Friday, June 29, 2018

Parochialism in autumn

Agnostic, in the context of explaining why ¡Ocasio!'s victory means the invasion will end:
The past several decades have proven decisively that we will get absolutely nothing done on immigration by electing hardline candidates.

...

To reiterate for the millionth time, the Bernie people do not have to explicitly call for reducing immigration in order to achieve that effect. They just have to force higher wages and benefits on employers, and call for an end to the heartless exploitation of vulnerable immigrants -- e.g., if employers and slumlords want to hire / house immigrants, they should be giving them better-than-US-average wages, benefits, and rent prices.  

...

If you want to know why the Bernie people are still on a high about the Ocasio-Cortez victory -- now you understand.
Here's her campaign platform flyer:


And here's her two-minute TV spot:



So abolishing ICE, calling for streamlined and open immigration to the US from anywhere, making college free to immigrants, making housing free for immigrants, making health care free for immigrants, giving a government-guaranteed job to any immigrant who shows up, and keeping immigrants out of prison--all while vociferously calling for more immigration and more refugees--is supposed to reduce the flow of foreigners into the country?

Agnostic would have us turn the battering ram we've been using to smash the now-teetering gate of the GOP citadel around, lumber through miles of hostile territory under siege for the duration, and try ramming it into the triply-reinforced, ten-foot wide iron wall surrounding the Democrat citadel instead. It's not just delusional, it's suicidal.

Humorously, the post preceding Agnostic's celebration of ¡Ocasio!'s win asserted American elites care more about foreign children than native ones while populists--like, say, ¡Ocasio!--are not so hopelessly out of touch. ¡Ocasio!:


Well that's inconvenient.

I've been in on the National Question for well over a decade now. The idea that hardline immigration candidates have been elected in anything close to sizable numbers is risible.

In 2008, Tom Tancredo took a line on immigration similar to Ted Cruz's in 2016, and Tancredo got 1% in the Republican primary polls before dropping out early in the race. Excepting Trump, Cruz and Tancredo took the hardest lines of any Republican politicians of national prominence in decades and neither had a thing to say about legal immigration that didn't lavish praise on it.

No one from either party has even questioned legal immigration in a generation since Pat Buchanan did so a generation ago. That's finally starting to change.

Until a couple of years ago, issues polls consistently showed immigration bumping along near the bottom of the list of Republican voters' priorities. Now immigration is at or near the top of those lists, especially among younger Republicans.

Over the same period of time, Democrat voters have become increasingly supportive of open borders and opposed to immigration restriction of any kind. Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign was nearly snuffed out in the crib when he called open borders "a Koch brothers' proposal". If he said anything like that today, his position as a spiritual leader among rank-and-file leftists would be over before midnight. Sanders became a force on the left not by saying sensible things about immigration but by shutting up about them.

The reason Crowley has been able to repeatedly run unchallenged in a district that is half Hispanic for primary after primary after primary is because until now white ethnics and (((tribe members))) who doled out the gibs were acceptable to non-white voters. Increasingly that's no longer the case. There are politically ambitious non-whites all over the country eyeing single-party urban districts currently held by pale males and seeing huge opportunities.

The Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, has received an enormous amount of attention in the wake of ¡Ocasio!'s upset. She is one of the thirteen candidates across the country the organization has endorsed. Here's how they breakdown demographically (based on my best guesses--one of those categorized as a Hispanic woman here may actually be a dago):

Four black women
Three Hispanic women
One white woman
One (((white))) woman
One Muslim man
One black man
One male Pacific Islander
One white man

Parenthetically, the sole white man is probably a bugger--no wedding ring, no apparent girlfriend, and a proclivity for pink shirts. They're all unfettered supporters of open borders, of course.

Here's the DSA's introductory video:



Libertarians, this is what open borders gets us. Most communists in the US are non-white and non-whites are more likely to identify as socialist than whites are.

The question is not what causes poverty. Poverty is the natural default. The question is what causes prosperity. Ice People, private property, and freedom of association gets close. The DSA is antithetical to all of these things.

38 comments:

Random Dude on the Internet said...

A minor positive is that I no longer see crap like "America is an idea", "Hispanics are natural conservatives", and "magic dirt" peddled these days. The conversation is shifting.

That's why I think that the extreme reeing that we're seeing from the left is a positive sign. It means they are losing the public. The Democrats' legion of analysts know all about the polls that show that a majority of the public (including non-whites and Democrats) want restrictions and elimination of not just illegal immigration but legal immigration as well. Decades of agitprop have all been for naught. So it seems like their strategy is to get in while the getting is good and try to have as many migrants flood the borders as possible.

The tone is shifting because the stakes are higher for the Democrats and open borders Republicans. We can all agree that both parties have contempt for their bases but as we see with the primaries, established party politicians are getting thrown out by people who share their base's values. Cuckservatives are being replaced by MAGApede nationalists who will back Trump for building the wall, sending them back, and probably start to curb legal immigration through extreeeeeeeeeeeeme vetting. Admittedly I was impatient and hoped this would all be done in 2017 but the GOP congress, despite large majorities, had too many traitors looking to spike it at every opportunity. The Freedom Caucus and these new wave of nationalists are going to get us there a lot closer in 2019-2020 than they could in 2017-2018.

Sid said...

AE,

Agnostic often comes up with great insights, but the way he fits those ideas into a coherent system is often... Wanting. He was spot on during Trump's campaign, but his thoughts on Berniebros righting the Democratic ship are wrong for all the reasons you've listed.

A few years ago, he had a series on how rising crime rates make people more artistic, communitarian, and morally upright. Some of his specific ideas were intriguing, but altogether...? Remember that artistic renaissance which followed the Ferguson Effect? Me neither.

I'm willing to listen to and even work with the populist left on some of their criticisms of the Establishment, but ultimately they're more inclined to bash our heads with bikelocks than work constructively with us. They're international socialists, and they consider national socialists to literally be the worst thing ever. We're nationalists, so when we get closer to them ideologically, they will regard us with outrage and horror.

Really, their ideology amounts to little more than handing out the gibs eveyewhere. Bernie had the courtesy of offering qhites gibs too, but the Ocasios are happy to pilfer the country our ancestors built for us until it's Venezuela.

Random Dude,

The political situation of the USA is getting better and better. I know we're all disappointed that the Wall is zero feet high, but let's keep in mind that the travel ban faced judical obstructionism all the way up until last week. DACA is still protected by a judical edict.

We can wish that Trump would quote Andrew Jackson at these judges, but that is extremely politically and legally perilous. We're winning the political battle, but over the course of years rather than over months.

