Saturday, June 02, 2018

White births as a percentage of total births by state (2017)

The preliminary birth figures for 2017 are in. The following graph and table show the percentages of births by state that were to non-Hispanic white babies:


StateWht%
1) Vermont90.8
2) West Virginia90.7
3) Maine89.1
4) New Hampshire86.8
5) Kentucky80.9
6) Montana79.4
7) Wyoming78.6
8) Iowa78.1
9) Idaho77.3
10) Utah75.1
11) North Dakota73.9
12) Missouri73.6
13) Indiana73.6
14) Ohio72.2
15) Wisconsin71.3
16) South Dakota71.0
17) Kansas70.1
18) Nebraska69.1
19) Minnesota68.6
20) Michigan67.7
21) Pennsylvania67.0
22) Oregon67.0
23) Tennessee66.3
24) Arkansas64.2
25) Alabama58.3
26) Colorado58.3
27) Washington57.9
28) Oklahoma57.7
29) Rhode Island57.6
30) Massachusetts57.2
31) South Carolina56.6
32) Virginia55.4
33) North Carolina53.5
34) Connecticut53.5
35) Illinois52.8
United States51.7
36) Louisiana51.7
37) Alaska50.4
38) Mississippi49.8
39) Delaware48.9
40) New York48.9
41) New Jersey45.3
42) Georgia44.1
43) Florida43.0
44) Maryland41.6
45) Arizona41.2
46) Nevada36.8
47) Texas33.4
48) District of Columbia31.8
49) New Mexico27.6
50) California27.1
51) Hawaii19.5

The hoped-for Trump bump failed to materialize. Total births were down from 2016, as was the national percentage of births to white babies.

At 51.7% in 2017, we are fast approaching the point where non-white births outnumber white births in America. If it doesn't happen this year, it looks like it will happen in 2019. I expect members of the intellectual dark web will complain the media isn't giving Trump the credit he deserves for being in office when non-white babies outnumbered white babies for the first time when the historical milestone is reached!

As has been pointed out numerous times previously, the sensational assertion based on Census estimates that this happened back in 2012 will turn out to merely be six or seven years premature.

The four most populous states in the union are now natally majority-minority. In California, barely one-in-four babies are white. Future president Kamala Harris is California Dreaming this for the entire country.

In Texas, it's one-in-three. The putatively rock-ribbed Republican stronghold is undergoing a demographic transformation that will turn it purple and then blue. Texas is to my knowledge the only state in the country where whites vote more strongly Republican than non-whites vote Democrat. They do so only marginally, though--the white and non-white votes are essentially the inverse of one another. This means when non-whites reach an electoral majority in the lone star state, it'll move to the Democrat column. The writing is on the exit polling walls:


The Southwest is lost. It's past time for political dissolution. A decade ago, we were mocked for advocating secession. In a decade, we'll be on the cusp of it.

Parenthetically, a common response I hear when political dissolution is brought up is that the smaller political entities crawling out of the national carcass will, individually, all be demographically overwhelmed just as the country as a whole is now.

I don't buy it. Imagine Brussels has the same power to determine immigration policy for the EU that the Imperial Capital currently has in the US. The Visegrad group would be powerless to keep the invaders out.

Now imagine the states have the power to defy the Imperial Capital as individual European countries are currently defying Brussels. In my home state immigration patriot Kris Kobach is running neck-and-neck with the current governor for the upcoming August primary. If instead of governor Kobach of Kansas we had president Kobach of Kansas, our government's approach to invasion would look a lot like Hungary's does.

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

Serious question: what would secession do, and how would it solve any of the problems you are identifying? Do you expect West Virginia and Vermont to secede and form their own white country?

The demographic data you identify suggest that secession is impossible without massive population resettlement. And if massive population resettlement were even politically possible, secession wouldn't be necessary-resettlement would be the predicted future. Saying that California will secede in 10 years doesn't answer the question of what will happen in Virginia, or Illinois, or Nebraska in 30 years? Another round of secession?

snorlax said...

But what about when Mexico (or Texas!) literally invades Kansas?

Anonymous said...

