Sunday, June 24, 2018

On the dissident right

Z-Man devotes an hour to a treatment of the dissident right:



In the intro, he mentions it's a phrase he's heard with increasing frequency as of late. Although it predates the phrase "alt right" that supplanted everything else in 2015, "dissident right" may come out on top yet. We're not there yet, however:


These nebulous terms are valuable to some degree on account of being nebulous. I'm not a stickler for what language is used. As a longtime reader of the Derb, who coined the phrase "dissident right", I've always thought of alt right as being a subset of the broader dissident right. To be on the alt right is to be on the dissident right, but to be on the dissident right is not necessarily to be on the alt right.


The preceding spergy paragraph (mine, not Derb's) does not represent the hour Z devotes in the least. It's an accessible, practically applicable delineation of what the dissident right is, what it is not, and how it exists in juxtaposition to progressivism, libertarianism, and conservatism. It hits all the important points while striking a perfect balance between weightiness and concision.

There are a couple of things to quibble with--Z overstates the Neanderthal contribution to human DNA by an order of magnitude because he think everyone who is anyone sports the same caliber of brow ridge he does, for instance--but there are fewer nits to pick than any presentation I'd be able to put together would contain. It's one I'll be linking and pointing to with frequency in the future.

Parenthetically, he references the Darwin fish people used to sport on the back of their vehicles a decade ago in a description of what are sometimes called "liberal creationists". As that anti-scientific position becomes increasingly untenable without massive cognitive dissonance--not to mention utter ignorance of genomics in particular and biology more generally--I'm going to start calling them "darwin fish creationists" instead.

55 comments:

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I think the fiction bumper sticker people are more fertile recruiting ground for the dissident right than the darwin fish people. The reason for that is that they are mocking a shitlib bumper sticker rather than a conservatard one.

The Z Blog said...

Ha! Yeah, I misspoke on the neanderthal admixture. I was thinking about something else while recording and I was too lazy to re-record that segment. That and the brow ridge thing.

Realist said...

Note that blank slate starts with BS.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I disagree that the term "dissident right" is going anywhere. It conjures up images of a gaggle of spergs and nerds flailing that you quoted the wrong 19th century German philosopher. It's a lot like "the dark enlightenment" term that happened a few years ago. Coming up with a good political term is pretty difficult. If I recall correctly, "Make America Great Again" was a multiyear effort.

This last week, we saw normiecons talk about repealing Hart-Celler. Say what you will but the alt right has always been more effective at getting the message out. They've had their issues but they've done more in 3 years to further the right wing cause than the last 30 years without them. Issues that you only heard The Daily Shoah express in 2015 are now Tucker Carlson's talking points in 2018.

Sid said...

I think the big turning point for the alt-right was when Hillary gave a speech on them. Before then, the Establishment had decided to try to ignore them, but after Hillary gave her speech, the alt-right became the term used from everything to civic nationalist Breitbart, to citizenist Steve Sailer, to ethno-statist Richard Spencer (who, in a strict sense, is the originator of the true alt-right), to bona fide Neo-Nazis.

Part of identity is how you see yourself, but another part of it is how other people see you. Once guys like us started being call alt-right by other people, well, that's what we became!

Of course, I agree with AE that I'm less picky about the label than I am about the content, so a new name could emerge and I wouldn't have an issue with it unless it sounded especially clumsy or counterproductive.

Lakarn said...

Here's a New York Times article which (rightly) argues that support for Trump is at least in part caused by a concern for white extinction:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/opinion/america-white-extinction.html

Of course, this being the New York Times, the comments are full of white and ((whites)) who sing the praises of Magic Rainbow Multicultural America and cheer for the White Extinction scenarios.

What's interesting is that the article admits that the concerns about a white extinction are based on reality. After years and years spent denigrating anyone who talked about this as a "white supremacist" spreading "conspiracy theories", the ((mainstream media)) are now openly admitting that it's the future (but of course, from ((their)) point of view, it's a beautiful multiracial Utopia).

Still, the stakes are plain and clear for anyone to see. The ((establishment)) cheers for white extinction through population replacement.

Anyone who wishes to preserve the white race is of course called a "racist", a "white supremacist", and other thought-terminating cliches, but nobody is denying that this is what's happening, that the United States are headed to a path where White Americans will become a minority, their culture will be replaced, their institutions will be changed to accommodate the needs and desires of the "people of Color".

This would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. It's clear by now that the Democratic Party is the Party of Anti-Whiteness, the Party of Replacement, of White Extinction, that Donald Trump is the only candidate who genuinely addressed the White Extinction concerns, and that the Republican Party is either going to represent the ethnic interests of white people through an aggressive anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-voter fraud, pro-ICE raids program or it will crush and burn.

White people in America are noticing more and more that many want them to be a minority in the country, and a minority which won't receive any of the Special Treatments of other "disadvantaged" minorities, but it will relentlessly blamed for anything, and punished in all sorts of ways.

The genie is out of the bottle and the battle lines are drawn. You're either in favor of protecting the white race or you don't mind White Extinction. Of course non-whites welcome the second option, eager to feel in control and to use political power to their advantage.

From their point of view this is understandable, if irrational, given what the "Evil" Whites gave them, and how they'll soon find it harder to milk benefits from them.

It's the whites who cheer for White Extinction who are baffling in their insanity.

Feryl said...

"White people in America are noticing more and more that many want them to be a minority in the country, and a minority which won't receive any of the Special Treatments of other "disadvantaged" minorities, but it will relentlessly blamed for anything, and punished in all sorts of ways. "

No country can exactly duplicate another country's experience or culture (for one thing, a given ethnic group in a region will not be totally representative of that ethnic group's performance elsewhere, since a particular kind of person is drawn to a given region, e.g. American blacks tend to be more dysfunctional the further West and North you go in America). So saying that the future will be like Brazil or South Africa here is a bit presumptuous. In S Africa, the population is majority black and otherwise mostly white, and blacks say "we were here first, this is ours". In America, blacks can't make that argument so even die hard shit-libs and blacks will never say that whites ought to step aside for the sake of the ethnic group which once controlled the land.

