unemployment etc are the reaching what i believe will be historical peaks. They are the measure that the world uses, and when those measures go long term bad the howls will be deafening.

IHTG said...

Yo AE: https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1012418245826109440

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The best part about this are the futile attempts by DNC party leadership to pump the brakes on this leftward sprint. They liked the idea of harnessing the energy of SWPLs and non-whites into voting for the same politicians like Joe Crowley but oops, turns out all those years of telling browns, blacks, and yellows that they're the ascendant population have empowered them to start taking over the party. Now you have destabilizing forces infiltrating the party and unsurprisingly their loyalties lie elsewhere. Ocasio Cortez is only going to care about herself and her fellow browns; she doesn't give a shit about the (((tribe))), she's not going to give a shit about pet issues outside of her own group, and she doesn't care about the cohesion of a political party that exists outside major urban centers. Good luck getting her and others to provide support for a race in Montana.

AE, to your point, the likelihood of a Berniebro takeover of the Democrats is even smaller and as we discussed in previous entries, I've never thought that this was going to be a viable option and Agnostic is pining for a time that is no longer possible with the current demographics. Ocasio Cortez was a Bernie supporter because of how emphatic his love of gibs were over Hillary, who ran primarily as a neoliberal. Ocasio Cortez would love nothing more than turning this country into Venezuela, whereas Bernie wants to turn this country into Sweden.

Anonymous said...

sanders could easily beat any black Dem candidate and then beat trump in the primary--here is how:
-renounce anti-white propaganda
-promise a simple form of single payer healthcare paid for by taxes
-promise a reduction in immigration and strict border control
-promise strong social security
-promise to cut college costs & allow for some form of student loan forgiveness
-promise tax return simplification
-promise to cut the military



Corvinus said...

Anony 12:09...

"Ocasio Cortez was a Bernie Sanders supporter and ran on a Sanders like platform, which is popular with many whites."

Exactly. It's more about social-economic condition. Certainly race will play a role, but when it comes down to it, and the history backs it up, disparate groups come together to demand financial reform.

"Trump's base is white and also prefers socialistic policies, which is why Trump didn't propose entitlement reform like the mainstream GOP candidates and pols did. Trump's base just prefers a more nationalistic socialism."

Spot-on.

"The people against socialism tend to be the GOP elite and wealthy and upper middle class GOP voters, and the corporate wing of the Dems."

You are on a roll here.

"The ruling class were very smart to diversify the country and hype up racial appeals. It’s preventing landslide victories for an Italy type socialist coalition of populist left plus populist right."

More truth telling.

Random Dude...

"They liked the idea of harnessing the energy of SWPLs and non-whites into voting for the same politicians like Joe Crowley but oops, turns out all those years of telling browns, blacks, and yellows that they're the ascendant population have empowered them to start taking over the party."

First, it was a race in a mixed urban environment where one group chose to elect "their own kind", no different than white people in a rural area who chose someone "of their ilk" to represent them. Second, until the darkies and their brown and yellow friends 1) perpetually spring these upsets, 2) outwardly make it their agenda to minimize white influence in the party, and 3) gain control of the internal political apparatus of the Democratic machine, then we can say with certainty that the "Democratic establishment is starting to lose control of its minority cohorts as pressure grows."

"Ocasio Cortez would love nothing more than turning this country into Venezuela, whereas Bernie wants to turn this country into Sweden."

Actually, they BOTH want to turn America into Sweden.

Anonymous said...

Households in the United States have a net worth presently of $99 trillion, which is rather more than the Federal debt of $20 trillion.

Trump is just hitting it out of the park and prosperity and wealth are just outstanding. The only way from here is down. Democrats are screwed, because they cannot deliver improvement over Trump.


That $99 trillion is comprised of securities and real estate holdings that are highly concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. The Federal debt is serviced NOT by taxing net worth, but by taxing wages and income and sales. If you expand the money supply by issuing debt, and then tax wages and income and sales while not taxing asset holdings, then asset holdings will go up nominally over time.

Anonymous said...

AE,

Trump's base and most fervent supporters are working class whites:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html

Donald Trump holds a dominant position in national polls in the Republican race in no small part because he is extremely strong among people on the periphery of the G.O.P. coalition.

He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm.


I agree that they would not characterize themselves as proponents of socialistic economics, because socialism is generally a bad word in American political discourse. But they generally support social spending, unions, government regulation and intervention in the economy, etc. They prefer socialistic economics with more nationalism than the Left and the Democratic Socialists propose.

Anonymous said...

Corvinus,

The ruling class has successfully divided the electorate by diversifying the population and through racial appeals. This means a socialistic populist left and right coalition which would normally win landslide victories is unlikely. The GOP elite can satisfy the populist right with nationalistic appeals, while the neoliberal corporate Dem elite can make appeals to minorities to ward off the populist left.

Sid said...

216,

That's correct. The SWPL bourgeois Democrats are in denial about how bad their socialism problem is getting. A lot of Democrats deny that antifa actively brutalizes people, holding fast to the delusion that they're just "responding" to Neo-Nazis.

A lot of antifa and DSA types regard Trump as their distant enemy: it's really the capitalist Democrats that need to be cleaned out of the party.

At the very least, there will be simmering tensions for years to come.

Dan,

Trump's progress on immigration has been disappointing, but I don't think we should be blackpilled just yet. Much of the problem stems from issues relating to separation of powers, and it's our duty to support him on getting in conservative judges (think of how the Muslim Ban was ratified by the SC), and to pressure our Republican Congressmen to support him on immigration. We all need to keep him straight on the issue: we will always have his back so long as he pushes on immigration.

Random Dude,

Spot on. In 2015 I was open about how I would readily vote for Bernie over ¡Jeb! Too bad he cucked in 2016, and his socialist movement has degenerated from an unrealistic but well-meaning social program for all of America's ethnic groups, to just an especially virulent gibs-for-NAMs ideology.

Bernie himself is still probably a nicer, more principled person than a lot of other politicians, but the horse he's riding is an ugly thing.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
"Exactly. It's more about social-economic condition. Certainly race will play a role, but when it comes down to it, and the history backs it up, disparate groups come together to demand financial reform."

It's more about race/ethnicity.
Trump beat Clinton by appealing to an implicit White Nationalism, the desire among Whites to remain the dominant minority.
If social/economic issues were what's most important to a majority of White Americans,Trump would not be the President.

"First, it was a race in a mixed urban environment where one group chose to elect "their own kind", no different than white people in a rural area who chose someone "of their ilk" to represent them."