Where we're not winning is the demographic battle, and totally winning the political war over immigration is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for stemming the tide.

I agree with you that, politically, the open borders Dems and cucks are on the ropes politically, but we're on the ropes demographically. Obama often consoles his staff by telling them that Trump will have his day, but Heritage America will be demographically swamped in a generation.

Frankly, a center-right political culture and system for the next 20-25 years is preferable to losing today, but I plan on living for at least another 50 years and having descendants. I'm not saying we should be taking blackpills, but we're not even halfway through the fight. I'd say our situation is similar to what the USSR was in after the Battle of Moscow during WWII: our enemy won't defeat us anytime soon and we have a lot of reason for hope, but the struggle has really only just begun.

Feryl said...

In (relatively) more heartland areas, it's going to be a long time (and in some cases, virtually never) before demographics allow the Dems to run radical ethnic activists. Furthermore, the elite bastions of high tech, academia, the media, etc. remain overwhelmingly the province of the (((verbally))) gifted. Until such time that socialist and/or ethnic activist Leftists attack their party's elites with genuine aggression, we can expect the elites to glibly think of each pet group, even Somalis, as poor oppressed "minorities" to be cooed over.

Now the good news is that the anti-white/heritage America flamethrower is something that elite/white Leftists can and will get burnt by, as increasingly brown and later born Left activists don't understand or don't care about the distinctions within whites; it doesn't matter if you are Jewish, Irish, Northern, Southern, urban, rural, conservative, or liberal. You're white, end of story. Of course, conservative heartland whites will come first....But what if that doesn't assuage the rage and insecurity of non-heritage Americans?

BTW, I would include the heavily mulatto/of recent foreign ancestry aging American black wing of the Dems in the comfy Left-wing elite. Obama, Harris, Booker, Holder et al have demonstrated many times that they can be trusted to not rock the boat to the point that the Left elite starts to fall out. I think the main distinction here is age; those who graduated high school before the 1990's are more likely to be racial utopians and more likely to defend capitalism which basically neuters their ability to bring radical change. They believe in a free agent mentality, and are suspicious of collective efforts. Those born after about 1972 tend to be more hostile towards elites, which primes the pump for great collective effort at tossing the bums out. Younger whites have a somewhat different definition of "the bums" than non-whites do, but regardless of race the suspicion of Reagan era dated mores about "hard work" and status seeking remain.

For example, Obama's rhetoric consistently avoided making harsh judgements about economic and cultural elites alike, as his focus was laser-like on fairly routine and generic support of "the black community". Not once did he evidently ever make any sincere effort to explore the dynamics of elites vs proles, except only to the degree that black tended to be poorer. Obama is not at all a populist, or a real rabble rouser, nor are any of the DLC flavored cadre of aging and often mulatto blacks.

The greater collectivist dynamics of younger generations means that we'll have greater success at pressuring elites and society in general to go beyond the "free agent" mentality that created wretched levels of decadence in the 70's-present day. Boomers may have merely wanted everyone to have "freedom" and a "fair shake" to live life as they wished, whereas later generations are sick and tired of this over rated "freedom" being abused to the detriment of most people who are not rich elites. Moreover, Boomers confuse money and status with moral worth; how do people like Obama and Eric Holder affect to be "good guys" while raking tons of dough from Wall Street? Because getting money and climbing the ladder are the only thing that really matters to these gutless sellouts.

Anonymous said...

Complete agreement.

"Agnostic would have us turn the battering ram we've been using to smash the now-teetering gate of the GOP citadel around, lumber through miles of hostile territory under siege for the duration, and try ramming it into the triply-reinforced, ten-foot wide iron wall surrounding the Democrat citadel instead. It's not just delusional, it's suicidal."

Completely agree. Maintain current course and speed-until time to increase speed and finish them off forever. Then take the GOP as the enemy has taken the Dems.
What happens next is resolution.

PS - stealing this "The question isn't what causes poverty. Poverty is the default. The question is what causes prosperity."

vxxc

Jig Bohhnson said...

Hey AE,

OT, but is there a way to quantify who the American public perceives as the killjoys in life, and how that has changed over time?

I was intrigued by a comment by Feryl in a previous thread about how back in the 80s/90s it was definitely the Republicans/Right who were shitting on everyone's good time, what with the panics about Halloween being "satanic" and trying to censor music and video games, not to mention getting childcare workers sent to prison on trumped up charges. But clearly in recent years the Republicans/Right have toned it down while now the Democrats/Left are the one saying you can't dress as anything fun for Halloween, can't eat basically anything because of cultural appropriation, and you should lose your job (at a minimum) for not using the correct one of 60 new gender pronouns.

So is there anything in the GSS or anywhere else to quantify that?


Anonymous said...

@Sid,

Actually the Russian battle we're fighting now and the last few years is the Post USSR Russian Battle against (((Oligarchs))) and (((Transnational Organized Crime))) centered around the State Dept, Foreign Policy Community and Finance. They ushered the Rape of Russia and washed the money in the Western Banks. Why do people think they shriek so loud about Russian Collusion and corruption? Same reason they shriek so loud about racism. They're extremely racist and got in way over their heads with the Russian Mafia [Cammora would be a better term] and what the Russian security services did in the 90s was first pick various factions of the Russian Oligarchs/Mob and then over time assume control of their rackets.

Putin is hated because he was picked by (((the money washers of Clinton/Rubin))) to be the sober tee-totaling Russian figurehead [Putin doesn't drink] and instead they discovered to their horror he was a Patriot and autocrat. Russia needs to be led by a strong central government or it's chaos.

The Russian Security services and Patriots had hard decisions to make and they made them.
Ugly but they wrested back control of Russia from (((Foreigners))).

At present our choices aren't that stark. We don't have to be gangsters. The Clinton Cammora did us a huge favor by taking ALL the rackets and cutting out the actual military and police that do the fighting WHILST taking money hand over fist openly.


V/X/X/C*

Issac said...

One can't expect those who take any part of the liberal project seriously to have a sound mind. The premise of libralism is human equality, a farce, and the errors mount from that staging point rapidly. The Bernie left have but to lose some teeth to their allies before they're brought into a more nationalist orbit. Failing that, they can only be discouraged from politics via appeals to their nihilism.

Matt Forney said...

Agnostic's claim that West Virginia is going to swing left is particularly delusional.

West Virginia has been realigning to the GOP since 2000, when Dubya carried it over Al Gore, the first time that West Virginia had been won by a Republican in an election that wasn't a national landslide (the only times it had gone GOP in the previous fifty years were in the GOP landslides of 1956, 1972, and 1984).