A Brazil type outcome would require most whites to ethnically mix with blacks and Hispanic, and I don't see that happening (Central America and much of South America are historical anomalies in their race mixing, in other countries you see ethnic groups that have mostly maintained their distinct characteristics which date back millennia). It could well happen in the American Southwest to some degree because that's where whites tend to be the least racially conscious and most whites don't feel as.......unsettled by Mexicans as they do blacks, and Mexicans are fast outstripping blacks as the dominant "minority" in this region.

What we all need to be conscious of is the possibility that there's an outbreak of immense hostility between darks and lights, which leads to most or all of a particular ethnic group leaving part of the country or the country altogether. Anything is possible. America in 1900 had no idea that it would be the dominant super power in 1950.

Also WRT Civil War, check out Sarah Sanders being kicked out of a restaurant for no good reason. The Left says that their pet groups (such as blacks) should be allowed to loiter in establishments, while conservative whites ought to be shunned by virtuous business owners. This kind of vindictive hostility, and obvious promotion of blatant double standards, should it keep happening or grow in severity, might be a catalyst for (greater) aggression between two groups.

Feryl said...

*Step aside for blacks*, as opposed to feather Indians.

Joe Suber said...

The alt-right label was wrested away from the civ-nats by Spencer, Enoch and Anglin only after the Milos and McInnes's of the world disavowed. That was good if you like clarity, but sure, sometimes these things are better ill-defined in the pursuit of normies. White Nationalism 1.0 is also different than the alt-right mainly because of youth, THOTs, and energy-levels. Derb-right would work for me, as I do mark John Derbyshire's departure from National Review as a crystalizing moment.

We are all united by immigration policy and trade so what is the big deal? /Ourguys/ rarely come right out and say what they don't like about what they *think* is underneath a given label, and the policy outcomes are pretty similar. Kum-ba-Yah mutha f*ers!

The Z Blog said...

I'm not sure the label alt-right survives. The number of people using it appears to be shrinking. That's not a bad thing. I think it just means the antiquated notions of Left and Right are fading, so the need for an "alternative right" is less salient. The world is dividing into nationalists versus internationalists, populists versus globalists, biological realists versus blank slaters.

If you think boys and girls are different, that race is real and important and diversity requires borders, your economics are not all that important to the people who agree or disagree with you.

Jim Bowery said...

Shameless pan handling because I've got a very full plate and can't do everything without support. This is something I'd like to do because the slogan "diversity is our greatest strength" is treated as a preamble to the Constitution, if not the 0th Commandment, without serious examination.

Click here to support my Measuring Diversity Impact project at gofundme.

chris said...

"The world is dividing into nationalists versus internationalists, populists versus globalists, biological realists versus blank slaters."

Hobbes vs Rousseau.

Audacious Epigone said...

Krusty,

Are people who are militantly anti-religious more fertile for us than those who like the idea of being scientifically informed?

Z,

When you're that big-brained, the brow ridge is a necessity and so is the extraordinarily high Neanderthal admixture. I mean, that's what I've heard, anyway!

Realist,

Ha, indeed.

Random Dude,

Touche, and my mini-discussion plus the very quant-oriented Derb as the intellectual godfather doesn't do much to dispel the idea of it having insurmountable spergy connotations.

Otoh, a very non-spergy guy, Richard Spencer--who loves 19th century German philosophers!--popularized "alt right".

As noted, I'm fine identifying as either and will continue to think of the alt right as a subset of the broader dissident right.

Sid,

Right. As Z notes in the presentation, whatever the staying power or lack thereof for the various labels, the ideas aren't going anywhere. They're on the inexorable ascent.

Lakarn,

It's the whites who cheer for White Extinction who are baffling in their insanity.

Will they continue to once the non-white tide starts lapping up on their shores? I've been thinking lately that merit immigration, along the lines of the RAISE act, might actually help bring more white professionals to our side. NRx was driven in large part by computer programmers at a time when their prospects were being cut down by Microsoft and the telecommunication giants pushing hard for more tech visas in the 90s and early 2000s. White professionals don't face any threat from brown gardeners and dishwashers, so they don't care much about the illiterate peasant invasion.

Feryl,

Popular culture is pushing miscegenation harder than anything else. We're now at a point in the US where more than 1-in-10 (~13% IIRC) marriages are interracial. We're behind Brazil, but we're on a path that will eventually close the gap.

Joe,

Ha, I'm in for Derb-right, though it'll too easily morph into derp-right when it comes out of the mouths of sneering soyboys. Agree, though, there is far more that unites us than divides us (or at least there should be!).

Z,

That's where the "right" part of the formulation could be counterproductive. Jared Taylor, most saliently, doesn't like the idea of putting white identitarianism on the left or the right.

Chris,

But, but, but what about the lolbertarians?

Feryl said...

"We're now at a point in the US where more than 1-in-10 (~13% IIRC) marriages are interracial".

Source?

And how many of these marriages are in the SW (including Texas) and Florida? How many are white and Asian, or white and Mestizo?

I know we've gone down this road before WRT gender and race, in terms of WFBM, WMAF, etc.

Mixing with Asians and mestizos won't create Brazil (Brazil had whites mix with Africans and full-blooded natives).

216 said...

There is no utility in attacking WFBM from the WM perspective. Better off to condemn the Asian fetish of WM and signal boost the BF complaining about WFBM. Let's not ignore the fact that WM are the largest consumers of BM-dominated sportsball.

Marriages in general are in decline, its a less salient issue than immigration and affirmative action. Marriage across religious denominational lines is a bigger problem in my opinion.

White liberals view becoming a minority and then being blurred out in a religious fashion. We arguably need separatism from liberals more than we do from non-whites or Muslims.

Feryl said...

"Will they continue to once the non-white tide starts lapping up on their shores? I've been thinking lately that merit immigration, along the lines of the RAISE act, might actually help bring more white professionals to our side. NRx was driven in large part by computer programmers at a time when their prospects were being cut down by Microsoft and the telecommunication giants pushing hard for more tech visas in the 90s and early 2000s. White professionals don't face any threat from brown gardeners and dishwashers, so they don't care much about the illiterate peasant invasion."