@Anon 1:16,

Secession is more running away and ceding territory.
Why not? It's worked so well so far...

[sarc off].

@AE - Not Secession but 'Cession'- "the formal giving up of rights, property, or territory, especially by a state."

I do find the notion of Kansas morphing into Maygars amusing however.
If you were Huns this wouldn't be happening. Not just the ancient Huns.
Hungary's Arpad Line held off entire Soviet Armies and was never broken in WW2, the Soviets had to flank around them. Arpad line was fixed fortifications that worked. In short the Hungarians are the Finns of Central Europe.

What will happen is White Texans will move to Kansas and vote Progressive and then....

Cheers

vxxc

Jim Bowery said...

First, an aramament: Don't call this "natural selection". Calling it "natural" elides moral responsibility for genocide. Call this "culture as artificial selection" or "artificial selection" or just "culture".

Second, the correct solution is the imposition of fair evolution by force. I'm talking about a Declaration of War against unfair evolution. Stop accepting non-white definitions of what is "fair". Stop dividing whites from whites (and indeed humans from humans) with all the divisive talk about race, gender and generations. Unite them with with an idea of what it is to be "fair" in an evolutionary sense. This will drive the unfair -- including most whites as well as non-whites who are, at base, inhuman -- to expose themselves as targets to be exiled to a state of nature.

Stop secessionist movements that try to escape fair evolution and exile the unfair. How do you identify the unfair? Simple: People who "resist" the right of individuals to vote with their feet to States that accept them as immigrants, are "unfair". Exile them.

Then, identify the countries of origin of post 1965 immigrants and take the territory of those countries in proportion to the degree they are dumping population on other countries. Make new States of those territories, and send the recent immigrants back to those new States.

Enforce the original intent of the 10th Amendment to permit States to exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever. There is no grant of authority in the US Constitution to impose residents on States -- only a grant of authority to regulate interstate commerce including throughpassage (which may entail overnight stays in public accommodations along the interstate routes).

Devolve all social policy to the States.

Most essentially, reapportion State territory based on a census of the States in a bidding war for the most valuable land areas. The bidding authority is by census -- not monetary wealth. This vitiates the primary cause of war.

Don't give me shit about this being "politically infeasible". Politics is the continuation of war by fraudulent means. That means the war is merely undeclared. Declare the fucking war already and do it in such a way that it is moral hence will support the morale of whites rather than pitting them against each other on the basis of social policy preferences. That is what will replace fraud with force.

Prosecution of the war can begin with a very small percentage of the population by techniques outlined in John Robb's book, "Brave New War".

Here's a simple idea based on the vulnerability of cities which are the centers of power of the unfair:

Each May 29 (the anniversary of the ratification of the US Constitution just prior to the celebration of those who died protecting it) at precisely noon Central Time, all who support fair evolution do whatever they can, without being caught, to simultaneously disable physical infrastructure supporting urban areas in the US. If the tyranny posing as the US Federal Government doesn't take effective steps toward relenting during the coming legislative session, do it again the next May 29 and AGAIN on June 29. The next year, repeat it 3 months, and so on.

Jim Bowery said...

Erratum: The correct link was the vulnerability of cities.

(The Brave web browser has a persistent bug that makes you think it has copied a URL from the address bar when it hasn't.)

Jim Bowery said...

And, by the way, for acolytes of Game, think of this as the ultimate test of the jerkboy hypothesis. June of each year women will be far less likely to demand Game skills.

Jonathan Centauri said...

The dark skin folks get fed by Uncle Sham.
He is broke, that broke dick man.
The future relies on cooperative Whites.
There are no more spaces for their flight.
When the goofballs ask for sharing now.
They will no longer milk a cash cow.
The golem is now dying from the brownout here.
The paranoia is actually a sign of fear.
The D-Party fragments along "tribal" lines.
No one cars about "minority" whines.
Is it Norks or is it Iran?
Does the Pentagon even have a plan?
When will the shit doth hit the fan?
It has already, its all fumes now, man.

sykes.1 said...

Interestingly, La Raza's dream of la Reconquista results in a separate state, not union with Mexico.

Jim Bowery said...