Since then, Democrats have been progressively chased out of every office in the state. The Republicans took the Attorney General's office in 2012, both houses of the legislature in 2014, and the Secretary of State, Auditor, and Agricultural Commission offices in 2016. Governor Jim Justice was elected as a Democrat in 2016 but switched to the GOP last year because he knew which way the wind was blowing. The only Democrat left in the West Virginia executive branch is Treasurer John Perdue, who has been in office in 1996; the seat will go GOP when he retires.

Republican Shelley Moore Capito took the open Senate seat in 2014 by a 27 point margin and the Republicans have held all three House seats since 2014; as recently as 2000, the state's congressional delegation was entirely Democratic. Joe Manchin has been cuddling up to President Trump recently because he's terrified that his constituents will turf him out this year.

Republican presidential candidates have won West Virginia by increasingly large margins since 2000. West Virginia was Trump's best performance, but even in 2012, Mitt Romney won every county in the state. Mitt Romney! The guy who sticks his finger in the wind to figure out what to eat for dinner.

All these changes occurred before Trump came on the scene and reoriented the GOP towards nationalism. And Agnostic thinks that West Virginia will flip back? He's nuts.

My read on Agnostic is that he invents fanciful models of reality, then tries to manipulate the facts to fit his conclusions. He has an admirably autistic inability to deal with criticism of his ideas (as shown by his snotty, angry comment replies), and his political biases are coloring his worldview (I believe he admitted that the only other presidential candidate he voted for prior to Trump was Ralph Nader in 2000).

Anonymous said...

agnostic's argument isn't implausible at all, and is similar to what happened in the early 20th century.

In the early 20th century, political radicalism among European immigrants spooked American elites, including business elites who had been promoting and profiting from immigration which provided cheap labor for their businesses, when socialists and anarchists started doing things like bombing Wall Street and engaging in militant union activity. Greater labor consciousness and socialistic ideas made cheap immigrant labor more expensive, and potentially much more so. The result was a new equilibrium whereby immigration was restricted and there were more progressive and socialistic policies domestically.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

You have got to be kidding if you say 3 Hispanic women. The 3rd was born in Ross Township, PA which in 2010 was 94% white and only 1% hispanic. Probably when she was born it was closer to 0% hispanic.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Dana Milbank's writeup is one SWPLs and normie men need to see and hear more of:

But now he won’t be speaker. And this, in a very concrete way, clears the way for a new generation to take the reins of the opposition — leaders who appeal to the emerging electoral majority that already dominates the party and will soon dominate the country: progressive, young, female and nonwhite. It is no accident that Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina, is all four.

Driving white men out of leadership positions in the Democrat party will accelerate the transition of the GOP from the implicitly white to the explicitly white party and the parallel transition of the Democrats from implicitly to explicitly non-white. Incidentally, it will also make the Democrats less competent and functional in general. Get lots of blacks and browns in the leadership and corruption will follow like night follows day.

Sid,

Yes, always interesting. He gets a lot of things wrong though and then just never revisits them. A few I can think of off the top of my head--in addition to the one about crime rates:

- The end of social cocooning that will correspond with the increase in crime rates. Zero evidence of that so far. That was around five years ago IIRC
- Sessions as Trump's VP pick
- Bernie Sanders having a chance at the Dem nomination (by South Carolina, it should've been obvious that he was done even without the super delegate rigging)
- Sitcoms/movies would move in a populist/Trumpian direction. That's been fantastically wrong--FANG and Hollywood have become even more fanatically anti-heritage America since Trump's election. Roseanne, which was rebooted because reboots and sequels are easy to do, was wildly successful because it represented heritage America in a sympathetic way (something normal as recently as the early 2000s)--so the media world found a pretense to kill it and did so. There's no question ABC lost a ton of money on the cancellation, but that's of secondary concern. Vox Day's convergence theory is profoundly explanatory.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Right, which is why HUD under Obama was so concerned with running as many underclass NAMs out of urban areas and into red-state small towns and suburbia as possible. Three cheers for Ben Carson for killing a lot of that. He doesn't get much credit but he's been nothing but good for MAGA.

VXXC,

You're more optimistic than I am about the chances of success running through the tradcon right, but it trying to bring immigration restrictionism of any kind to the DSA is absurd. Chance of success is approximately zero.

Jig,

No variables in the GSS come to mind that have been continuously asked. There are a few that could work but they're single-year inclusions. I'll keep an eye out for it because it feels like that's the transition has occurred. It'd be nice to be able to empirically validate it.

Issac,

They don't want manufacturing jobs to return, they want government transfers and do-nothing government positions.

Matt,

Republican presidential candidates have won West Virginia by increasingly large margins since 2000. West Virginia was Trump's best performance, but even in 2012, Mitt Romney won every county in the state. Mitt Romney! The guy who sticks his finger in the wind to figure out what to eat for dinner.

Pure gold, thanks. I'll defer to your take on the political handicapping in the state, one I know little about.

My assumption is while the moderate white guy (with the coal industry's backing) can conceivably win in West Virginia with a D next to his name, he'll have no clout or position of prominence in the party's national establishment.

Anon,

If that's how it plays out, what we're doing is exactly right. We cheer invader-elements getting increasingly brazen and demanding and restrict immigration as a consequence. As I wrote at his site, we're both cheering Ocasio's win, albeit for very different reasons.

That's not what Agnostic is arguing will happen. He's arguing that the Sanders-wing will push immigration restriction, or will incidentally turn off the magnet for invasion into the US from outside of it. That's absurd. The 1924 immigration act wasn't class-driven. It was racially, ethnically, and religiously driven. It was largely led by elites.

Drawing conclusions by comparing the cultural and political landscape of America in 1924 to America in 2024 isn't as fraught with failure as comparing the cultural and political landscape of America in 1491 and in 1591 is, but it's close. If we're going to, though, Ocasio is a potential Celler--an invader who got into congress at a young age, fought a losing fight against immigration restriction, and then got his revenge forty years later.

That's optimistic. I think it's more likely Celler 2.0 wins in 2024 rather than having to wait until 2065 (which is why I'm such a dogged proponent of political dissolution, the sooner the better), but we'll see.

Anon,

Heh, thanks for that. Didn't research them that thoroughly (which is why I qualified her and described them as best guesses based on quick looks at their campaign sites).

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Three cheers for Ben Carson for killing a lot of that. He doesn't get much credit but he's been nothing but good for MAGA.