Verbally oriented majority white societies with WEIRDO roots place lots of status on verbal elites. Verbal elites (in entertainment, media, and law) face no pressure at all from immigrants. In Hollywood, some directors and cinematographers are ESL foreigners, but the real heart of the sausage making occurs within the realm of the mostly or entirely Anglophone process of script writing, production meetings, actor casting, and the like. If for no other reason then sheer convenience, most of the people who end up in Hollywood are not only Anglophone, but American born as well. As an outsider who's dug into the background of some movies, it's evident that movies can take months and even years to get off the ground, and trust me, a lot of ESL personnel would make it impossible to develop and complete movies in a reasonable time frame and insure quality control (I've also heard horror stories of Anglo producers and actors struggling to communicate with ESL directors, who are then banished if the movie doesn't turn out well).

Noblesse oblige will have to derive from elites feeling sympathy for prole natives, as opposed to expecting elites to act in their own narrow interest. Elites in 1915 didn't necessarily have to take pity on child factory workers, though some of them did.....And even the elites who were initially resistant to "socialism" eventually realized that if they continued to abuse proles then the guillotine might await.

The "good" news, as Agnostic has pointed out, is that the actual inner workings of Hollywood, Wall Street, D.C. and Madison Avenue don't really need foreigners. It's actually the heavily GOP sectors that rely on grunt labor (e.g. agriculture, construction, lawncare) who most stand to benefit from a populace that's heavily foreign born, non represented by unions, underpaid, and insecure. That's why immigration went down somewhat after Bush left office in 1992, then surged under Bush 2. The current demographic crisis was set in motion by the 1980's, when the adults who came here either had kids, or brought kids with them who went on to have kids in subsequent decades. The finishing blow came in the 2000's when Bush deliberately inflated a housing bubble, not just to goose the economy as was also done in the 90's, but this time to encourage Mexicans to come here and reproduce! Seriously GOP'ers, the 80's and 2000's did more damage to our cause than just about anything else. It's only been in the 2010's that the Dems began to fully jump on the immigrant band wagon (remember, the GOP for decades thought that bringing in foreigners would goose Sun Belt growth and accelerate the decline of the union-belt).

In addition, remember that it's the GOP that fetishizes reproduction. The twin sentiment of "family values" and endless growth really did a number, didn't they?

Feryl said...

The modern Left right now has an ID crisis, because they simultaneously want restrictions on growth (green belts, pollution limits, greater resource management by bureaucracy) and high immigrant levels. Historically, the Left does better in developed and expensive environments, by hearing the complaints of those who are harmed by excessive avarice (unfettered "growth"). From 1900-1970, the progressive ethos allowed urban populations to eventually enjoy less crowding, less pollution, and more secure employment.After WW2, most GIs fanned out to the populist and modest suburbs of the period, and were able to have large families with little to no concern about the expense of marriage and child rearing. Everybody left their door unlocked, ya know? In the 1970's, growing signs of a retreat from the communal confidence and modesty of the recent past became evident: Infrastructure started to rust and crack up, crime grew, immigration ramped up (though not to the excesses of later decades), new houses started getting bigger and more gaudy (a sign of rising status concern), people began to give up on the idea of rehabilitating criminals.

The recent anti-white psychosis of the Left, the population replacement program, sucks. It's difficult to get the Western right to restrict immigration, because they see it as inimical to economic growth. Most Right elites still have their historical distaste for restrictions on growth, but the Left recently developed something equally or more noxious: whites are so horrible that they don't deserve to have their own countries anymore. That was Sci-Fi in the 80's and even 90's, when many Democrats stuck up for white union men. Result? We really don't have anyone to turn to anymore. We're pessimistic about the present and the future, which is certainly NOT conservative in the proper Western tradition (which envisions Norman Rockwell scenes as the ideal, and acts as if aging, rusting, and crowded areas are beyond redemption and are to be treated as poisonous, let's not forget that the Bush regime believed that putting tons of Mexicans in the suburbs and exurbs of America was a good idea).

In many ways we sound more Leftist than Rightist, from a resource standpoint. Resource scarcity creates Leftism, abundance creates Rightism. It's easy for me to do this stuff because I grew up hating the idea of the planet being paved over. And I knew that Rightists are full of shit because they don't know the score: you don't idealize rural areas AND promote growth at the same time. It's an oxymoron. Beginning in the Reagan era, many of the Right's stomping grounds were paved over due to housing bubbles, immigrants, and yuppies. The Northeast and West Coast used to much more friendly to the GOP. What happened? Think a little.......When life gets difficult, crowded, busy, etc. you sour on on the Norman Rockwell party. Post-1985 America is not as slow, relaxed, stable, and modest as America once was. As Agnostic says, the GOP's official slogan has been "Fuck You" for much of the population since the late 80's. Unless you fetishize reckless growth or want cheap labor, what the hell has the GOP done for you?

whitney said...

I used to have a Darwin fish on my car. So embarrassing now

216 said...

Feryl,

"Resource scarcity creates Leftism, abundance creates Rightism. "

I disagree completely. The right-wing's messaging is usually framed in terms of keeping taxes and gov't spending low. It's about keeping what you have, Leftists call this greed. That is the scarcity mindset, in an abundant society people don't mind paying more in tax. Recall back in 2006 when the Dems took Congress in part on raising the minimum wage. The economy was doing well at the time and people thought the gains could be shared.

The recession might well have been exacerbated by this increase, and regardless if that is true, millions believed it to be true and voted GOP in '10. That was the scarcity mindset, in the depths of the recession people turned away from whacking the rich and were the most supportive of deportations. The arrival of Occupy and the Giffords shooting were nothing short of miraculous for the Dems. One of the things Obama did right was giving minimal interference to fracking, a drilling ban would have probably meant a re-election loss.

I recall Steve Sailer posting something a while back about a study at Yale University that asked people their views if there was no trade-offs, views went overwhelmingly leftist.