And for the twits who can't stop mocking "muh Constitution", you have a choice: Keep your head stuck up your rectum in competition with all the erect brown dicks trying to get in there with you, or take effective action to acquire your ideal ethnostate under the original intent of the Constitution. I know, I know... it must feel really warm and moist in there with all that shit and disease-saturated jizz but do try to extricate yourself from your cynicism.

Jim Bowery said...

sykes 1, what La Raza wants is an unconstitutionally powerful Federal government that they control with sheer block voting power resulting from their culture that keeps their women in a prone position firing babies out of their vaginas like cannon balls, as though civilization were a womb war -- which, internally, it is without incorporating a state of nature to which subhumans are exiled thence to be killed in a eugenic process.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Why would I pretend to know how political dissolution will play out? The path we're on now leads to perdition, that much is clear. As Jim alludes to, the 9th and 10th amendments may as well not exist as far as the Cloud People in the Imperial Capital are concerned. It's time to abandon them and it.

Snorlax,

We have Fort Riley!

In seriousness, Americans have no stomach for military action against other Americans. Even something like Waco today would be politically devastating, and that was just a handful of religious 'cultists'.

I envision city-states of tens or hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions or in some cases tens of millions, each with nuclear weapons as a deterrent against aggression.

VXXC,

What will happen is White Texans will move to Kansas and vote Progressive and then...

To progressive Europeans want to move to Poland or Hungary today? Unapologetically embracing the religion, culture, and heritage of their ancestors scares SWPLs away.

Jonathan,

Ha!

216 said...

Even the states at the top are abysmal in comparison with but a few decades ago. Unlike the Israelis, we don't appear to be interested in continuity.

We cannot count on YT to engage in ethnic bloc voting, nor can we imagine that future Hispanics will rally around Caudillo Nick Fuentes to the Right. Even a non-white population of 10% and accelerating in future Maine/Iowa is enough to tip the balance.

Most South African major cities were majority white for most of the 20th century. Keeping black residents as "temporary rural migrants" was the ostensible purpose of apartheid.


We are heading towards generational eclipse.

Secession? More like Orbital Escape Velocity.

216 said...

Gentrification is one of the few trends working in our favor, DC's NHW birth share is up several points since the start of the decade.

Perhaps it is counterintuitive, given the dysgenic trends of urbanization, but in 100 year terms it would benefit us tremendously to accelerate gentrification.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

DC is the only 'state' in the country that became *more* n-H white between 2000 and 2010.

216 said...

AE,

European building regulation is stricter than the US, with stronger labor unions as well. That prevents a "white flight" to Eastern Europe, until said time as Brussels can get away with declaring English the official language (heh) and forbidding employers from requiring proficiency in the local language.

Almost every European below a certain age has been required to learn English in school. No shortage of American progs with Euro-envy about how we know one language while the French/German knows three.

Our suburban sprawl has encouraged an unhealthy rootless cosmopolitanism that prevented any reckoning towards a racial settlement. The Europeans would do well to prevent sprawl from occurring there. Schengen allows any EU-28 citizen to work/live in any of the 28 countries, at least on paper Belgium (or a future Brussels city-state) could simply grant citizenship to an unlimited number of Africans and foist them off on the other 27.

Feryl said...

I dunno enough about history to cite precedent here. But is there anything in world history analogous to the vote (and demographic/cultural) rigging that's become so cynically obvious among Western Leftists since the late 1990's? I'm sure there are examples of this sort of thing, but I doubt that the scale and rapid pace were anything like what we've seen since the late 90's. Absent an aggressive invasion/conquest, or rule by an ambitious tyrant, with rampant murder, enslavement, and exile of an area's early inhabitants, a country's demographics should not change dramatically in just 30-40 years. One generation. But that's exactly what's happened since the mid-70's, first in America, then in Canada/England/France, and then in Belgium/The Netherlands/Germany/Sweden.

To put things in perspective, in the America of the 1920's there simply was not enough clout that had accrued to either recent arrived groups, atomized "classic" liberals, or cultural Leftists to make the trends we see today possible. Nor were any white ethnic groups back then afflicted by a sense of self-loathing, failure, and misanthropy (largely directed at white follies), which render you vulnerable to tribes that act like normal human beings (e.g., they envision themselves to be at war with other ethnic tribes, which is seen as inevitable whereas intra-tribal war ought to be lamented).