Yep, Sleepy Ben has been one of the cabinet members doing the most good for white people in America. The media doesn't report on it much because to report it, they have to talk about what Obama has been doing for the last several years, which will definitely elicit outrage from suburban whites. The exporting of non-whites to all white enclaves of America was particularly insidious and one that is tough to defend, even with the left's well established narratives on diversity.

Random Dude on the Internet said...


> My assumption is while the moderate white guy (with the coal industry's backing) can conceivably win in West Virginia with a D next to his name, he'll have no clout or position of prominence in the party's national establishment.

Manchin, Heitkamp, Tester, McCaskill, and Donnelly have to walk a tightrope to secure their re-elections for 2018. They are white candidates in states where Trump won bigly as candidates for a party who has spent the last several years demonizing their base. They don't appear to be getting much support from the DNC either, which means that I wouldn't be surprised if they cut bait and let them fend for themselves (that could change but this is as of today). I'm going to guess that a majority of the Senators I mentioned above lose their seats. The good news of course is that Mitt Romney no longer has an opportunity to act as a spoiler vote to spike Trump's initiatives. Despite Trump's "endorsement", Mitt is only interested in trying to block MAGA initiatives. If the GOP ends up with 54-56 Senators, he won't be able to achieve that. I look forward to him embarrassing himself on the national stage...again.

Curtis said...

First of all, screw the Agnostic trashfest.

"My read on Agnostic is that he invents fanciful models of reality, then tries to manipulate the facts to fit his conclusions."


Its actually the opposite. He starts with data, and draws his conclusions from that - unlike most of the alt-right, who operate like what you just described.

It is funny that so many commenters on the alt-right keep describing him as autistic . Can't handle their it when someone disagrees, so they have to pretend the person is insane.

" The end of social cocooning that will correspond with the increase in crime rates. Zero evidence of that so far. That was around five years ago IIRC"

His crime rate theory is absolutely correct, but he was wrong about when it would start rising, but to be fair he corrected himself with a post in 2015 or 2016.



216 said...

I don't think the Dems are going to adopt immigration restrictions as per Agnostic. The demographics in the US aren't as unfavorable to the left as they are in Europe. Denmark is still whiter than the US has probably ever been, and probably whiter than most US states today. No surprise that the Social Democrats have been forced towards sanity on immigration.

The Dems benefit from mass immigration when it provides both a source of reliable voters, increasing housing costs to curb YT Affordable Family Formation, and a source of propoganda to inflict white guilt with. Invaders causing wage stagnation is a good thing for Dem electoral prospects, as it increases the support for labor unions and a higher minimum wage ($15-22).


I think it is quite likely that a nationalist coalition could control the EU Parliament in two election cycles. (2019, 2024). The Dems aren't going to go restrictionist, even if Trump maximizes his vote potential in 2020 (53%) and gets 60 GOP senators. Majority in the European Council (heads of government) is the surest way for nationalists to block immigration and the admission of Muslim states like Albania, Turkey, Bosnia and Kosovo.

The current problem of the EU for the dissenting V4/Intermarium countries is that it only takes one of the 28 countries to grant citizenship and the invader then gains the right to live anywhere in Schengen (probably including post-Brexit UK). This is also currently dissuaded by the fact that the Hungarian government/employers can require proficiency in Hungarian to hold a job. Not hard to imagine Brussels passing a rule that only requires English proficiency to hold a job. (Hint: Nigeria is an English speaking country).


In a lesser expected way, this explains part of the UK's leftward tilt. Eastern Europeans in the UK typically are not applying for UK citizenship, and thus don't vote in UK elections. Non-white invaders into the UK are usually citizens, amplifying their vote share as a proportion of the electorate vs just the ostensibly whiter resident population.

216 said...

The far-left momentum in the US is not surprising given the same momentum shown with Corbyn/Momentum. There hasn't been as much grassroots momentum behind Ardern in NZ, but she's used the same "precariat" narrative while probably lying about immigration cuts. CAN and AUS are absent from this trend for now. Wrt, Corbyn, I doubt his longevity as party leader, Sadiq Khan is gunning to be Prime Minister one day, despite his recent troubles.


The far-left is on a global upward trend, as the stain of the USSR's collapse dissipates. The rise of the PRC will also become a concern as far-left parties decide whether or not to take the CPC's bribes.

Add-on to earlier post,

Admitting Serbia as an EU member would be a great benefit to the nationalist cause. They would be a reliable pro-Russia vote, and would veto the admission of their Muslim neighbors. Erdogan moving towards dictatorship is also beneficial, as it ensures the Turks won't be admitted as a member state (and consequently establish Islam as "European" in addition to massive subsidies). It also boosts the odds that the Turkish resident population is repatriated in the future.

---

La Conquistadora's victory has a lot to do with a well organized turnout in a low turnout primary. Until the Dissident Right forms a DSA copycat we will not enjoy the same level of influence.


Random Dude on the Internet said...

> The far-left momentum in the US is not surprising given the same momentum shown with Corbyn/Momentum.

The left is moving further to the left and the right is moving further to the right. In Europe, many Social Democrat parties are at their lowest point in decades because die hard European leftists would rather vote for the Greens. Nobody wants to be "centre-left" these days it seems.

> La Conquistadora's victory has a lot to do with a well organized turnout in a low turnout primary. Until the Dissident Right forms a DSA copycat we will not enjoy the same level of influence.

We don't have the support of Jewish billionaires like the DSA does. You got Peter Thiel but most big conservative backers are open borders zionists. If the alt right/dissident right wants to make gains, it's going to have to be a true grassroots effort. Of course, the moment that gets created, antifa will swarm it and GOPe party leaders will shriek loudly at undesirables in the party. White taqiyya (deception) is the best way to go until the situation improves. We're going to have to do our own Long March Through The Institutions. A shame because we don't have much time left.

216 said...

The Greens are not doing that well in Europe, they are off their polling highs from 2006-07. Merkel co-opted their ludicrous anti-nuclear agenda. The Swedish greens could actually get wiped out this year, as the Austrian Greens did last year. The greens are not present in every EU country, and in some countries the Greens are in the center instead of the left. No EU country has a right-wing green party in its parliament sadly, though every EU right-wing party is greener than the GOP.

The real gains are coming from the far-left. Norway has two far-left parties in Parliament now, and the far-left is testing record polling highs in Sweden, Finland and Germany. This is mostly a Northern Europe phenomenon, the far-left isn't doing well in Southern Europe. The Italian far-left has collapsed, the Spanish far-left has short-circuited given that Pedro Sanchez has co-opted their cultural agenda. The Greek-far left is going to be turfed out next year, the left is surviving in Portugal due to the near absence of immigration.