Charles Blow(ing) Noah Smith

216 said...

The problem with Charles Blow mocking us is that he is right. We are headed for Extinction, are Anxious about it. We are also Fragile, as simply doxing us is enough to silence. It's a long fall down from two years ago when we had these people scared. Now they are comfortable to bully us without the risk of a torch-bearing mob showing up at their home or workplace. If we complain it always looks like impotent whining, the racial game is rigged with the media.

We are a very loud minority that occasionally overlaps with the wider group of "liberals with politically incorrect thoughts". We lack the organizational prowess of DSA, we can't trust that anyone internally isn't an informant.

I look at the average Boomercon/MAGApede on social media and cringe. These people have no clue what is coming, dazed as they sip on Starbucks while watching sportsball.

216 said...

The absolute state of right-wing politics:

After Obamacare was passed in 2010, the GOP ran several campaigns on a promise to repeal it, and never delivered.

Should an amnesty be passed, will there be anyone in the GOP who would argue for repealing the amnesty and denaturalizing the recipients?


No, there would be ecstatic celebrations by the left analogous to South Africa 1994, while the GOP would follow De Klerk in being paid off.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

From Pew:

In 2013, a record-high 12% of newlyweds married someone of a different race, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of census data. (This share does not take into account the “interethnic” marriages between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, which we covered in an earlier report on intermarriage.)

Those are newlyweds. Total marriages in the country are 6% interracial, but if Hispanic is considered a "race" it doubles to about 12% nationally in 2013, so 13% is probably about right in 2018.

You're right wrt actual racial distributions and Brazil. But Brazil also works in a cultural sense, in that it is the most balkanized--or at least it's conventionally thought of as the most balkanized--country in the Western hemisphere.

As far as merit immigration driving more to our side, it won't be the 1%, it'll be the 80%-99%--the professionals who have total financial security but not a lot of political power and few elites looking out for them.

216,

Agree. WFs who pair up with BM tend to be either of low SMV--primarily on account of being fat--or are slutty nymphomaniacs. Running through my own personal experience, I'm not sure I've ever come across a pairing that deviates from that.

As for WM with yellow fever, they tend to be very (east) Asian-like whites themselves. IOW, the whites who interracially marry are the least "core" whites around.

216 said...

AE,

As a matter of rhetoric, the AR condemning WMAF creates an intersectional "divide by zero". This is what r/hapa craves, but what if they actually got it? Which side do feminists pick, WF or AF? Condemning same-race "freely chosen" pairings is untenable, all criticism usually comes when (white) parents threaten to disown.

To a certain extent, I agree with the POC feminists who complain about "Eurocentric beauty standards". This is the same 2% advertising industry that engages in subversion of us and greases the skids for unnecessary cosmetics and plastic surgeries.


Subcontinentals are seen as the most beta of males, white feminists would be an ideal pairing, yet this rarely happens.

lineman said...

From their point of view this is understandable, if irrational, given what the "Evil" Whites gave them, and how they'll soon find it harder to milk benefits from them.

It's the whites who cheer for White Extinction who are baffling in their insanity.
They are all suicidal with a homicidal tendencies as well...

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

AE - my personal opinion (I could be wrong) is that there is a certain segment of the anti-religion people who are actually good recruiting ground for us. Sort of the Dawkins, Hitchens, Sargon wing of atheism - as opposed to Atheism Plus (Atheism Poz) which is basically just SJWs.

The former is anti-muslim so they're at least partially redpilled and tend to be equal opportunity skeptics. So they tend to be more accepting to hbd - which is sort of a gateway drug to the dissident right.

Feryl said...

"I disagree completely. The right-wing's messaging is usually framed in terms of keeping taxes and gov't spending low. It's about keeping what you have, Leftists call this greed. That is the scarcity mindset, in an abundant society people don't mind paying more in tax. Recall back in 2006 when the Dems took Congress in part on raising the minimum wage. The economy was doing well at the time and people thought the gains could be shared."

How come expensive areas are more liberal, then? Or rather, urban areas (and their immediate surroundings) tend to have very affluent pockets and very poor pockets. This creates a territorial vibe, of vying for resources, scraping together the money you need to stay out of the poor areas, and many of the people in in the downscale areas being really stressed out from the omnipresent bums, crazies, criminals, addicts, etc. who serve as a remind of what might happen to you if don't play your cards right. High stakes. As you get deeper into a decadent era, the crime/drugs/perverts/nutcases/foreign invaders get worse and worse (or seemingly worse, since people feel despair and betrayal). Those who frequently deal with these excesses will make greater and greater demands on the party that doesn't celebrate plantation owners and robber barons (the more Leftist party). And since this party never shamed the victims of decadence like the robber baron party (which deliberately destroyed good jobs, undermined unions, and vindictively got revenge for a prior progressive era), those who feel stung by the sleaze and corruption will expect the populist party to do something to help the plight of the lower classes.

But the Obama era has really made our politics schizoid, as Western Leftists are now busily conveying the urgency of racial and gender ID politics and mostly running away from authentic economic populism. That creates an opening for the other party, but who expects the stupid party to even give so much as a light spanking to elites, even the corporate whore but far cultural Left agitators who now exert a lot of power and influence.

Back to regional ID, affordable suburbs and small towns tend to be much more Republican. People don't feel as "pinched", they feel more optimistic and individualistic, and are much less supportive of central planning, regulations, and bureaucracy. In addition, these areas tend not to have agitatingly high levels of visible bums, thugs, hookers, and addicts. The general heartland conservative attitude is that they owe no one outside their immediately family anything; the bleeding hearts and those "less fortunate" need to shut up and work harder. Again, there's a sense that the American dream is available to anyone who wants it (aka a sense of high resources). I would argue that the Electoral College and the Senate have artificially prolonged Pentagon and agribusiness subsidies (both are GOP strongholds mostly located in cheap areas of the South, Midwest, and West), as the most rural and cheap states are arrogantly dismissive of more urbanized and expensive areas that generally have been less supportive of social Darwinism and laizze faire norms, which blue staters believe have worsened the inherent tensions of being in a more crowded environment. In a true progressive era, steps will be taken to rein in the excesses that created an urban dystopia; out in the sticks there just isn't the same urgency to take action. Unless, I suppose, the goverment wants your guns or wants to tell you that you can't cut the trees down on your property.