You don't have to be a genius to discern the connection between rapidly changing demographics and ethnic tensions/fights for spoils. There are ethnic minorities who are (relatively) secure and confident in places like Russia, but that's cuz they've shared space with a dominant group (or in some cases, been granted a decent chunk of land largely for themselves) for periods lasting over like 800 years. And besides, the genetic difference between the dominant population (be it the Rus in Russia or the Han in China) and the minorities isn't so great, after all. But putting blacks and/or Muslims in a country with a dominant non-black population or non-Muslim population by all appearances is an utter disaster.

America could easily tolerate having 5% of it's population be Buddhist/Shinto/Christian/non-theist Asian, or having 20% of it's population be Mexican-Catholic but socialized to respect Anglo-Teutonic values (e.g., not socialized in California). What's intolerable is not letting demographics stabilize in the first world, and recklessly encouraging the growth of Muslims and blacks anywhere at all, let alone outside of Sub-Saharan Africa and the MENA.

Feryl said...


We all (even many white liberals) have an inherent sense of alarm to seeing a different tribe out of "nowhere". To the extent that co-existence is possible, it's based on centuries of experience with it and at least some shared genetic (and thus tribal) heritage. Muslims fuck everything up "everywhere" because it's a religion that was driven out and suppressed in Europe and Asia for Millennia. It's only a matter of time before historically Hindu/Buddhist/Christian lands forcibly kill, eject, or convert Muslims who are historically incapable of having the patience or tolerance to develop a rapport with non-Muslims. Nordics gave up Odinism and made peace with their neighbors (most of whom were Teutonic or Baltic). Are Muslims going to give up on Islam and learn to live in relative closeness to white Christian tribes? I'm not holding my breath. The Huns/Mongols/Vikings were widely hated across Europe and Asia, until their empires collapsed because they were genetically absorbed into other tribes (thus weakening their sense of camaraderie) and/or stuck to their own turf and renounced the conquest of other lands. Importantly, however, these war tribes at least shared genetics with their fellow Eurasians. Whereas, say, Somalis, are never going to be accepted as a comfortable or trust worthy neighbor by a European or Asian.

FYI, the MENA is a tinder box of neurosis and extreme tribalism, and it's for the betterment of us all that they be left to squabble in the desert amongst themselves. Let 'em be, and keep them out of other countries.

Fenster said...

Vermont and West Virginia numbers 49 and 50 in terms of population growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population_growth_rate

Feryl said...

Anonymous 216 said...

Gentrification is one of the few trends working in our favor, DC's NHW birth share is up several points since the start of the decade.

Perhaps it is counterintuitive, given the dysgenic trends of urbanization, but in 100 year terms it would benefit us tremendously to accelerate gentrification.

6/3/18, 8:34 AM
Blogger Audacious Epigone said...

216,

DC is the only 'state' in the country that became *more* n-H white between 2000 and 2010.

No better an example of "diversity for thee, but not for me". See also the incredibly white and Asian HR of tech companies, and the fact that only in the last 4-5 years has Hollywood started allowing Af. Action behind the camera. And Sailer has pointed out numerous times that since the mid-80's white yuppies and immigrants (and their descendants) have been used as a means to push more and more crappy Northern legacy blacks out of desirable urban real estate and warehouse them in a series of terrible ghettos which largely do not "spill over" into the better areas (thus why American whites these days feel much better about urban areas than they did in 30 or 40 years ago, or how South African whites feel these days). We use mass incarceration and gentrification as a black ghetto "containment" strategy; there's only so much that can be done in the absence of heavy police/vigilante tactics to stop blacks from being a nightmare, but we seem to be doing everything we can, often with the tacit support of gentry liberals most of whom, if they are older, sure as hell do not want the 1970's to happen again (when every urban core of America rotted from within).

It's all working, isn't it? Not perfectly, of course, but we're light-years ahead of where we were in 1980 or even 1990 when many American blacks were swaggering psychos who ruled urban America.