The growth of far-left parties does have a salutary effect in that they are a speedbump in Brussels, the center-left is a part of the permanent coalition of EPP/S&D/ALDE. The Greens are one of the least coherent groups in Brussels, given that their group includes the various separatist parties needed to get over the quorum. A future nationalist majority would be very interesting, because the institutions were designed specifically to prevent it from occurring. The Parliament could conceivably demand the end of the unelected Commissioners.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

WV is going to be interesting to watch insofar as it is the closest we have to a white prole proxy 'exit poll' in the country (besides actual exit polls, that is).

Curtis,

I've read Agnostic regularly for a decade now. I'm not trashing him. He's erudite and novel and not afraid to confidently put forward theories on all kinds of things. He strikes out from time to time but that's to be expected when someone is swinging for the fences.

The National Question is, to the extent that this blog is involved in advocacy, the only thing that matters. He's suicidally wrong on this, though.

216/Random Dude,

Yes, there's an obvious collapse of the center on specific ideological questions. It shows up everywhere in polling, not least on immigration. That can conceivably get disguised by the drop in self-identification as either a Democrat or Republican, but that's largely due to people fed up with the ineptness and inaction of their former parties, not because they've mellowed into the squishy middle.

216 said...

AE,

There are some helpful graphs posted here.

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1013030566046982144

Salvini is attracting voters from the cuck-right and populist inclined voters from M5S. He's attracting no supporters from the center-left. The center hates politics and wishes it would go away. They won't turnout in a snap election.

The deportations have yet to begin in earnest, they have to be watched closely to ensure there is no backsliding. Like Israel they will likely be forced to pay off the home government to ensure repatriation. I suspect the Italians expect to extort Germany into paying the return fare.

I hope Trump says something like this after an AMLO victory

https://www.facebook.com/HCStrache/posts/10156040006328591

Corvinus said...

AE...

"The National Question is, to the extent that this blog is involved in advocacy, the only thing that matters. He's suicidally wrong on this, though."

No, all Agnostic is doing here is bludgeoning you with the truth. A TON of great stuff here.

"Almost everyone who voted for Trump has totally forgotten that people vote based on material concerns..."

"She didn't run on SJW issues like race, sex, gayness, jihadism, or any other social-cultural issues. It was all class and economics -- Medicare for all, federal jobs guarantee, $15 minimum wage, taxing Wall Street to pay for trade schools, and the rest of the Bernie stuff."

"The Bernie people are building up social capital, which will soon become political capital. They won't recognize the old currency, but will recognize the currency of one another. And just like that, the old politicians won't be able to get anything done."

"The GOP grassroots' call for reducing immigration overtly has never worked, and it's only getting worse over time as they give it explicit racial / ethnic connotations -- rather than making it a big tent movement like in the older days, allowing Democrats who were against cheap labor or environmental destruction."

"To reiterate for the millionth time, the Bernie people do not have to explicitly call for reducing immigration in order to achieve that effect. They just have to force higher wages and benefits on employers, and call for an end to the heartless exploitation of vulnerable immigrants -- e.g., if employers and slumlords want to hire / house immigrants, they should be giving them better-than-US-average wages, benefits, and rent prices."

"Nobody in Michigan who swung the election to Trump gives a shit about cuckball or college professors, if Trump doesn't get the hell out of NAFTA, slam 35% tariffs on Ford when they move production to Mexico, etc. And they definitely will not take seriously someone lecturing them about heritage America, when they're more Anglo-Saxon than the Dutch and Germanic cucks of the Great Plains, and were admitted to the Union in 1837 instead of after 1860, having been settled long before them. The deal was supposed to be economic populism in exchange for cultural nationalism. Some people wanted both, but mostly those goals were in opposition -- Democrat vs. Republican themes. Without populism, those who swung the election to Trump won't care about the culture war."

"Trumpsters are following their personality cult guru over the cliff, as they worship the ugliest central bank bubble ever inflated to give a lifeline to the decadent 1%, rather than push him to deliver on populism. And having decided that the economy has been made great again, only offering a pretty stale version of the culture war (attacking the pornography industry would have gone against the deregulatory spirit)."

Corvinus said...

Continued...

"That made Ocasio-Cortez' win even more noteworthy -- it succeeded in a very diverse area, which tends to prevent people from uniting behind a common grassroots cause. That will be the exception, and it'll have far greater success in more homogeneous areas like Vermont, WV, Minnesota, Michigan, or for that matter the all-Hispanic parts of the Southwest."

"Blacks are already taking a big liking to the Bern-man. They figured out Hillary was so bad that she lost safe states like MI, WI, and PA. They don't care as much about racial and cultural issues per se -- it's more about criminal justice reform, de-militarizing the police, debt forgiveness, raising wages, and other things that are economic in nature, but which hit blacks harder than whites. These aren't the well-fed Boomer blacks who only worried about how represented they were in the dominant culture. Since the black population is younger than whites, they're even more influenced by Millennial trends -- jobless recovery, crushing debt, plummeting wages, and the like."

"The deniers are trying to hold two contradictory views in mind simultaneously, a classic symptom of cognitive dissonance (the underlying shock being that it's not the Trump party that is re-aligning to deliver populism, as they had been deeply convinced, but the boo-hiss non-GOP party -- either the Dems, if they submit, or a populist party that replaces them)."

Corvinus said...

I see our host has tripled down with a new post. Perhaps this is the "National Question"...

https://www.thenation.com/article/ben-jealous-ready-make-maryland-americas-laboratory-democracy/

Feryl said...

"I was intrigued by a comment by Feryl in a previous thread about how back in the 80s/90s it was definitely the Republicans/Right who were shitting on everyone's good time, what with the panics about Halloween being "satanic" and trying to censor music and video games, not to mention getting childcare workers sent to prison on trumped up charges. But clearly in recent years the Republicans/Right have toned it down while now the Democrats/Left are the one saying you can't dress as anything fun for Halloween, can't eat basically anything because of cultural appropriation, and you should lose your job (at a minimum) for not using the correct one of 60 new gender pronouns."

"So is there anything in the GSS or anywhere else to quantify that?"

I think there's an element of defensiveness, desperation, virtue signaling, and arrogance here.