This is a natural human tendency. We identify more easily with and share a sense of loyalty to, those who share a "family resemblance " with us.
We nationalist accept this.
It should give pause to those who believe class loyalty can win out over ancestry based loyalty,but it won't.
Second, until the darkies and their brown and yellow friends 1) perpetually spring these upsets, 2) outwardly make it their agenda to minimize white influence in the party, and 3) gain control of the internal political apparatus of the Democratic machine, then we can say with certainty that the "Democratic establishment is starting to lose control of its minority cohorts as pressure grows."

It's only a matter of time before they do, 1,2,and 3.

"Actually, they BOTH want to turn America into Sweden."

Then I wonder ,why they're trying so hard to create Yugoslavia?

Feryl said...

"Trump's progress on immigration has been disappointing, but I don't think we should be blackpilled just yet. Much of the problem stems from issues relating to separation of powers, and it's our duty to support him on getting in conservative judges (think of how the Muslim Ban was ratified by the SC), and to pressure our Republican Congressmen to support him on immigration. We all need to keep him straight on the issue: we will always have his back so long as he pushes on immigration."

We don't need a "ban" on any group per se, we need to shame elites who exploit vulnerable groups as well as worsen conditions for anyone who doesn't live in a super zip.

The immigration moratorium of 1925-1967 (the '65 immigration act wasn't phased in fully until 1968) occurred under populist economic conditions, subsequently some (but not all) conservatives rationalized the measure as being good for the culture as a whole, ignoring the economic underpinnings. Not until the late 1960's did the average American feel prosperous enough to let more immigrants sail in; and yes, Virginia, the resource lords of the GOP were the last people to complain about the changes afoot, as it meant greater force with which to break unions and non-compliant workers. America in general began to disdain the clammy Rust-Belt, as it became common (esp. in the Sun-belt) to complain that the Northeast and Great Lakes region had handcuffed itself by granting too many concessions to workers, and not until the 1980's Wall Street boom did ANY part of the Northeast and industrial Midwest make a recovery, and many parts still haven't made that much of a comeback after being hit by de-industrialization and urban decay in the 60's and 70's. The South and Southwest made big strides in the 1950's-1970's, and eventually so too did some of the Mid-Atlantic and Lower New England in the 80's and 90's. So who's still hurting compared to where they were in the 1950's? Much of the inland and upper Northeast, and the old industrial centers of the Great Lakes.

Feryl said...

Immigrants initially were most attracted to then-fairly GOP friendly California and Texas (so too did a lot of upwardly mobile native born Americans move there, in the 50's and 60's and continuing into the 70's and 80's). By the late 80's, with the US economy moving firmly into the neo-liberal yuppie phase, it seemed that America was the unquestioned leader of the world and eager to take on new arrivals. George H.W. Bush's term would herald the greatest levels of legal immigration in American history; obviously, illegals are harder to track though anecdotally by the late 80's huge parts of the Southwest were now Spanish speaking. After the early 90's recession, there was pushback among the white lunch pail set, and the Dems responded (all the way up to the White House) by pushing immigration down to 1970's levels. Around 1993-1995, both parties had people go on record and bash high immigration levels. The late 1990's would pre-sage the dawn of a Democrat party led by spergy tech dweebs, as NAFTA et al decimated the Dem's working class base and pop culture began to shamelessly glorify elites and abandon populism (folks, as late as the early 90's it wasn't unheard for mainstream news to speak of worker's rights, bills being too high, elites being too greedy, etc.). Immigration ticked up around 1998, and Bush's economic bubbles of the 2000's (and the Pentagon's restored and malign influence) would kick off the surge in "invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world" BS, as immigration levels soar to levels approaching that which was seen under Bush the elder. Interestingly, the Dem demand for immigrants is so low that Obama (!) got somewhat tough(er) on immigrants from 2009-2011, yet as usual all signs point to 2012 as the year in which the Left totally lost it's marbles. I actually remember far Left websites criticizing Obama for being too cruel toward immigrants in his first term.

I would submit that the historical evidence suggests that the only thing that will get the GOP to change it's tune from cheap labor (at all costs, ha ha) to prole friendly populism is the dying out of Paul Ryan types w/ a hostile takeover of the GOP by nationalist conservatives who don't deify the free market.

The very thing that once made the Dems the anti-immigrant party (a large white working class electorate) would be able to exert a similar sentiment in the GOP......If the Dem's "succeed" at converting to being the party of super zip whites and non-whites, while the alienated prole whites (who increasingly are not Silents or Boomers, and don't believe that private enterprise is a magical healer of everything) would, by force if necessary, make inroads into the GOP who'd have to start listening to us if they wished to survive.

What ought to concern us is the possibility that the combination of arrogant stuck in the past cucks (in the GOP) and Leftist racial warriors/one worlders double team us. But, the wave of dino GOP-ers retiring (after being widely derided for their TrueCon memes), and the Dem's obvious demographic strategizing (running whites with a non-activist background in many races), suggests that we've got time to be motivated and time to figure out how to exert the right kind of pressure on the GOP before it's too late for them.....And too late for us

Feryl said...

Lastly, a bit of inspiration: Before the 2010's, Lefties and their affiliates in the West were a lot more open minded and relaxed than the Right was. Both economic and cultural conservatives in the 1960's-2000's were the annoying tightasses, the Ned Flanders' and the W.F. Cuckleys. For a while in the 80's, it was kinda (just kinda) cool to be a Reaganite, but then, ummm, GHW Bush and Dan Quayle kinda ruined it. Ruining businesses and careers on dubious child abuse allegations in the 80's and early 90's didn't help, nor did the weirdass meme about Halloween being "evil" help, either (seriously, you 90's kids out there remember this joyless horseshit from back then?). The memes about Republicans being this nest of religious whackjobs, autistic supply siders, and closeted fags had a ring of truth.

In the Trump era, we've seen the (cultural) Left descend into madness, with it's own sanctimonious memes and attempts to wreck reputations and careers on dubious charges. In addition, the economic Left which is dying for restoration is still sitting idle. But will it be like that forever? The economic Left is the one element of the four political elements (Cultural Rightism, Economic Rightism, Cultural Leftism, Economic Leftism) that's been most under used over the past 20-30 years. Who's to say it won't come back, esp. because the other three elements let us down so much in our lifetimes?

Feryl said...

"That $99 trillion is comprised of securities and real estate holdings that are highly concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. The Federal debt is serviced NOT by taxing net worth, but by taxing wages and income and sales. If you expand the money supply by issuing debt, and then tax wages and income and sales while not taxing asset holdings, then asset holdings will go up nominally over time."