Feryl said...

The Tax thing you mention is a bit nebulous; it's not just taxes per se, it's who's paying them and how much does each group pay. The Reagan admin notoriously pulled a "tax relief" ruse by heavily reducing income taxes on mid-high earners, which were then off-set not by reduced government spending but rather by increased payroll taxes which hit wage workers the hardest. I think that's what happened, tommorrow I'll double check. The weasels of the Stupid Party didn't have the balls to say, eliminate the department of education. Nor did they have the guts to reduce elder entitlements which by the mid-1980's were understood to be a major burden at that time, and would only become a greater problem down the road (social spending has been weighted more and more toward the elderly since the 1960's).

It was actually Clinton who was able to reduce military spending and welfare spending, and the national budget was much closer to being balanced. The conspiracy theory about 9/11 starts to ring true when you realize that it was the catalyst for reviving massive levels of defense spending. Again, the Weasel Party and it's useful idiots will whine about all kinds of government spending yet mysteriously the giant black hole that is the Pentagon's budget gets a free pass. The power centers of the cuck inc. have a lot to answer for. It's actually quite amazing that the bomb fuses lit by Reagan and Bush (either one) are either ignored altogether, even when they exploded, or are glibly blamed on Democrats.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"Popular culture is pushing miscegenation harder than anything else. We're now at a point in the US where more than 1-in-10 (~13% IIRC) marriages are interracial. "

Popular culture is simply mirroring the decisions made by people to have sex and/or marry outside of their race. Besides, their choice does not pervasively and directly impact you and your family. I posit there would have been more interracial couples had Southrons not made it illegal in the first place. But apparently the law, or genteel Southern mores, didn't apply to Strom Thurmond at the time.

Moreover, up until the early and mid-1900's, it was considered low-brow for inter-ethnic marriage. Custom and shaming dictated that a man and a woman from the same ethnic group tie the knot. In Donald Cole's study, he found that when the group’s religious or physical appearances were more different than most Americans (as in the Irish and southeastern Europeans), intermarriage was practically non-existent. Immigrants either came to the US with a spouse of the same ethnic group or married a native, but rarely married immigrants of different ethnic backgrounds. And even the Roman Catholic Church in the early 1970's prohibited priests from performing inter-religious marriage ceremonies unless the non-Catholic partner promised to raise the children as Catholics and worked to convert their non-Catholic partner.

I guess today's mutt Americans should be ashamed of debasing themselves in the process.

akarlin said...

I have always viewed the Dissident Right as the more intellectual, older, but far spergier, counterpart to the Alt Right. They are less popular in terms of "clicks," but have at the very least a comparable level of cultural influence.

So, The Derb himself, and Steve Sailer, would be the biggest names there. Probably also Ron Unz himself, for that matter.

Other major clusters would include: Neo-Nazis (itself divided into the old guard - Stormfront, and the new kids on the block - Daily Stormer); the Alt Lite (not intellectual, just like the Alt Right, but also by far the most popular group in terms of visibility and surface popularity); and NRx (which is also highly intellectual, although quite distinct from the Dissident Right).

DissidentRight said...

It is interesting to hear the Right defined in purely secular terms, since it is only within the last generation (i.e., within millennia's lifetimes) that "the Right" has been seriously disentangled from Christianity. I consider that the secular Right began to emerge in the 80s, as various post-Christian Boomers started to have kids (Millenials) and mature from their radical childhood years, reacting against the fiscal and foreign policy insanity of the communist sympathizers and the proto-Deep State.

Christianity, after all, has no respect for pagan culture, pagan traditions, or pagan ancestors. Christianity is not merely an evolved set of cultural traditions (although it is that too), but a rather radical set of falsifiable truth claims about history and the relationship of man to God.

If Christianity has been falsified, that puts the West in a difficult position. Why would we respect Christian culture or traditions, or the ways of our Christian ancestors, if Christianity is a lie, considering the way Christianity frames itself? Obviously, the remaining Christians have a very specific idea about where the West should go from here, but it's understandable why some want to turn back to paganism or social class systems, or embrace national socialism, or LARP as Christians.

I tend to be contemptuous of Christian LARPing, but arguably it could work. If you take the tack that we should respect the ways of our ancestors because what they did worked, then you can make the argument that Westerners should follow that pattern even if they consider Christianity proper to be reduced to mythology. After all, if morality is social construct, nothing prevents us from following a moral system that says slavery is immoral, infanticide is immoral, fornication and sexual degeneracy are immoral, rape is a crime against the woman (not her male protector), and it is moral to help the weak and needy. Those I think are the major Christian innovations in social/political morality. I think our pagan ancestors basically understood the rest.

But in that case we are defining "the Right" in explicitly Christian terms. Paganism is not of the Right. Obviously, revolutionary theories such as socialism are not of the Right since all of them have a fundamental disregard for received tradition. Even the NatSocs are really just LARPing as traditionalists. At any rate, I don't think it's useful to in any way equate "the Right" with traditionalism, because—as was pointed out—tradition various from nation to nation and from civilization to civilization and from race to race and from religion to religion. There are Chinese traditionalists, but it is not in any way meaningful to call them the Chinese Right.

The Right entails a specific set of traditions: Christian ones. Right vs. Left is fundamentally Christian vs. Anti-Christian. Tradition vs. Progress/Revolution is an independent matter. Although, in the case of the West, obviously Tradition overlaps with Christianity and Progress/Revolution overlaps with Anti-Christianity.

Sheila4g said...