In the 1980's and most of the 90's, the cultural Right responded to Reagan's election and the rise of the religious Right by doubling down on animosity towards anyone who was deemed to be insufficiently conservative and pious. They became paranoid, constantly looking for child predators and Satanists everywhere. They bit off more than they could chew, though, because while the Right was wasting energy on divisive anxiety, a lot of problems (cf: economic and family dysfunction) were not really getting any better or on some counts were getting worse(the elections of 1992 and 1996 are helpful to look @; nobody in the middle-lower class in the mid-90's was buying into the GOP or the Dems anymore, and Gen X-ers often didn't even bother to vote).

I think the 2010's (and if the pattern reasserts itself, the 2020's) have seen the Cultural Left respond to Obama's admin and the rise of the CultMarx Left by looking for -ists and -phobes everywhere. That's how you get stuff like Taylor Swift being condemned for not bleating about Orange Hitler; it reminds me of the 80's and 90's Right always jumping to conclusions and judging people for driving a Volvo and so forth. Always reading the worst into people's intentions and character.

But if the Right of yore discredited itself by the late 90's with laughably absurd judgements and speculation, perhaps by the late 2020's the CultMarx Left will have done the same.

I long for the 1980's-2000's, when the Left did a good job of deconstructing the Right's sins (and BTW, on liberal forums in the 2000's you sometimes saw questioning of open borders and so forth; we shouldn't forget just how recent the Left's descent into madness is).

Stephen King (ironically, now himself a hysterical bigot) sort of dated his novels by almost always including a hysterically judgemental Christian character, right from the start, Carrie in 1976 (the late 70's was when the Religious Right really started to get going, given that Jimmy freakin' Carter went out of his way to emphasize his evangelical roots).

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

People don't vote based solely on material concerns. Are you going to argue that Clinton beat Sanders 4-to-1 among black voters because she was going to get so much more stuff in their hands than he was? Come on. Agnostic understood that a decade ago when we both did a series of posts on Andrew Gelman's Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State.

As for the laundry list of quotes, you (and Agnostic in the thread) are conflating me with some of the other Trump supporters there. I've never denied that the platform for success on the left is to promise the gibs.

But the demographics are more important. Someone like Ocasio doesn't have to point out that she's a twofer, female and Hispanic, because it's obvious (though she still does--just look at how she writes her maiden surname!). White progressives have to devote more time groveling to the PoC ascendancy to prove that they're dark on the inside even though they are unfortunately white--through no fault of their own, as Crowley told us!--on the outside. They're increasingly at a disadvantage in head-to-head races. But if their opponent is also white, they can be the pale PoC ascendancy proxy. This is exactly what Hillary did in 2016.

As the Democrat electorate becomes minority-majority, the appeals for free stuff will become more and more pronounced in tandem with the increase in anti-white rhetoric, implicit and increasingly explicit.

Agnostic wouldn't sign onto a good-natured bet about 2020. He thinks the nominee will be Bernie or an acolyte. I'm confident it'll be a PoC ascendancy person, probably Kamala Harris or maybe Cory Booker or Deval Patrick. I proposed a post by the loser acknowledging the prognostication of the winner. He wouldn't take the bet.

As for his assertion that blacks are warming up to Sanders, ha, maybe compared to Clinton. But if it's Sanders vs Harris or Booker? Get out of here. I'll gladly bet you that Sanders will lose the black vote in Dem primaries in that situation. You game?

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Lol and Ben Jealous is black. He was the head of the NAACP for crying out loud. He's a perfect illustration of the dynamic I detailed above.

Jack Burton said...

That's quite a wish list, LOL. Not even feasible with 90+% taxation.

who he shall not be named said...

AE wrote:
"No one from either party has even questioned legal immigration in a generation since Pat Buchanan did so a generation ago. That's finally starting to change."
============


https://ballotpedia.org/Ted_Cruz_presidential_campaign,_2016/Immigration

Cruz pledged to suspend a program that gives work visas to highly skilled immigrants, dramatically increase deportations, add hundreds of miles to the wall on the Mexican border and reverse every immigration order signed by President Barack Obama, including one that defers enforcement for many children of immigrants brought to the country without documentation, as part of an immigration plan he proposed, the Associated Press reported November 14, 2015. Cruz's decision to suspend the high-skilled visas, also known as the H1-B visa program, represented a complete about-face on one of his long-held immigration stances, and is part of an aggressive immigration plan designed to appeal to the GOP’s most conservative wing and distinguish himself from Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, two Florida-based candidates who support a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally, the AP reported.

Corvinus said...

'People don't vote based solely on material concerns."

Agnostic never said "solely". Let's stick to the overall point here. Trump's economic policies are detrimental to his base despite the record highs on Wall Street. He and his cronies are benefitting at the expense of Flyover Country for the long-term. But they seemingly don't care, so long as lefties are put in their placeWhether it is due to foolish pride, or outright ignorance, or a willingness to spite themselves, there is an opportunity for the Democrats to reclaim those former Obama voters who went with Trump in larger part out of Shitlery's disdain for them. Sanders gave her the blueprint, her husband gave her the advice, and she was too arrogant to listen.

"Are you going to argue that Clinton beat Sanders 4-to-1 among black voters because she was going to get so much more stuff in their hands than he was? Come on."

You are setting up an argument that I was not going to make, directly or indirectly. Nice try. Anyways, Sanders was deemed an outsider, a man who's policies were deemed by the Democratic Beltway types as being way too progressive. But that is the fight going on in the Democratic Party between the old guard and the new blood. It's the economy, stupid, not the culture wars, which have been won. And do not be surprised if more upsets are sprung in the coming months by upstart candidates who take this approach.

"As for the laundry list of quotes, you (and Agnostic in the thread) are conflating me with some of the other Trump supporters there."

No, his quotes were squarely meant to refute your posts, even if he is not directly confronting you on the matter.

"I've never denied that the platform for success on the left is to promise the gibs."

On the left AND on the right. Just different gimmedats.

"But the demographics are more important."

Is shaming white people for not betraying their European heritage truly going to work? Surely you jest. Look at her agenda. Those items appeal especially to the younger demographics regardless of race or ethnicity.

"As the Democrat electorate becomes minority-majority, the appeals for free stuff will become more and more pronounced in tandem with the increase in anti-white rhetoric, implicit and increasingly explicit."

Anti-Republican white. Anti-establishment white, not anti-white in general. Again, look at her agenda. And look at who voted for her.

https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1013687094496190464

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/01/ocasio-cortez-data-suggests-that-gentrifying-neighborhoods-powered-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-victory-over-the-democratic-establishment/

"Agnostic wouldn't sign onto a good-natured bet about 2020. He thinks the nominee will be Bernie or an acolyte."

Probably not, but do not fool yourself into not considering the impact of the Bernie effect.