And that was the primary "innovation" of Reagonomics. Taxes on the financial assets of the affluent went down (even the income tax paid by them went down), while taxes applied to wages went up. The combination of high defense spending, high entitlement spending, and lack of taxes applied to the wealthy and their assets gave us historic deficits. These practices encouraged people to move up the income bracket and gain enough resources to "play the game", while those who wouldn't or couldn't move up higher saw stagnant wages, an unfair share of the tax burden, and ever falling interest rates. Not to mention that people who joined the workforce in the later 80's (or beyond) were confronted by falling entry level pay and disappearing pensions. The later 80's economic boom would also send real estate values up, but this was well after Silents and early Boomers had been able to buy into the much cheaper market of the pre-late 80's.

In the 1940's-1970's, it generally was accepted that a combination of decent wages, decent benefits, a retirement account, and likely a pension were available to most people and would provide an adequate financial backstop in your working years and in your retirement*. A lot of people got really rich in the mid-late 80's, enough to the point that most proles deluded themselves that "gee, I just gotta work harder, I shouldn't resent rich people". That's exactly where most Boomers are still stuck, certainly 80% of Boomers who have any kind of wealth feel that way.

*Many later Boomers vehemently argue that they got "set back" by the 70's and never recovered, though many measures suggest that they are only doing somewhat worse than middle aged GIs, Silents, and early Boomers. It's really the later Gen X-ers and Millennials who are in deep shit.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Booker sounds a little more polished than Harris but neither of them are particularly likable or charismatic. That tells me that in the head-to-head, Harris wins. She checks more boxes and offers more "firsts" that SWPLs get orgasmic about. Booker is another light-skinned black guy. Been there, done that. So 2008. We're progressives!

216,

Their profile is skyrocketing now and their membership is following suit.

They have officially endorsed 13 candidates, only one of which is a white male (and he looks like a pedo/faggot--no wedding ring, big buggy whites in his eyes, wears a pink shirt, etc). Good. Tear, coalition, tear!

Wrt being antifa, the organization says it is anti-fascist. Are NatSocs Nazis? I think so.

Dan,

I've heard more and more frequently over the last few years, from mostly apolitical normies, that nothing seems to work correctly anymore. They notice this in all sorts of different aspects of life. I think you're getting at part of the reason why. In the managerial economy, it's difficult for anyone to be held accountable for anything specific, and it's getting harder all the time. That's a feature rather than a bug.

As for Trump, he's now at 41% to win reelection in 2020. That's far higher than his chances ever were in the markets in 2016!

IHTG,

That's the Molyneux/Alt Lite key demographic (Molyneux's the best by far IMO so I feel compelled to separate him out from the rest). Things are changing.

Random Dude,

Yeah, Goldstein's monster has wants and desires of xir own. Crowley has run unopposed for the last several election cycles in a district that is 50% Hispanic. There are a lot of white Dems in urban areas that are in trouble. No one will shed a tear for them when they're run out on a rail, either. Their pets won't look at them with reverence, only animosity. Nobody loves Ephialtes.

Anon,

He will go to his grave unable to even contemplate the first item on that list.

Dan,

At the risk of sounding like a pollyanna, let's see how the 2018 mid-terms play out. Trump won on immigration as a central issue. Most of the special elections that have received national attention haven't had immigration as a major issue. Gillespie tried to hail mary with it at the end, but that was in desperation.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

W.F. Chuckles

Ha! Pretty sure I've specifically highlighted that before, but it's worth doing again.

The problem with the comparisons to earlier periods is that America was white then. Among non-whites there is little support for immigration restriction of any kind, including among broke non-whites with no prospects of success in the FANG/FIRE economy. That doesn't matter. They want gibs and allies who will help them get gibs, not good, honest jobs at $40/k year instead of $30/k year.

216 said...

Feryl,

The main driver of nu-socialism is the "precariat" phenomenon. Tens of millions of people stuck in low wage service jobs (retail, food service, health aids). Most of these people are not going to "learn to code", and their jobs face oblivion in two decades at the most. To top it off student debt has skyrocketed. This is an under-reported reason behind the MGTOW phenomenon, though the typical trend there is towards nihilistic individualism.

Countries where the unions weren't cracked and tuition is free (albeit restricted by test-only admissions and fewer services than bloated US campuses) haven't seen this phenomenon as much.


The Boomercon GOP can't explain that Europe has free healthcare and university because they freeload off of NATO. The younger generation sees the GOP (correctly) as needless warmongers, even with a President that is less inclined to interventionism. (US 4%, NATO requirement 2% of which only UK, France, Poland, Baltics, Greece meet) A fair adjustment of 3% by all NATO powers would be a political earthquake in Europe, EU governments have less of a tradition of "civilian control" with coup d'état occurring within living memory. Reinstituting conscription means questionably loyal Muslims, a volunteer force will see the far-right overrepresented.


The EU's somewhat laudable protectionism does make a mockery of their liberal preening. There's a great reservoir of cheap labor sitting across the Mediterranean, but there hasn't been a major outsourcing of industry and Europe produces a surprisingly large share of its own agriculture. Sadly farmers and trade unions across the West are no fans of immigration restriction despite their calls for trade barriers. I'd rather see Libyans bankrupting the Italian olive oil industry rather than Italy overrun with Sub-Saharans.

216 said...

AE,

Antifa as I regard it is based on the "anti-fascist action" which is where the acronym came from. Popularly known as the "black bloc", and officially made up of disparate "anarchists", which is why they have the red/black flag.

DSA isn't anarchist, but they are the organizational muscle behind black bloc demos, alongside older Marxist orgs like the National Lawyers Guild. Boomercons meme about "paid protestors" but only organizers are paid, protesters only get a free bus ride and lunch.

DSA is promising a "jobs guarantee" which is really a warmed-over New Deal idea. Obama made an error in not reviving the CCC and WPA. The right would have had a conspiracy field day, much paranoia existed about the "Obama civilian national security force". In this alternate world, neo-CCC camps might have become ridden with drug dealing, or might have restored the underclass back into productive labor.

216 said...

Add on

Apparently olives aren't as big in Libya as I thought.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Olive_niche.jpg

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I might add that this type of thing was part of my own redpilling. I was always liberal and felt that flooding the country with nonwhites was a good thing to so that we could outvote the squares.

But I was always uncomfortable with the whole "you're a white male" attack. My view was that it was ok to be white and male as long as you were liberal. I remember posting on dailykos where I objected to HUD going after Westchester County and how you shouldn't "shoot at your own team". They couldn't really find a way to respond to me other than indignation.