216 said...

Feryl,

Empty space in the SE/SW was plowed over with non-union labor to build the sprawl that accommodated a "reverse great migration". The peak in black violence coincided with deindustrialization and the crack cocaine boom. Those were somewhat unique historic factors that may not be replicable.

If we believe the SA governments statistics, SA is considerably less violent than it was in the early 2000s, and SA blacks are possibly the most violent blacks in the world. How much of this is genetics, and how much is rooted in historical factors such as envy and the loss of mining industry jobs.


Most blacks have also proven clueless at profiting from gentrification, notable exceptions such as the hypocrite Spike Lee. They aren't demanding that illegals be deported so blacks can get construction jobs. There is nothing like the Jewish practice of a synagogue handing out interest-free loans so a co-religionist can start a small business.

The coming automation revolution offers even more challenging historical factors than deindustrialization did. 3.5 million are employed as truck drivers, about twice that are employed in restaurants. By 2030 we are looking at a major haircut, and 2040 will be a total washout right at the time the entitlement bomb detonates.

Even paying Third World (3 billion) residents a basic income ($2500) in exchange for not emigrating is currently unaffordable, let alone giving First World standards to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Each May 29 (the anniversary of the ratification of the US Constitution just prior to the celebration of those who died protecting it) at precisely noon Central Time, all who support fair evolution do whatever they can, without being caught, to simultaneously disable physical infrastructure supporting urban areas in the US.

January 29 would have a lot more impact in the north.  Or hit just before/during a major snowstorm, to get a heap of natural assistance.  If the infrastructure hits prevent effective snow removal, you've taken out most roadways and isolated the urban undertow away from its target demographic.  The trifecta is to freeze it in place without heat or electric.  There would be lots of deaths from carbon monoxide as stupid people tried to use their gas or even charcoal grills indoors, and a lot of areas would burn too.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Feryl, the Bread and Circuses that preceded Rome's eventual collapse are EXTREMELY SIMILAR to the "welfare state". LBJ made his "Great Society" as a Plantation to farm votes for his party. The Weimar Republic 2.0 was made by the enemy. They really are sick fucks when it comes to sexual depravity. In their upside down world, propriety and morality are signs of "illness". Incest, pedophilia and rape are not unusual for their "communities". Freud's "mother fixation" and his claims of "wanting to have sex with your parents" are OBVIOUSLY NOT SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. They didn't come from NOWHERE.
Violence is normal for conflicts between peoples. Wars are NEVER UNUSUAL. The Pax Romana was the ONLY TIME where "peace" existed for awhile. It wasn't achieved by "tolerance" or "acceptance", but by THE SUPREMACY OF ROMAN LEGIONS CRUSHING OPPOSITION. Imperialism is the ONLY WAY "peace" became possible. By SEGREGATING populations into their OWN PROVINCE and having a EMPIRE ruling them, the Roman Empire brought THE ONLY PERIOD OF SUSTAINED "peace" THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN.

Do not ever compare The Cold War and the Grand Chessboard to the Pax Romana. The brushfire wars and proxies wars KILLED MILLIONS.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

the map kind of looks like the jet stream: https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/a97d95f/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F6e%2F97%2Ff913df55420da52ffeda63aa4458%2Fstatic-winter-jet-stream-example.jpg

Anonymous said...

Don't give me shit about this being "politically infeasible". Politics is the continuation of war by fraudulent means. That means the war is merely undeclared. Declare the fucking war already and do it in such a way that it is moral hence will support the morale of whites rather than pitting them against each other on the basis of social policy preferences. That is what will replace fraud with force.

Prosecution of the war can begin with a very small percentage of the population by techniques outlined in John Robb's book, "Brave New War".