"I'm confident it'll be a PoC ascendancy person, probably Kamala Harris or maybe Cory Booker or Deval Patrick. I proposed a post by the loser acknowledging the prognostication of the winner. He wouldn't take the bet."

Probably, and if these candidates get on board by focusing on the economy by taking their cue from La Conquistadora, and not on Shitlery's agenda--if she even had one, I couldn't tell--rather than the race/gender/homosexuality/PC bandwagon, along with having a young white running mate, then the darkies will fall into line.

"As for his assertion that blacks are warming up to Sanders, ha, maybe compared to Clinton.

"But if it's Sanders vs Harris or Booker?"

Sanders is passing the torch.

"Lol and Ben Jealous is black. He was the head of the NAACP for crying out loud. He's a perfect illustration of the dynamic I detailed above."

Light skinned black who is taking Bernie's playbook to a potentially whole another level. Again, how does race mixing personally impact you and your family?

Anonymous said...

"Driving white men out of leadership positions in the Democrat party will accelerate the transition of the GOP from the implicitly white to the explicitly white party and the parallel transition of the Democrats from implicitly to explicitly non-white. Incidentally, it will also make the Democrats less competent and functional in general. Get lots of blacks and browns in the leadership and corruption will follow like night follows day."

Unfortunately all this is necessary in order for White American racial consciousness to awaken and White American Nationalism to have fertile soil to grow in.

Anonymous said...

@Corvinus,
"Agnostic never said "solely". Let's stick to the overall point here. Trump's economic policies are detrimental to his base despite the record highs on Wall Street."

The open borders philosophy of the DSA and most Democrats is more detrimental to Trump's base,and in a way that has far more and, far worse impact, and they know it.

"He and his cronies are benefitting at the expense of Flyover Country for the long-term. But they seemingly don't care, so long as lefties are put in their placeWhether it is due to foolish pride, or outright ignorance, or a willingness to spite themselves, there is an opportunity for the Democrats to reclaim those former Obama voters who went with Trump in larger part out of Shitlery's disdain for them. Sanders gave her the blueprint, her husband gave her the advice, and she was too arrogant to listen."

Trump's base knows a large bloc of the Democratic constituency (non whites, immigrants) want to benefit at their, and their children's ,and their grandchildren's expense as well.

There are always going to be elites.
Most people prefer their elites be of their race/ethnicity rather than an other(s).
Particularly when the other(s) hate ,envy,and fear yours.

You still believe this was mainly a rejection of Clinton.
You're wrong.
It was an embrace of American Nationalism,implicitly White American Nationalism.

" It's the economy, stupid, not the culture wars, which have been won. And do not be surprised if more upsets are sprung in the coming months by upstart candidates who take this approach."


Agnostic is probably right,
the cultural war is over.

The ethnic cold war is about to begin.


He's probably right that
there will be others that use this approach.
Most will be non whites,in areas where Whites are a minority.
They won't emphasize race/ ethnicity because it won't be necessary to,just as it wasn't for Ocasio.
Non whites are considered ethnically loyal until they prove otherwise.
Besides people don't always vote solely along ethnic lines.
I would vote for a black or Hispanic who wanted to build a wall on the southern border, before
I'd vote for a White who was for open borders.
Protecting your ethnic interest doesn't always mean supporting someone of your ethnicity.




Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus.

I suspect your primary point is that there are interest that cut across ethnic lines.
Such has always been true.
It's done little to mitigate ethnic conflict.
It is members of the same species which compete with us for the resources needed to survive and reproduce.
Basically it is always a Darwinian struggle.
If we're lucky this struggle plays out within a set of rules, the Social Compact.
Ethnic loyalties put a strain on that Compact.

They'll always be differences of opinion about public ends and means,of course.
This is true even in an ethnically homogeneous polity,but in such a society the differences aren't exacerbated by ethnic considerations.
In multiethnic societies ethnic considerations pervade every aspect of life.
Questions concerning the interest of one group or another ,will become a constant feature of life.
Advancing the desires of one group will mean another group is held back. This is inevitable because the supply of any desired good, rarely meets the demand.
So who gets the goods, how is this decided ,who decides?
You believe ethnic interest aren't going to clash in such a society ? Particularly in an increasingly socialist society,in which whoever controls the government is going to make these decisions ?

Politics will become inseparable from ethnic considerations.
With the government, academia, business, and media all determined to wipe out White privilege ,it's going to be more and more difficult with each generation for White Americans to live as well as their ancestors, in the country they built.
Under such conditions White American Nationalism will become inevitable.




Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
"To reiterate for the millionth time, the Bernie people do not have to explicitly call for reducing immigration in order to achieve that effect. They just have to force higher wages and benefits on employers, and call for an end to the heartless exploitation of vulnerable immigrants -- e.g., if employers and slumlords want to hire / house immigrants, they should be giving them better-than-US-average wages, benefits, and rent prices."

"Why should immigrants get "better-than-US-average wages, benefits, and rent prices" than U.S. citizens?" I can hear the Congressional Black Caucus asking now.

Such a proposal goes nowhere.


"Nobody in Michigan who swung the election to Trump gives a shit about cuckball or college professors, if Trump doesn't get the hell out of NAFTA, slam 35% tariffs on Ford when they move production to Mexico, etc."

Trump supporters in Michigan do,I suspect,care about illegal immigration, border control and demographic change.
What good does it do for American workers to keep jobs in the U.S. and import foreign workers?

"The deal was supposed to be economic populism in exchange for cultural nationalism. Some people wanted both, ... "

It was primarily about both.

"but mostly those goals were in opposition -- Democrat vs. Republican themes."

White Americans acting in their interest united both themes,there was no opposition.

"Without populism, those who swung the election to Trump won't care about the culture war."

It's not a culture war, it's a struggle for ethnic hegemony.
Most White Americans, whether Republican,Democrat,or Independent know this.

"Trumpsters are following their personality cult guru over the cliff, as they worship the ugliest central bank bubble ever inflated to give a lifeline to the decadent 1%, rather than push him to deliver on populism. And having decided that the economy has been made great again, only offering a pretty stale version of the culture war (attacking the pornography industry would have gone against the deregulatory spirit)."


Populism was the effect of Trumps campaign,not its cause.
Its cause was American Nationalism, an implicitly White variety.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,

"That made Ocasio-Cortez' win even more noteworthy -- it succeeded in a very diverse area, which tends to prevent people from uniting behind a common grassroots cause. That will be the exception, and it'll have far greater success in more homogeneous areas like Vermont, WV, Minnesota, Michigan, or for that matter the all-Hispanic parts of the Southwest."