I think in some ways that the fact I was cynical enough to view nonwhites as cannon fodder - made it pretty easy to end up in this part of the blogosphere. Nonetheless, I still retain a lot of liberal views even though i'm a borderline WN.

Feryl said...

"The main driver of nu-socialism is the "precariat" phenomenon. Tens of millions of people stuck in low wage service jobs (retail, food service, health aids). Most of these people are not going to "learn to code", and their jobs face oblivion in two decades at the most. To top it off student debt has skyrocketed. This is an under-reported reason behind the MGTOW phenomenon, though the typical trend there is towards nihilistic individualism."

I talked to an early Gen X-er who said that his (presumably Silent) parents urged him to find a job/company and patiently stick with it as he worked his way up the ladder in status and/or wages/salary. But X-ers and Millennials have been absolutely hammered by a series of big FUs:

1)Aging co-workers refusing to retire or promote youngsters

2) Entry and lower level wages/salaries being pushed further and further down (adj. for inflation) since the later 80's

3) Rapidly declining security and power of private sector workers, who increasingly have been reluctant to fight for better pay, benefits, and conditions since the 80's.

4) De-industrialization and high immigration levels have dramatically reduced good job opportunities over the last 30 years

Neil Howe said that no generation was ever so blessed as the Silent Generation, who were too young to be hurt by the Depression and too old to be hurt by every negative trend that's come about since the mid-70's. No generation has ever been so easily able to find rewarding and high quality jobs. Not to mention that fact that every Silent cohort joined the workforce before the rise in immigration that started around 1968.

Lastly, it's strange that Gen X-ers often say that they are being "sandwiched" by two annoying and large generations (Boomers and Millennials). In reality, Millennials have much less power and money as twenty and thirtysomethings than Gen X-ers did in the 80's and 90's. Every negative trend that hurt X-ers has hurt Millennials to an even greater degree. X-ers need to team up with Millennials to reform society, not treat them as insolent competitors. In fact, Millennials are much less comfortable with ruthless competition than Boomers and X-ers are, so why get bent out of shape about Millennials? Do they act overly sensitive and entitled? Sure they do, but that doesn't excuse how society has done nothing from an economic standpoint to protect younger generations. And to put things in perspective, look at what youngsters bitched about in the 60's-90's. In hindsight, did they really have all that much to complain about? I don't think so. Boomers and X-ers largely embraced a Darwinist approach to everything, and it sure doesn't make sense to complain about greed, excess, and corruption when your own generation doesn't believe in community wide efforts to be disciplined and considerate.

216 said...

Feryl,

Lots of Boomers continue to complain that they "lost it all" in the 2000 and 2008 crashes, and somehow still can't retire. Last time I checked the stock market had an almost ten year bull market. What is probably unspoken is that many of them were divorced (multiple!) times, and they couldn't control their spending. I also think that many of them don't have an identity outside of work, as I've even known people to work past the age of 70 when the SS benefit is maximized.

Part of the slack in the labor market is due to drugs. Middle-aged white women have an increasing rate of alcoholism, and the white working class is hooked on opiates. Even the increased use and acceptability of cannabis has an impact, as productivity is sapped. Employers are forced by market reality into being race realists, and Hispanics/Asians don't share these vices or the slacker attitudes of underclass blacks. To their credit, blacks have adapted to "crack is whack", and depressants and hallucinogens are less socially destructive in the short run. Part of the disparity in drug arrests can be explained by the nature of blacks acting as part-time dealers, "possession with intent to distribute", this phenomenon is absent among middle class white drug users that don't need the extra cash/hassle.

216 said...

Add on

The decreasing rates of teens using drugs, sex, driving, etc has not usually been pinned on them having a much lower likelihood of having employment. It is usually pinned on social media, smartphones. It might be a strange backwash effect of immigration. The immigrant underclass has an advantage in construction/landscaping, while the native underclass has an advantage in food/retail service sector work. The casualty here was the high-schoolers, and college students formerly employed there in previous generations. Rising higher ed costs also make employment seem futile in covering the costs.

Sid said...

AE,

Cory Booker seems a little more intelligent and a better public speaker, but Kamala Harris definitely has more intersectionality. She's a woman, she's half-black, and she's also half-South Asian.

What I don't know is whether the black vote will go with one candidate in a monolithic fashion (the way they did for Obama in 2008 and Hillary in 2016), or whether blacks will split on them. Black women make up the backbone of Democratic Party voters, and I expect they will go with Harris over Cory Booker, but I don't know if black men will go with Booker.

If the black vote is split, a SWPL candidate like Bernie (if he's not completely converged in a year), Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden might be able to amass enough white support and push through.

I don't know how blacks vote in local races where they can select from a number of black candidates. Whatever dynamic prevails there may or may not hold in a presidential race with a number of black candidates.

Issac said...

DR,

4th generation warfare is a meme. The machine politics of the 19th century are still the means by which power is legitimized. If you think the street conflicts of 2015-18 have been unprecedented you should do a bit of historical review.

I'm not suggesting Americans have nothing to worry about, but mestizo apathy is a significant factor when it comes to the next two critical election cycles.

Issac said...

Individualism is the opposite of excusivity. You could learn a thing or two from our dual ethic system. It will be necessary for whites to have in-group moral preference if they are to exist as anything but a super-majority.

Corvinus said...

"Cory Booker seems a little more intelligent and a better public speaker, but Kamala Harris definitely has more intersectionality. She's a woman, she's half-black, and she's also half-South Asian."

Vox Day has been going full retard with the conspiracy theories lately. Q, and now this...

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/06/run-kamala-run.html

Corvinus said...

Anonymous 1:53...

"It's more about race/ethnicity."

No, you are decidedly wrong here. It is about social-economic condition, along with ideology.

"Trump beat Clinton by appealing to an implicit White Nationalism, the desire among Whites to remain the dominant minority."

Some Whites, undoubtedly. Way too early to tell if and when the angry Anglo-Saxon awakens from their slumber and gets all jiggy with it. But that would be the narrative peddled by the Alt Right. Besides, Shitlery was a basket case. Trump was in the perfect position, given her political weaknesses and his own machinations.

"If social/economic issues were what's most important to a majority of White Americans,Trump would not be the President."

Hello, Trump ran on social/economic issues.

"This is a natural human tendency. We identify more easily with and share a sense of loyalty to, those who share a "family resemblance " with us. We nationalist accept this."

Right, a certain group of people prefer to be with their own kind. What that "own kind" refers to depends on the person and group.