Here's a simple idea based on the vulnerability of cities which are the centers of power of the unfair:


I respect your intelligence, but your scenario here just doesn't sound very realistic. You're describing a scenario in which there's a guerrilla war and lone wolf terror attacks against cities and organs of state on the domestic front, and an expansionary imperial war against many countries around the world to capture territory. How do you cripple the state and still have the state effectively conquer territory abroad? And if you have control of a state and are in a position to wield it to fulfill your ideological aims, you don't need a domestic guerrilla war and terrorist attacks.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Our suburban sprawl has encouraged an unhealthy rootless cosmopolitanism that prevented any reckoning towards a racial settlement

It's easier for the US to avoid a reckoning for that reason. Relatedly, our population density is much lower than Europe's--there's a ton of undeveloped land in the central and mountain states. I used to fly pretty regularly between Kansas City and Seattle. It's stunning how much undeveloped land there is between the two.

Feryl said...

"Empty space in the SE/SW was plowed over with non-union labor to build the sprawl that accommodated a "reverse great migration". The peak in black violence coincided with deindustrialization and the crack cocaine boom. Those were somewhat unique historic factors that may not be replicable."

Blacks followed whites to the Sun Belt (America's mean population point has been moving further South and West since the end of WW2. This migration has harmed the Northeastern quarter of America, the same region which showed much greater support for Trump than previous GOP candidates.

The advent of air conditioning and, wait for it........Massive government infrastructure programs made the rugged West and swampy South much more livable. The pre-WW2 centers of America, mostly situated near the Atlantic and the Great Lakes, reflect which parts of America are the most practical to live in. It was indeed the GI generation who rolled up their sleeves and either developed and/or made use of the technology and land/water projects that were necessary to open up the South and West. Not that the South or West was all that grateful, being that they've always been the center of anti-gubmint paranoia, which seems to be greatest in the parts of America that are the most difficult to live in (the sweltering South/Central Plains, and the Mountain West).

Most of the nauseating "conservative" trends of the last 40-50 years emanate heavily from the South and West (the West was thought to be a GOP stronghold before the late 1980's, when rising living costs on the West Coast plus incessant Bible bashing drove the West Coast into the arms of the Dems). Nixon was a bone fide Californian, Reagan a wannabe Western cowboy, The Bush clan were Yankees desperate to affect a Texan identity, Mittens has Mormon roots, and McCain rep. Arizona. In other words, the GOP's leap into cuckery can be partly traced to their pathetic abandoning of the urban and working class of the Rust-belt/Midwest. Anti-gubmint paranoia for the West, bible thumping for the South (and a fair amount of Midwestern Ned Flanders'). Where's the concern for curtailing alcohol or legal drug use, curtailing gambling, restoring demographic and cultural stability by clamping down on immigration, and reining in decadent elites? Nah, why actually help people in the real world when you can be LARPing as a cowboy and/or a Christian Cassandra without actually putting in the heavy lifting required to clean things up and restore the middle class.

Feryl said...

I know a middle aged women who makes a big deal out of what a Christian she is, but when I express disgust at people gambling and drinking, she shrugs her shoulders or gets defensive about her own habits. WTF? Deeds are more important that words, but at some point in the 70's that idea seemed to get lost.

Also, to 216: crime increases occurred everywhere in the Western world in the late 60's. Didn't matter which demographic or area we're talking about. Whites, blacks, the city, the country, etc. Putting crime down to economic problems never really adds up; in so far as there's an economic dimension, there's a DUH! correlation between commiting crimes and poverty. Crime is a causal factor in poverty more than the other way around. Gen X-ers and Millennials are much more economically hard-up than young Boomers ever were; yet Boomers committed more crimes, esp. adjusted for race (Boomers are a much whiter cohort than later generations).

Crime remained high into the 70's, 80's, and most of the 1990's because Boomers and early Gen X-ers (those born from say, 1940-1970) were in their prime years for committing crimes back then.....And they committed tons of crimes. Post-1970 births hit most or all of their adolescence and early adulthood in the late 90's and beyond, precisely when crime fell....Because those of us approx. 45 and younger do not fight, drink, have sex, etc. like older generations did in a previous era. The culture now is firmly heading in the direction of greater cultural conservatism (as measured by a lack of risk taking), because "fun loving" (as well as decadent and perverted) people born before the 1970's have largely ceased to influence the culture of teens and younger adults. Note that these trends are much more applicable to whites, whereas blacks can only really be put under control by another round of Jim Crow.

216 said...