I'm not a big fan of labels or branding, but I refer to myself as either an ethnonationalist (which a commenter at Vox said was redundant) or hard right. The alt right label has weakened precisely because so many disparate people came to share it. A contributor/commenter from the Right Stuff is usually miles apart from a commenter at Steve Sailer, yet most of Sailer's boomer readers with any HBD awareness at all (and that varies wildly) refer to themselves - and Sailer, fwiw - as alt right. More than a few of them are in mixed marriages, or firmly opposed to White nationalism. In reality, they're more alt-lite civic nationalists with some HBD awareness thrown in, where such awareness is highly selective (majority fully aware of Negro IQ and dysfunction, but huge variance on the JQ plus various high IQ fetishists, Asian fetishists, and Mestizos are European fetishists). I believe the same description would characterize a number of old, Trump-campaign era Britebart commenters, or even the general MAGA crowd.

I feel comfortable differentiating my views from theirs with "hard right" and "ethnonationalist."

Audacious Epigone said...

Krusty,

Yeah, there are some. Sam Harris had Charles Murray on his podcast, after all.

That gives me an idea for a quick GSS query, thanks!

lineman,

Those who do seem to either think demographic change won't ever threaten them (the 2% who can always move away from it and keep it at bay by making everything where they live prohibitively expensive) and those who are surrounded and too scared to take a stand.

Feryl/216,

Affordable family formation.

Anatoly,

Couldn't have put it better myself, thanks.

Corvinus,

No, interracial pairings on TV occur several times more often than in real life. Google image search "white couple", for example. Not even close (whites are the least likely to interracially marriage for the obvious reason that we are still the majority).

DissidentRight,

Good point, though the alt right deviates significantly from the rest of the right in that it is not overtly religious--some elements are culturally Christian, some atheist, some pagan, etc.

Numerically, the secular right is very small--fewer than 1 in 100 Americans can be categorized as such.

Sheila4g,

Steve Sailer coined the term "citizenist" over a decade ago. We now refer to "citizenists" as "civic nationalists". He is not alt right, but he is dissident right.

Anonymous said...

"Mixing with Asians and mestizos won't create Brazil (Brazil had whites mix with Africans and full-blooded natives)."

Somehow that doesn't make me feel much better!

DissidentRight said...

AE,

True, that's because the Alt-Right is overwhelmingly post-Boomer. So, a much higher concentration of post-Christians.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"No, interracial pairings on TV occur several times more often than in real life."

It's a reflection of real life, as evident by the Google image search. Which, of course, is specifically designed to demonstrate that couples of different races is becoming "normal".

Again, how does race mixing personally impact you?

Anonymous said...

"Ha, I'm in for Derb-right, though it'll too easily morph into derp-right when it comes out of the mouths of sneering soyboys. Agree, though, there is far more that unites us than divides us (or at least there should be!)."

How about ShireRight? Hobbits with swords our symbol. Ally with FrogRight.

Or, we could appropriate the language of the Left: "ProgRight." "Progress towards Freedom is always Right." Leave them semantically befuddled.

DoorRight. "You have a door on your house? What an exclusionist!" Shame the Left who cower behind their Medecos inside their prole walk-ups. Make your door like your mind, OPEN, you deracinated bugmen.

ZepRight. Playing 'When the Levee Breaks' on 11 while marching on local Starbucks.

Street chants for Shire extremists: "Who's Left?" Crowd answers: "Nobody!" Unperson the Leftists. Go full Orwell on them. "Big Brother, not Big Mother!"



Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
"Again, how does race mixing personally impact you?"

I'm curious, would you ask a Jew who's opposed to a Jews marrying a Christians, Muslims , Hindus etc.
"How does this personally impact you? "

Anonymous said...

AE: Is there any chance you could edit the text color in your template and set it to black, instead of the far-less-legible shade of gray it is now?

Feryl said...

"Mixing with Asians and mestizos won't create Brazil (Brazil had whites mix with Africans and full-blooded natives)."

Somehow that doesn't make me feel much better!"

- You sure a society of Keanu Reeves's would be such a bad thing? That's better than a society of Obamas. An elite created by the union of brainy white guys and oriental chicks couldn't possibly be any worse at running society than the almost entirely non-Asian (and increasingly Mulatto) shit show we have now.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe there is such a thing as the "Right" in the same way that there is a Left.
The varieties of Leftist thought are like branches off the same trunk.
The varieties of Rightist thought are different trees.

What unites the "Right" is opposition to one or more of the tenets central to Leftism;universalism, egalitarianism ,and the rejection of empirical based tradition in favor of a rational planning of society.

Anonymous said...

I'd prefer a society close to the Midwest @ 1890.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Custom and shaming dictated that a man and a woman from the same ethnic group tie the knot.

Right, shaming works. So does idealizing. Major media is overwhelmingly idealizing interracial marriage so we're getting more of it because, at least in part, of that major media idealizing.

Hoisted by your own petard.

Anon,

Hah, the prog, dog, and frog right--unite!

Anon,

In the body or the sidebar? Is the body not legible? I see black there.

Anon,

In the same the most salient genetic divide among humans is between sub-Saharan Africans and everyone else, so is the most salient political divide in the West between leftists and non-leftists.

Feryl said...

"No, interracial pairings on TV occur several times more often than in real life. Google image search "white couple", for example. Not even close (whites are the least likely to interracially marriage for the obvious reason that we are still the majority). "

1) Virtue signalling
2) Tokenism
3) A childish attempt to shock normies (often times Hollyweird personnel feel estranged from the prole neighborhoods they grew up in, and are obviously trying to stick it to the "bigots" who once stuffed them into lockers).

I would argue that sub-prole white women having kids with blacks doesn't really mean a whole lot in the long run, since they're really just giving a mild IQ boost to the black population while the vast majority of whites (and esp. elite whites) seldom marry outside their race unless it's an Asian or a lighter skinned Hispanic. Reducing affirmative action and restoring freedom of association would probably be the best means to controlling black population growth, unless we want to get into Eugenics sci-fi (like paying black women to get sterilized). WRT immigration and blacks, the black population in virtually all states is still the same %wise as it was 20 or 30 years ago. In the case of much of the Midwest and Northeast, it's probably a great deal larger than it was in the 1970's (Minnesota was like 95% white in the early 70's, but by the late 80's a fair number of neighborhoods were majority black). Millennial blacks aren't having kids like their parents did, but that's true of Millennials in general. And that's a big reason why elites are so pro-immigration now.