"It should give pause to those who believe class loyalty can win out over ancestry based loyalty,but it won't."

If that be the case, then we would still have 1800's style ethnic rivalries in the United States. You overstate how white people generally feel about non-white people and how they go about their business as white people.

"It's only a matter of time before they do, 1,2,and 3."

Could be twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years...or not at all.

"Then I wonder ,why they're trying so hard to create Yugoslavia?"

That would be the Alt Right.

Sid said...

Corvinus,

During the more febrile parts of the 2016 campaign, there were rumors in left-wing circles that the Kremlin had sex videos of Trump taken in a Moscow hotel, and they were using them as kompromat. This turned out to be from the questionable Steele dossier and nothing has come of the rumors.

No idea if the rumors about Kamala Harris having sex pics is true or not. The issue totally destroyed Weiner again and again.

People under the age of 34 send all sorts of naked and sexual pictures to one another over their phones. Terrible, terrible idea, but I bet this matter will become even more of an issue in 20 years or so, when a jaded ex is jealous of how far an flame has soared.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Precariat is a great term, thanks. It's a good place to start understanding the Jordan Peterson phenomenon. His weird claims about truth are the metaphysics of the contemporary stoicism--the practical self-help stuff is golden. It has exploded because it's exactly what these precariats need and it is in delivered in language that resonates with them (you're life is the ultimate RPG--go be a hero!)

Great point wrt employment, especially teenage employment. All of my sexual relationships in my teens and early twenties were with girls I met working entry-level types of jobs. I've worked regularly since 14, so my generational experience was a throwback of sorts in that regard.

Krusty,

On the weekly AmRen podcast, JT and PK were expressing their apolitical sentiments wrt white advocacy. Ultimately I think that's the most viable approach for identitarians to take. Up to this point, it has slanted to the right because that's where most of us (myself included) come from. As liberal white guys of good faith find their way to our side, we should embrace them with open arms, not mock or belittle them. To put it in basic bitch terms, "there is more that unites us than divides us!"

216 said...

AE,

I demur on Peterson, his Marxist adversaries regularly get the better of his fanboys. Self-Help won't reverse the bimodal distribution of the economy. Even an ethnoreligiously homogenous society like Utah can't reverse fundamental changes in the economy away from unionized heavy industry as a job generator. Peterson promotes heretical religious views to the acclaim of a supposedly conservative audience, even Ben Shapiro isn't this arrogant. A better figure than Cernovich for sure, but he's a Batman preserving decadence rather than Bane destroying it.

I was in HS for Obama's first term and it was certainly uncommon for people to work during the school year, most that did during the summer were for their parent's small business. I went to an upper-middle class private school, but most of my neighbors were middle-class public school students who weren't much different. I'm still surprised by how many middle-aged people are working in restaurants, I can remember a time when this was almost all teens. These days only Chikfila operates this way. 216 is the area code for Northeast Ohio.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Even though he's articulate and sounds erudite, he's not a particularly polemically effective debater because he either has no knack for or has some ethical hangup about going in for rhetorical kill shots. I've started listening to his podcast feed, too, and it's clear that his knowledge is wider than it is deep.

But I've had more personal testimonials about Peterson from people I know in my social network and from guys who work for me than any other public figure ever. Several--and that's not hyperbolic, I can think of five right now--have actually done the self-authoring program. These are good guys, not quite in the precariat--financially they're doing okay--but they're not building futures for themselves. At 30, they're 20 yos who have a little money saved up. Whatever can provide them motivation to do battle in the world for themselves, the better. Many of them are /our guys/, they just haven't realized it yet.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
" No, you are decidedly wrong here. It is about social-economic condition, along with ideology."

The ideology that propelled Trump to victory was an implicit
White American Nationalism.

"Some Whites, undoubtedly. Way too early to tell if and when the angry Anglo-Saxon awakens from their slumber and gets all jiggy with it. But that would be the narrative peddled by the Alt Right. Besides, Shitlery was a basket case. Trump was in the perfect position, given her political weaknesses and his own machinations."

Trump didn't just beat Clinton, he beat his Republican rivals, as well as, the Republican establishment, and won in the face of opposition from the media, and academia.
His Nationalism, particularly his proposal to build a wall on the southern border, appealed to millions of White Americans, Republican, Democrat,and Independent,who are opposed to the "browning" of America.
I believe this implicit White American Nationalism did more from Trump than talk of trade, tariffs, taxes etc.
Not that those things did not matter, only they didn't matter as much.

"Hello, Trump ran on social/economic issues."

They ALL ran on social/ economic issues.
It was Trump's appeal to White American interest in stopping the demographic changes that brought him to the Oval Office.

"Right, a certain group of people prefer to be with their own kind. What that "own kind" refers to depends on the person and group."

We all belong to many groups. The group which commands our foremost loyalty is the group which is our Nation.
Every individual makes that decision for themselves,of course the group has some say so in the matter ;ask Rachel Dolezal.

In the U.S. race has played the role language and religion have played in Europe, Africa,and Asia,
that of an ethnic marker.
Thus, in the U.S. we have ethnoracial groups.
(While Europe for most of its history had ethnocultural groups.)
The survey evidence suggest that racial identity trumps other group identities ,among Millennials anyway.

I've never believed every White American would support White American Nationalism, nor even that all who did support it would choose to live in a White Ethnostate.
After all how many Zionist Jews decide not to live in Israel?

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
"If that be the case, then we would still have 1800's style ethnic rivalries in the United States. "

I assume you mean the tensions that once existed between Irish, Italian and other European immigrants.
If that's the case ,then the fact that those tensions have largely abated through assimilation to a common White American identity, while racial amalgamation has moved much slower and racial consciousness seems to be increasing, would seem to support my contention that in the U.S. race is an ethnic marker.
A marker that matters to millions.

"You overstate how white people generally feel about non-white people and how they go about their business as white people."

I don't believe most White Americans hate
non- whites, if that's what you mean.
I'm convinced even most White American Nationalist don't hate them.
Nor do I desire for them to.
I am convinced most White Americans desire to remain a racially distinctive people and preserve the Euro-American culture that has evolved here.
I believe this desire will grow stronger over time as the threat to White Americans of racial amalgamation, cultural assimilation and even possible Rwanda style genocide, increases.

"Could be twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years...or not at all."

Obviously.
But not likely to be more than 100 years.

"That would be the Alt Right." (seeking to create Yugoslavia)

The Alt Right, which for me is synonymous with White Nationalism, doesn't desire the multinational type of society which was Yugoslavia and is now the U.S.
They certainly don't want the violent break up that Yugoslavia experienced.