Feryl,

A big difference between those that used acid/speed/cocaine (Boomers) and those that use cannabis that has been selectively bred for ever higher levels of THC. Meth is the exception, but thanks to opiates is yesterdays news.

Alcoholism is now increasingly common among middle-aged women, a consequence of unfulfilled feminist/consumerist expectations along with general cultural decline. Raising alcohol taxes is an obvious public policy gain, but can't pass in a culture of drinkers where beer distributors are a politically influential gov't-granted monopoly. My state senator literally inherited a distributorship, McCain married into one. Gambling in my state is also an incestuous public-private monopoly. While state ownership of vice appears to be a good idea, this system already exists in super-decadent Ontario to no apparent benefit of the non-user.

The Depression/War years were decades of restraint, followed by a decade of prosperity and a desire to eliminate poverty in the next decade (60s). Instead we saw the beginning of deindustrialization as Western Europe/Japan came back online. There were/are those who claimed FDR/Truman shivved Chiang in favor of Mao because they feared China industrializing like Meiji Japan. The basis of black populations in our cities is long ago jobs in heavy industries during wartime. Right at the moment when social restrictions were lifted by civil rights laws, the economic bottom fell out. Mass immigration intensified this, white culture took several decades to be indoctrinated into implementing affirmative action at the corporate level.

Todays youth have electronic distractions and obesity, no surprise they aren't into violent crime. Many are also effeminate due to growing up as products of divorce, and deviate sexuality is normalized when they aren't asexual altogether. Some feminists have laughably reacted to the incel phenomenon by telling the incel to become gay or polyandrous.

Anonymous said...

don't believe anyone sees secession as a panacea for all that plagues us.
However it would buy us time and give us opportunities which we lack the ability to implement as part of the Union.
Control of our own borders for instance.
That alone will be worth the price of secession.
With the Union gone the Federal welfare system will collapse,along with much else that draws immigrants.
Uncertainty of what is unfolding will cause people to balk at leaving the Devil they know,to come to... who knows what?
This is especially the case when any secession movement is bound to take place against a backdrop of rising social(largely racial) tensions and political unrest.
In fact many people who are here will leave, or at least leave parts of the Union not dominated by their co- ethnics.



I also expect most of the polities that emerge from the corpse of the Union to be hostile to immigrants.

Once Hispanics don't need more of their "own" to try to wrest control of the federal government.
They won't have much incentive to welcome more immigrants.
Look how Mexico treats Central Americans.

A black dominated southeast certainty won't desire Hispanic immigrants.
Right now Hispanics are considered allies within the context of the American political game. Once the stadium is gone they'll be competitors,and possibly enemies.

A White dominated State that defends its borders as ruthlessly as Israel, will give Whites time to find the causes of demographic decline and look for a remedy.
We'll be able to adjust the "social ecology" to encourage people to marry and have children.

Habit, not love of country, is what's holding this Union together.
A social inertia based on fear of change. But change is coming. Once Whites see what the future as a minority looks like, they'll be more afraid of the Union.
What this future entails will begin to become apparent soon after non- whites control the Democratic Party.

Jim Bowery said...

"How do you cripple the state and still have the state effectively conquer territory abroad?"

You don't cripple it unless it is necessary to actually take direct control of the government from the top. You establish the goal of compliance with the supreme law of the land -- which is the point of the Declaration of War -- and then subject the miscreants to physical punishment for failing to reach the goal. You start with just one day of punishment for their lawlessness. Then you annually increase the punishment by increments until they comply or the de facto Federal government can no longer deliver the goods with which it buys loyalty from the easily bought -- at which point it is necessary, and relatively easy, to take direct control.

Dan said...

I think GNON has the left's back against the wall, all over the world, politically, and Trump has tightened the screws.

To clarify, I do not believe the left is capable of delivering much progress anymore and most of Democrat policies are inimical to quality of life for everyone in the developed world.

(1) Immigration is obviously bad for any rich country at this point. You don't even need identity to make this argument. Raw budgetary numbers are enough. Even the budgetary argument for mass immigration is now breaking down. The problem is, there are not enough smart people being created in the world, generally whether in Norway or in Korea.