If the premise upon which the above statement is based were true, we should have seen this play out in California first,or even the South.

"Blacks are already taking a big liking to the Bern-man. They figured out Hillary was so bad that she lost safe states like MI, WI, and PA."
She lost those States because she didn't inspire blacks to get out and vote.
Sanders as the nominee wouldn't have either.
Neither of them were Black.

"They don't care as much about racial and cultural issues per se -- it's more about criminal justice reform, de-militarizing the police, debt forgiveness, raising wages, and other things that are economic in nature, but which hit blacks harder than whites."

If it's not about race then why not, "All lives matter. "
or " Black lives matter, too"
Why were White demonstrators and reporters put to the back of the demonstrations?
Why were innocent Whites attacked by Black mobs in Wisconsin and North Carolina?

" "The deniers are trying to hold two contradictory views in mind simultaneously, a classic symptom of cognitive dissonance (the underlying shock being that it's not the Trump party that is re-aligning to deliver populism, as they had been deeply convinced, but the boo-hiss non-GOP party -- either the Dems, if they submit, or a populist party that replaces them)."

If a Left wing Populism emerges uniting people across racial/ ethnic groups, it will eventually split along ethnoracial lines.

Left wing Populism works in ethnically homogeneous societies.
Show me one it's worked in that was an ethnically pluralistic society.

Democracy, Centralized government and Ethnic pluralism don't go well together.

" Anti-Republican white.
Anti-establishment white, not anti-white in general."

I doubt either Whites or non whites are going to make the distinction you did.
I know I don't.
Do most Hispanics see
a difference between being anti illegal immigrants and anti Hispanic.
Probably not, and that is hardly a close analogy.



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

I ask you again, would you ask a Jew who was opposed to other Jews marrying a Christian, Hindu or Muslim, "How does religious mixing impact you and your family? "

Corvinus said...

"The open borders philosophy of the DSA and most Democrats is more detrimental to Trump's base, and in a way that has far more and, far worse impact, and they know it."

Perhaps, then again, maybe not.

"Trump's base knows a large bloc of the Democratic constituency (non whites, immigrants) want to benefit at their, and their children's, and their grandchildren's expense as well."

No, that is not necessarily the case.

"There are always going to be elites. Most people prefer their elites be of their race/ethnicity rather than an other(s)."

Except Trump in the end, like any elite, is looking out for...elites.

"Particularly when the other(s) hate ,envy,and fear yours."

White elites do not have these attitudes toward their own kind.

"It was an embrace of American Nationalism,implicitly White American Nationalism."

For some white people, absolutely. But for most white people, no.

"The ethnic cold war is about to begin."

Highly doubtful. Look at Generation Z. As far as dating people of a different race, 35% of Gen Zers (who are age 19 at most) said they have; that's more than any other generation than millennials, 43% of whom said they have. Probably because Gen Z is the most racially diverse generation in America. The Census Bureau found that 48% of Gen Z is non-Caucasian. The next most-diverse generation is the millennials, 44% of whom are non-Caucasian. And for marrying someone of a different race, 77% of Gen Zers were in favor — the next-highest generation was millennials, at 66%. For marriage equality, 66% favored — again, the next-highest generation was millennials, trailing them at 58%.

""Why should immigrants get "better-than-US-average wages, benefits, and rent prices" than U.S. citizens?" I can hear the Congressional Black Caucus asking now. Such a proposal goes nowhere."

Because it's not about immigrants, it's about changing the dynamics of our broken capitalist system that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class.

"It's not a culture war, it's a struggle for ethnic hegemony."

Says the Alt Right.

"Populism was the effect of Trumps campaign, not its cause."

No, it was the cause.

"Its cause was American Nationalism, an implicitly White variety."

For some white people.

"If the premise upon which the above statement is based were true, we should have seen this play out in California first,or even the South."

Not necessarily.

"She lost those States because she didn't inspire blacks to get out and vote."

They didn't really trust her.

"Sanders as the nominee wouldn't have either. Neither of them were Black."

No, he would have done much better.

"Why were innocent Whites attacked by Black mobs in Wisconsin and North Carolina?"

They were not innocent, as both sides incited violence.

"Left wing Populism works in ethnically homogeneous societies."

That is Fake News.

"Show me one it's worked in that was an ethnically pluralistic society."

The American Progressive Era of the late 1800's/early 1900's and the New Deal.

"Democracy, Centralized government and Ethnic pluralism don't go well together."

That would be your opinion.

"I ask you again, would you ask a Jew who was opposed to other Jews marrying a Christian, Hindu or Muslim, "How does religious mixing impact you and your family?"

Absolutely. Because in the end it is none of their business, and is a distinct violation of freedom of association.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

You support freedom of association? That is good to hear.

The more racially diverse a population, the more we'd expect interracial dating based on pure selection randomization. That Z is less interracially involved than millennials is in line with a lot of other indicators re: Zs v millennials. Millennials may well represent the peak of white ethnomasochism. Here's to hoping.

The equivocation wrt incitement of violence is a joke. There was never violence incited by Trump people against anti-Trumpers beyond the narrow context of anti-Trumpers harassing Trump supporters. Tons and tons of instances of protesters clashing with Trump supporters at Trump rallies. Zero instances of (pro-Trump) protesters clashing with Bernie or Hillary supporters at either of their rallies.

Corvinus said...

"You support freedom of association? That is good to hear."

Not unfettered freedom of association as you champion. So, how does race mixing directly impact you and your family?

"The more racially diverse a population, the more we'd expect interracial dating based on pure selection randomization."

It would appear you are grasping at straws here. How about a post to test out your hypothesis.

"That Z is less interracially involved than millennials is in line with a lot of other indicators re: Zs v millennials. Millennials may well represent the peak of white ethnomasochism. Here's to hoping."

Generation Z is all about being "interracially involved", from friendships to relationships. You're flailing.

"The equivocation wrt incitement of violence is a joke."

It's really not a joke, it's actually serious.

"There was never violence incited by Trump people against anti-Trumpers beyond the narrow context of anti-Trumpers harassing Trump supporters."

No. At pro-Trump and anti-Trump protests, there was violence incited by both sides. No "narrow context", just straight up intimidation and bloodshed by each group against one another.

"Zero instances of (pro-Trump) protesters clashing with Bernie or Hillary supporters at either of their rallies."

I don't know about "zero instances'; regardless, why would pro-Trump protestors be caught dead at one of those rallies? You're really not proving anything here.