I heard a guy say that in his neighborhood in the early 90's, there was one black and everyone else was white. Similar situation in high school in the early 90's. When I went to that High school in the early 2000's, there were at least 10-15 blacks in each grade. Just enough to occasionally make a scene, but not enough to frighten parents too much unless the parents were super elites, who generally didn't live in the area anyway.

As much as we bitch about immigration, the reality is that overall expansion of blacks into more and more areas is equally ominous. Incredibly, blacks now make up about 1/10 of Connecticut's population, while the frigid tier of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska are now between 4-5% black (think about that, 1 out of every 20 persons is black, now THAT is sci-fi to a Midwesterner of the 1970's)

Feryl said...

The South is now much less black than it used to be in say, the 1880's, but a lot of that can be put down to the migration North (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population), whose effects still remain in the Northeast and Midwest. The black migration North is quite possibly the biggest demographic event in our country's history.

In defense of the Western states (and the Dakota's), the often cold and dry weather of the region is hated by blacks (whereas even Minnesota, esp. in the southeast is warm and humid for 4-5 months). So there is that, if you really want to get away from them.

Anonymous said...

In the body or the sidebar? Is the body not legible? I see black there.

In the body and comments.  Here's how to see:

1.  Right click on some body or comment text.
2.  Select "Inspect element".  The inspector window will come up.
3.  Scroll down the list of descriptors on the right until you get to "body".  You'll see "color: #5C5C5C;".
4.  Left-click on the little color circle to bring up the color menu.  Drag the little black dot down to the bottom left.  Watch how the text color on your page gets a lot MORE black and easier to read.

That's what you want it to be.  #000000, not #5C5C5C.

Hit F12 or click the close button to get rid of the inspector window.

216 said...

Feryl,

Before a "basic income" is proffered in the First World, it should be offered to the Third World in exchange for no emigration.

A higher level of basic income should be offered to Westerners to go and live in Third World countries on the condition of renouncing citizenship for themselves and descendents. The vast majority of takers will be embittered leftists of all colors.


We've spend considerable amounts resettling "refugees" into the West, when the same amount of money would have gone farther in their homelands. When Somalia is declared stable, likely after PRC investments into hydrocarbons, I expect Keith Ellison and his voters to go to this black ethnostate.

Mr. Rational said...

Before a "basic income" is proffered in the First World, it should be offered to the Third World in exchange for no emigration.

No.  ABSOLUTELY not.  That lets them blackmail us.  Invaders should be shot, not paid to stay away.  Cartridges are cheap; we cannot afford bribes sufficient to achieve the same end.

Bribing our third-world underclasses to leave is another matter.  Cutting criminal sentences short in return for expatriation would be a tremendous benefit to America.  Stepping up lowlife-abatement efforts in areas occupied by parallel societies would encourage the inhabitants to leave, and paying them to go would give them both incentive and means.  Some fairly nice apartments have been built out of surplus shipping containers.  Seriously, how hard would it be to transport prefab housing to the African country of choice of our "oppressed" African-Americans and subsidize them over there for a while?  After a few years, they'd be mostly forgotten.  Not. Our. Problem.  And as long as we don't let them get on airplanes bound for here, that would be that.

Audacious Epigone said...

216/Mr. Rational,

The high time preference of the American underclass, both native and foreign, means five-figure stipends for a one-way ticket out would be an incredibly prudent financial investment in the future of Western civilization. But the door has to be closed after they're out. Until that happens, it's probably a non-starter.

Anon,

Thanks. I'll get it right tomorrow night.

Feryl said...

Mr. Rational:

Blacks were drawn out of the South to the Northern industrial areas of the 20th century. When de-industrialization (and de-urbanization) began to become apparent in the 1960's, we developed gibs programs (AA being the most obvious) and expanded civil rights to deal with their raging discontent. But the literal coldness of the Northern and Western States, and lingering black insecurity of their poor outcomes (most pronounced in blacks who can't even get their shit together to find and keep an AA job), drives blacks nuts. With relatively little manual labor left, what are blacks supposed to do in the dead of winter near or above the 40th parallel of latitude? The Northern states need to drop AA and need to stop feeling guilty about the state of blacks, because it clearly doesn't make any difference.

"Cutting criminal sentences short in return for expatriation would be a tremendous benefit to America. Stepping up lowlife-abatement efforts in areas occupied by parallel societies would encourage the inhabitants to leave, and paying them to go would give them both incentive and means. "

Mass incarceration has created a sort of parallel society/life path. Criminals don't fear beatings, executions, and exile like they once did. America has developed areas with little to no expectation of safety and civility, as the troublemakers never have to fear a posse showing up and administering beatings. Nope, instead it's Miranda warnings, cuffings, and going in front of a judge ad nauseum, and then we have to house millions of dirtbags in one prison after another in the US. Paying the global south to turn certain areas into holding pens for our criminals would be one idea, with the worst criminals permanently losing their US citizenship and being at the mercy of whatever the local warlords have cooked up.

Funny thing is that critics of mass incarceration never make the connection between the adoption of criminal rights and the growth in the criminal population. It seems like a paradox, until you realize that knuckle dragging criminals respond much better to a swift beating than they do the threat of being jailed and sent in front of a judge. Before the 1960's, crime was associated with a fairly small number of idiots and sociopaths. Authority figures (including cops) back then were permitted to swat people around for minor infractions, which sent the message that breaking rules had consequences. These days most smarter people realize that it's just not much fun to be jailed, but for the dopey thugs out there, that's not much of a deterrent.

Another unintended consequence of mass incarceration is that we are actually facilitating the growth of a parllel society of criminals, addicts, etc. who become enmeshed in amorality. One could argue that in the past dirtbags who got little to no punishment eventually escaped that phase in their life, or found a decent job, started a family, etc. and were no longer a big threat to society. Perhaps a young vandal or minor thief eventually got caught and smacked upside the head, but didn't get sent to a facility where they'd meet an entire society of sociopaths and brutes. How do we expect people who spend years in correctional facilities to ever be remotely normal? Being around violent and poorly socialized people is terrible, esp. if you're younger.