You're basically saying that White American Nationalist, which are acting like humans all over the world have reacted to their displacement ,will be to blame for a violent break up, should it come.
That's as false as blaming Palestinians for starting the violence in Palestine.
It is those who engineer the displacement who are to blame.

As an aside, it is very telling that those who defend the historic American Nation should be considered the
"Alternative" .

In a sane society that would be the norm.

Feryl said...

"I was in HS for Obama's first term and it was certainly uncommon for people to work during the school year, most that did during the summer were for their parent's small business. I went to an upper-middle class private school, but most of my neighbors were middle-class public school students who weren't much different. I'm still surprised by how many middle-aged people are working in restaurants, I can remember a time when this was almost all teens. These days only Chikfila operates this way. 216 is the area code for Northeast Ohio. "

The peak of teen employment was the go-go 80's. Silents and early Boomers in the 40's-60's didn't work a whole lot as teenagers, though they probably worked more than Millennials have. But as you pointed out, where are the jobs for native born teens these days? Boomers are still doing a lot of lower level jobs that require English skills, like jobs that have heavy interaction with customers. Meanwhile, other kinds of lower levels jobs are often filled by immigrants.

One of the reasons people are nostalgic for the 70's and 80's is that back then, American youngsters were much more the face of employment, as older people could easily retire and American kids could start climbing the career ladder at a young age.

Feryl said...

"Great point wrt employment, especially teenage employment. All of my sexual relationships in my teens and early twenties were with girls I met working entry-level types of jobs. I've worked regularly since 14, so my generational experience was a throwback of sorts in that regard."

216 and Aud, it seems like for whatever reason the Midwest is turning into a real force for reform and change. Part of that reason may be that even us early 80's births had neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces that were heavily American born white, with a smattering of blacks depending on the area. AA didn't really matter that much even into the 90's; where exactly was HR going to find non-whites, in the first place (MN was 88% white in 1990)? The GHW Bush immigration wave (1988-1992) really only heavily affected the Southwest (Minneapolis had a mosque by the late 80's, but who really cared about that in the suburbs?). On Isteve and MPC, I hear countless stories of Midwestern suburbs and small towns no longer resembling what they were before the 2000's; in some cases the changes didn't really in earnest until the 2010's, the decade in which both the post-1980 immigrants and recent descendants of post-1980 immigrants have begun to drastically change the demographics of large swathes of America. Unless you're in Northern New England, the Northern Mountain states, or much of Appalachia, you've seen first hand just what the GOP did to us in the 80's and 2000's when they abdicated immigration control.

Southern New England/The coastal Mid-Atlantic has too many Ellis Island peoples and foreign-philes to get too bent out of shape, The lowland and coastal South and Southwest have a tradition of using non-white labor, and Pacific Coast whites don't give a shit about protecting heritage America tradition. So who's left to fight for demographic stability? The Midwest, Appalachia, and the inland and upper Northeast.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Resonates enormously with me. I’ve told the story in comments before that when my wife and I were house hunting for the place we planned on raising all our kids to adulthood in, we found one we loved—and it fed into my elementary school to boot! Great continuity, right?

Then I went to greatschools to check the school and found to my disappointment that it is now 1/3 Sun People. Even though I’ve had the blog since 2005 it was a real WTF moment. When I went in the mid nineties it had to have been at least 95% white.

Now we have kobach running for governor. Contrast on national question couldn’t be greater than with Sam brownback, who was more open borders than John McCain (that’s not an exaggeration).

Iow, I think you’re right.

Feryl said...

People under the age of 34 send all sorts of naked and sexual pictures to one another over their phones. Terrible, terrible idea, but I bet this matter will become even more of an issue in 20 years or so, when a jaded ex is jealous of how far an flame has soared.

My 2c is that the internet and media over-saturation have heavily desensitized people. Even back in the 90's, people still usually had to turn to the porn section of the video store, or true crime novels, or tabloid periodicals, to be exposed to that which was considered "shocking" or "graphic".

Funny thing is that people were actually more wild, more sexual and violent, in the 60's-1990's than they are now. But since censorship was more common back then, and media was much more limited in scope, you didn't have an immediate route to "adult" or "graphic" material back then. Thus giving people the illusion that the overall culture was "wholesome". R-rated movies in the late 80's and early 90's (the peak of Religious Right hysteria and one of the last real spikes in media censorship) often were forced to cut violent material that now can be seen on not just basic cable, but even national TV! I remember an editor of a 1985 slasher movie who said that the (neurotic Silent) censors kept telling him to the reduce the "bounces" that a severed head took in a scene. He kept cutting the bounce shots, until the MPAA allowed it to pass with one bounce. Amusingly, filmakers from this era said that the MPAA would reduce the cartoonishly excessive gore to the point that murder scenes would become more realistic and disturbing.

WRT to naked photos in particular, keep in mind that teenagers/young adults in the 60's-90's had a lot more sex. It just wasn't being documented via pictures, for the most part (unless you were Bob Crane). I just don't think that Millennials care about being sanctimonious moral guardians, since they themselves weren't as out of control as older generations. Boomers in the 80's and 90's made such a big deal out of cleaning up the culture and giving kids better role models, but does anyone really care that much these days about kids being exposed to too much sex or violence? Not really. Per Micheal Bloomberg, movements to ban harmful substances and business practices ought to gain in popularity, but media censorship and hysteria about fragile kids being corrupted by distasteful media ain't coming back, at least not for a while (those of us who grew up with cable or permissive parents got to watch severed heads bouncing along the ground back when we were kids in the 80's and 90's, but did that irreparably damage us? Don't think so).

Y'all remember the age verification thing from the late 90's and early 2000's, that used to be on porn websites? Doesn't really exist anymore, does it? Boomer authorities had such wacky ass priorities; let's allow more gambling, more pay day loans, more monopolies, more immigration etc. etc., but God forbid a kid be exposed to pictures of adults having sex.

216 said...

Feryl,

Exhibit #1 is Columbus, Ohio. What was once actually a center-right medium sized city is now a hard-left globohomo metropolis. Literally full of both gays and Somali Muslims. Like Atlanta it can expand its suburbs in 360 degrees, keeping the surrounding counties in the GOP column. Their leaders praise the "diversity" of the city for its success, disregarding that their prosperity exists mostly for having the state government and the flagship university. Columbus set a record high in homicides last year. The other metros of Ohio are mostly un-diverse, but have become blacker in relative terms as the white population has a higher propensity of leaving for a booming Sun Belt state.