Throwing tons of people into prison while constantly giving them more rights hasn't done much to improve peace of mind, civility, and general functioning of society. We still have a difficult underclass, and people of higher class are desperate to avoid bad areas. There's got to be a better way.

Mr. Rational said...

Paying the global south to turn certain areas into holding pens for our criminals would be one idea, with the worst criminals permanently losing their US citizenship and being at the mercy of whatever the local warlords have cooked up.

Places like Liberia are already good at smacking their miscreants around until they get the message.  Hell, they had warlords who ate people... on camera!  The rules there are far less complex and let the low-IQ hood rat types fit in much more easily.  Some gibs to the expatriates and some bribes to the locals and it would go just fine.  For us.  Since I no longer believe we owe Black people anything, how it goes for them is irrelevant.  As long as they're gone, I'm good with it.

(Considering that it would be fairly easy to turn areas like the south side of Chicago, Detroit, Gary and St. Louis into repeats of Dresden given the right weather, going to Liberia ought to be an attractive option.  The problem is that you wouldn't get the high-time preference types to understand that wholesale incineration is even a possibility without doing it at least once.)

There's got to be a better way.

It starts with making certain that the people who have children who behave that way don't have them here, and we don't allow them in.

Corvinus said...

"Right, shaming works."

You still think we live in the 1950's? Shaming Generation Z has little impact on their overall conduct, especially when it comes to making decisions about race and culture. I can here it now. "Shame on you, Johnny, for marrying Juanita. Don't you know you are denigrating your race? Your Anglo-Saxon ancestors are rolling in their graves". And you know what Johnny and Juanita are saying to their detractors? F--- off.

"So does idealizing. Major media is overwhelmingly idealizing interracial marriage so we're getting more of it because, at least in part, of that major media idealizing."

Actually, major media has reflected this ideal because increasing numbers of Americans within the past 40 years, in large part due to their own awakening and of their own volition, made it important. It's a feedback loop that began with the Loving v. Virginia case, then with citizens becoming more comfortable in their own skin (ha) to showcase their love and affection for someone outside of their race, then movies and television running with this notion as it become more socially acceptable. As if Jim Crow laws should have made mixed marriages illegal in the South in the first place. I thought freedom of association was sacrosanct.

Again, how does race mixing personally impact you and your family?

Mr. Rational said...

how does race mixing personally impact you and your family?

You mean, besides bringing crime-prone relations into my neighborhood, spawning behavior problems to crap up my kids' schools, expanding the pool of those eligible for affirmative action when my own family is not, destroying the unique and irreplaceable phenotype evolved over millennia, and helping to normalize the idea that white people should go extinct By Any Means Necessary?

Besides that?  Well, give me a few minutes to think.

Corvinus said...

"You mean, besides bringing crime-prone relations into my neighborhood spawning behavior problems to crap up my kids' schools..."

That's not race mixing, that's just troublemakers.

Now, of course, do you have statistics indicating that mixed-raced kids commit more crimes than non mixed-race kids?

"expanding the pool of those eligible for affirmative action when my own family is not"

That is not accurate.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/living/scotus-mixed-race-identity/index.html

"destroying the unique and irreplaceable phenotype evolved over millennia..."

You do realize that we are the human race, right? And how gamma of you to be playing the victim card here.

"helping to normalize the idea that white people should go extinct By Any Means Necessary?"

Except white people are not going extinct. That is a big white lie on your part. Even your gal pal Vox Day says so.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-definition-of-bad-rhetoric.html

You are just not that bright.

Anonymous said...

God damn Blogger, I pass the CAPTCHA twice but my rebuttal is STILL not posted.

Trying again tomorrow.

Mr. Rational said...

That's not race mixing, that's just troublemakers.

"Just" troublemakers.  Troublemakers who cause enough damage to turn houses that would be worth $100,000 into shells that aren't worth rehabbing because you can't stop them from vandalizing and stealing and robbing the residents, so they're bulldozed.  "Just" that.

I have seen a number of cities which look like they were bombed out, but were "only" plagued by "troublemakers."

Someday, anyone who's made such excuses for invaders will find themselves dead.  I'm sure at least one of your neighbors is keeping notes.

Now, of course, do you have statistics indicating that mixed-raced kids commit more crimes than non mixed-race kids?

The average African-American is 20% White.  ANY increase in criminality, or racial animosity toward the un-mixed family, or other deleterous effects on the rest is unacceptable.  Colin Kaepernick went way out of his way to emphasize his fractional Blackness.  This shows profound alienation from his White side.  This is unacceptable within a family; having such children should result in disinheritance and shunning, if not honor killing.

The association of Blackness with crime is universal.  Stop denying it.

We know that IQ tracks with fraction of European vs. African heritage.  We have for 42 years.  IQ has a strong negative correlation with criminality.

That is not accurate.

You're lying.  African-Americans of any mixture are eligible for affirmative action preferences.  My family is not.

You do realize that we are the human race, right?

A race is a subspecies.  Sub-saharan Africans are as genetically different from Europeans (fixation index = 0.153) as coyotes are from N. American wolves (fixation index = 0.153).  Sub-saharan Africans are a different SPECIES from Europeans.

You're either so blinkered or stupid that you refuse to recognize reality.  If anyone deserves to become the next Kevin Sutherland, it's you.  And I honestly hope that it IS you instead of someone more innocent of race treason.  Rachel Dolezal goes ahead, of course.

Except white people are not going extinct. That is a big white lie on your part.

Strange, aren't the minoritarians celebrating the fact that White deaths have outpaced White births in the USA, and Europe is being invaded by non-Whites?  Doublethink much?

Even your gal pal Vox Day says so.

He said it's bad rhetoric.  He did NOT say it wasn't true... and he's not my pal.  If he was, I wouldn't be censored from his comment feed.

You are just not that bright.

You are so far from honest, you wouldn't know honesty if it bit you.