Northeast Ohio doesn't have a lot of foreigners, but the "civic leaders" badly wish we were inundated. Most notable among foreigners are physicians, because apparently we can't train enough doctors and need to import them from Subcontinental countries. The hospitals are big in Northeast Ohio, the only remaining industry that employs large numbers of people. Despite widespread continuing unemployment and addiction in Appalachia, our friendly local news media continues to claim that lawns can't be mowed without the importation of cheap foreign labor.

We actually still have not recovered from the recession in terms of employment.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST390000000000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true

About 200K, mostly Appalachians and Blacks, vanished from the labor force. Mostly moving out of state, addictions, or involuntary early retirement at 62.

216 said...

Feryl,

The UK has brought back the age gate, and given it legal force.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40628909

For legal purposes anything on the Internet that requires a sign up usually has something in the "terms and conditions" about being either 13+ or having "parents permission". At some point I expect major restrictions on the social media of minors to be enacted here, especially if "incel" continues its exponential growth.

Our relative absence of "harmful substance bans" has a lot to do with Koch/Reason/CATO. Anything described as "Nanny state" was accused of being a Trojan Horse that would lead to gun bans and Agenda 21. Since European populist movements were never co-opted by lolbertarians, it became easier to pass things like sugar taxes, drug advertising restrictions, video game restrictions, and even burqa/halal food bans.

Keen point wrt payday loans, it has been a major struggle to rein them in here, as their industry is a major GOP donor. Same GOP cucks wonder why blacks don't vote GOP. Same GOP that loudly claimed the anti-gambling mantle for decades to win over Protestants, but upon Kasich taking office in 2010 illegally doubled the number of casinos licenses. Gambling was legalized during the pits of the recession, total jobs/taxes delivered only half of what was promised.

Feryl said...

"Like Atlanta it can expand its suburbs in 360 degrees, keeping the surrounding counties in the GOP column. Their leaders praise the "diversity" of the city for its success"

And this go figure is generally welcomed by the CoC/cuckservatives, who orgasm over residential development as long as it isn't oriented towards mass transit (which is seen both as an Uncle Sam boondoggle and a means by which to co mingle minorities and prole whites with well to do whites).

There's a reason why in non populist times that the GOP is as popular as it is; they promote the idea of living in the outer suburbs/exurbs, while much of the city and successive rings of inner suburbs rot. Boomers annihilated the appeal of more urban living by being crime-prone, argumentative, loud, and generally anti-social. As Boomers gained in influence, US life increasingly centered around people doing everything possible to escape human contact, with Boomers pushing "back to nature" movements (since Boomers seem to elicit so much hostility from their fellow man). This also ties into the deliberate sandbagging of infrastructure spending, and as note above, nothing elicits more hatred from Boomers than mass transit projects.

I know I'll get flak for this, but I don't care: The GOP simultaneously barely does a damn thing to counter the dystopian atmosphere of lower income areas, while glorifying the escaping of such. We don't need to escape it, we need to solve it.

216 said...

Feryl,

Quite right regarding the development of Columbus as a highway dependent city, they will not be getting the Amazon headquarters thanks to the absence of a light rail system. I'm not familiar with the construction companies in the Columbus area, but I would not be surprised to see them as large GOP donors and large employers of foreigners.

Conservatism Inc propagandizes a black person "escaping" the ghetto, but that just puts them into a predominantly white suburb and restarts the cycle after regression to the mean. Kevin Williamson did this as his stock in trade. By contrast note the reception to JD Vance versus Geoffery Canada.

I think this is a problem with right-wing politics across the Western world. I see it as an ignorance of long-term consequences rooted in loss of the aristocracy's moral authority, and the disproportionate casualties they took in both World Wars, along with lower fertility rates. The end of colonialism also meant the end of protected markets, just as desegregation destroyed the protected market for black-owned businesses.

Even if we can stop the Third World invasion, it would only be temporary until industrialization and education can lower the unsustainable African fertility rate. In the aftermath of WW2, the British paid for some black colonial elites to study in UK universities. When the blacks saw the bombed out UK cities and promiscuous British women they concluded Britain wasn't all that and accelerated the push for independence.

What do you think are the laudable qualities of Boomers?

Feryl said...

" By contrast note the reception to JD Vance versus Geoffery Canada."

Explain?

"What do you think are the laudable qualities of Boomers?"

Making 1974-1987(?) the greatest period of pop culture, maybe of all time. I've yet to stop finding good movies and songs from that era, and even the artwork done for movie posters, action figure packaging, album covers, etc. tended to be awesome. Admittedly, a lot of this can also be attributed to Silents, but given how rapidly pop culture went into the shitter in the early-mid 90's when Gen X-ers first had a lot of influence (MTV's ratings started declining around 1991), I'd say Boomers do deserve credit.

Silents and Boomers deserve a lot of shit for squandering what they inherited, but at least they managed to use their ample resources to become good artists.

Feryl said...

How often have references to Star Wars, Rambo, Predator, Robocop, the Alien, The Terminator, Back to the Future, etc. shown up over the last 40 years (while references to say, the culture of the 60's or 90's is much more rare)? Most instantly recognizable movie themes date to the mid 70's-mid 80's. The period of about 1979-1984 had a greater variety of music genres and artists on the charts then has ever been heard before or since (whereas in the 1950's or 2010's, you're gonna hear Elvis or Taylor Swift whenever you listen to the radio).

From the standpoint of life being exciting but not too difficult, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better period than the late 70's and early-mid 80's. And it wasn't until the late 80's that many people started to worry about not measuring up, status-wise (the early 80's was the last period where most people weren't that concerned about their social status.

216 said...

Vance was given a tremendous amount of praise for only writing a book. He didn't really say anything that Jim Webb hadn't said earlier. His basic advice to Appalachians was "move" and "bootstraps", to my knowledge he never suggested "tariffs". Gefforey Canada actually built a functional organization that tried to improve the black underclass where they were. It attracted a lot of praise for the blank slate views, but the Conservatism Inc people used him to fetishize charter schools while rejecting his otherwise leftist views.

Short verison: Vance was lauded, Canada was patronized

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Right, the millennial hangups aren't about sex now, they're about identifiers--correct race, gender, etc. A lot of millennials seem to play up the sex they are involved in because they're involved in so little that they're insecure about it.

216,

Black fertility in the US is at sustainable levels. Well, not for them, I guess, since they're below replacement now!

Anonymous said...

Audacious,

1. "Black fertility in the US is at sustainable levels. Well, not for them, I guess, since they're below replacement now!"

Indeed it is, or they are. Last I read TFR for Af-Ams is just below replacement. If this keeps up where will black population be in 2050? 2075?

2. I was ragging you a few posts back about sectionalism, and this morning, I came across a non-white voter "tipping point" map, which alas I can't find now (playing hooky) but roughly, it was a map of the US, and the non-white voters were from CA straight across the bottom of the country, to and up the East Coast, with a white center. And I said to myself, "welp, there's your section."

Skeptic

Corvinus said...

Anonymous 9:34 p.m...

"The ideology that propelled Trump to victory was an implicit White American Nationalism."

That was the narrative made AFTER the election as the means to legitimize the Alt RIght.

"Trump didn't just beat Clinton, he beat his Republican rivals, as well as, the Republican establishment, and won in the face of opposition from the media, and academia."

A repudiation to the system, absolutely. In large part because of a historically weak candidate, in large part because Flyover Country giving the middle finger to D.C. politics as usual.

"His Nationalism, particularly his proposal to build a wall on the southern border, appealed to millions of White Americans, Republican, Democrat,and Independent,who are opposed to the "browning" of America."

His showcasing of his alleged nationalism. He is a market provocateur.

"I believe this implicit White American Nationalism did more from Trump than talk of trade, tariffs, taxes etc. Not that those things did not matter, only they didn't matter as much."

Trump talked about how he is going to help his supporters financially. All Trump has done is pull the rug from underneath them.

"They ALL ran on social/ economic issues."

Except Trump targeted those voters who for two election cycles voted for Obama. Shitlery thought she had it in the bag.

"It was Trump's appeal to White American interest in stopping the demographic changes that brought him to the Oval Office."

Again, that is narrative spun by the Alt Right after the election.

"Right, a certain group of people prefer to be with their own kind. What that "own kind" refers to depends on the person and group."

"We all belong to many groups. The group which commands our foremost loyalty is the group which is our Nation."

Right, and each person determines who they believe is part of their nation now and in the future, as the Founding Fathers intended. For our posterity.

Corvinus said...

"(While Europe for most of its history had ethnocultural groups.)"

But the United States is not Europe. We are a Mutt Nation.

"The survey evidence suggest that racial identity trumps other group identities ,among Millennials anyway."

The future is Generation Z. They embrace multiculturalism.

http://www.sensisagency.com/Cross-cultural-Gen-Z

"If that's the case ,then the fact that those tensions have largely abated through assimilation to a common White American identity..."

No, those tensions were abated because of a common American identity, which included whites, blacks, browns, and yellows.

"while racial amalgamation has moved much slower..."

In part due to race mixing being illegal until recently (50 years).

"I am convinced most White Americans desire to remain a racially distinctive people..."

Some, not most.

"and preserve the Euro-American culture that has evolved here."

You mean preserve the American culture, one that owes its creation to different racial and ethnic groups.

"I believe this desire will grow stronger over time as the threat to White Americans of racial amalgamation, cultural assimilation and even possible Rwanda style genocide, increases."

Maybe, or maybe not. As far as "Rwanda style genocide", that's not going to happen here.

But not likely to be more than 100 years.

"The Alt Right, which for me is synonymous with White Nationalism..."

The Alt Right is much more complex and nuanced that White Nationalism.

"You're basically saying that White American Nationalist, which are acting like humans all over the world have reacted to their displacement ,will be to blame for a violent break up, should it come. "

That would be YOU putting words in my mouth.

"As an aside, it is very telling that those who defend the historic American Nation should be considered the "Alternative" ."

The historical American nation consisted of white and non-white peoples, and the Founding Fathers enabled its citizens to make their own decisions about race and culture.

216 said...

Corvinus,

See how well your liberalism and multiculturalism fares without the cultural heights of power being dominated by the 2%. If we had the media power that Putin has things would move in the right direction.

Do you ever punch the other side?

Feryl said...


2. I was ragging you a few posts back about sectionalism, and this morning, I came across a non-white voter "tipping point" map, which alas I can't find now (playing hooky) but roughly, it was a map of the US, and the non-white voters were from CA straight across the bottom of the country, to and up the East Coast, with a white center. And I said to myself, "welp, there's your section."

Below the 35th parallel of latitude, Anglo-Celtic-Germanic people don't really do uh, well. What's aggravating to people in the frost belt is that the Sun-belt is turning into such a dystopian shit hole that both immigrants and globalists are learning to bundle up for Northern winters.

There's a well-established precedent for Sun-belt labor being done by Mexicans and blacks; but in the Northern states, what do they do, exactly? Hunker down for 5-7 months, just like the white people do. Guarantee you, cut the welfare and AA and these people have no damn reason to be here anymore. And the consequence of large numbers of blacks heading North to compete with whites has been a self-evident disaster, as the likes of Ford had no reason to employ blacks over whites. And absent AA, employers were going to choose whites the vast majority of the time. The North developed horrible ghettos by the 1960's, and AA partly came about because of how horrified elites were that large parts of America were inhabited by hapless and shiftless blacks. In the Southwest, blacks didn't do much better given that whites and Mexicans were generally better than blacks. Only in the armpit of America (the Mid-Atlantic, the non-Appalachian South and East Texas) were blacks vastly preferred as laborers.

Feryl said...

*the coastal Mid-Atlantic; who fought for the North and South is basically a guide to American weather, with Missouri, Kentucky, Kansas, and the first version of Virginia (West Virginia, the cold and mountainous part of Virginia was split off from Eastern Virginia) all being close to Confederate states, but ultimately too cold to make siding with the Confederacy the best option.

The Mid-Atlantic states were Union states, but the same time they always relied much more on slave labor than New England, whose harsh winters and mild summers were handled well by the Puritans.

Per Steve Sailer, the most facepalmingly under reported aspect of the civil war was that it exposed the folly of trying to run a majority white country of such vastly differing climates, esp. given that Anglo-Celtic whites get fried to a crisp beneath the 35th parallel of latitude and no part of Northern Europe has hot and humid summers (for that matter, most of Southern Europe isn't that hot and humid either, and besides Europe as a whole is pretty far North regardless of climate differences between regions). The lowland and coastal South had whites who were like "you expect anyone to toil in this shit by choice? Really?"

Colbert said...

Every (100%) guy wich call Hillary "Hitlery/Shitlery" is a cuck or and open neocon. The path of least resistance for those people is to finish as a Blair/Macron/Lieberman elector (yes, I know they would prefer to vote for a kind of Ayn Rand, but the little problem is that never in a million years, those kind of dickens'dystopia lovers would make more than 4%. And Pinochet is dead)