Take Germany for instance. The argument had been made that since Germany has a low birth rate, you need mass migration to replace the workforce. Well now several years of budgets have come in and migration has punched a large hole in the budget. George Soros, alarmed at Italian populism, is now saying that the EU should pay Italy for all the migrants it has gotten. Gee George, why would Italians need to be paid if migrants are this amazing asset that will save us all?

It is becoming increasingly apparent that migration blows up budgets rather than helps them.

(2) The left wants to raise taxes. I don't think they can do that to the extent necessary.

Progress is core of leftist religious belief after all, and Trump has delivered in droves.

If a leftist comes in next and quality of life moves backward in a number of measures (and it seems almost impossible to avoid this) then leftism doesn't look good to any sane person.

Trump tightens the screws by selling the present, telling America how things are the greatest that they have ever been and he is right on many measures.

If Democrats take over, almost anything they want to do will bring decline. And if I am right that the decline is systemic then the Trumpian peak will stand for the ages.

Is there any conceivable outcome where a President Kamala Harris can deliver more good than bad? She would be Nero to Trump's Claudius.

We will be able to troll leftists for the remainder of our Earthly lives with this brutal summation:

"The Trumpian Peak will stand for all time."

(I am terrified by the magnitude of what I just wrote.)

Dan said...

That is not to say that the left can't have political victories. But I don't see how they win history at this point.

216 said...

Dan,

Mass immigration isn't good for "rich countries" but it is good for the rich. The owners of valuable urban real estate are the first, followed by the financial sector, and in time those holding government contracts.

Germany is still running a budget surplus, their debt/GDP ratio has gone down, the main fiscal impact of the rapefugee invasion has been the reduction in promised tax cuts and a reluctance to invest in infrastructure spending. The German political establishment is afraid of an outright tax increase, which is the only way that the EU project can continue by means of fiscal transfers. If Merkel hikes taxes, the AFD will be in government at the next election.

The left will easily be able to have tax increases by means of a financial transaction tax. The corralling of national economies into regional blocs will make this easier. New York leftists are desperate for a transaction tax, but they fear that the NYSE would pack up and move to Dallas. At the DC/Brussels level, no such fears would apply, even Mexico and Canada have no real independence from Wall Street. AI will go onto create vast sums of wealth, while throwing untold numbers out of work. I doubt that a neo-socialism will result, Bezos and his fellow Silicon Dons will instead create a private welfare state, in exchange for giving up your privacy.


In certain cases, we should consider the outright nationalization of key pieces of the tech infrastructure. We lack the institutional knowledge to leave even regulated natural monopolies out of public control. Google and Facebook have blatantly engaged in espionage, nationalization could be arranged in exchange for exile and severance to their founders, versus imprisonment.

Dan said...

216 --

We part company and I will explain exactly where. On the one hand, the march of technology has been very strong.

On the other hand there is a massive reduction in worldwide human capital going on. Are you familiar with Steve Sailer's "The most important chart in the world"?

These opposite trends are pulling in opposite directions and one of them will win. It takes brilliant people to move the technology ball forward and we are getting less and less of those. Actually the brilliant share is crashing, far more dramatically in the world than in America.

If the fertility of the various African countries is 6x that of Korea (the lowest fertility country on Earth and maker of my incredible smartphone), then you would be talking about a 36-fold relative shift in two generations. Technology has to race ahead very fast indeed to overcome *that* headwind.


Anonymous said...

I live in Texas and it is indeed awful. Interesting to note that my high school experience of going to a 20% white 80% black high school was that pretty much no whites were friends with blacks, and vice versa.

The only reason discipline wasn't an issue is because it was a private "christian" school and if you did one violent thing (and your parents weren't friends with the principal) you were out.

Just keep in mind that demographics aren't static, and we can still fight our way out of this hole without secession. It doesn't seem very likely, mind, but it's possible. Especially with each generation of whites shifting more and more to the right. Will it come in time? We'll see.

Dan said...

The idea that mass immigration is good for the rich is total rubbish. Brazil's population is similar to America's (200 million vs 300 million) but America has 100 times as many millionaires (like 10 million vs 100K). These are rough numbers but the point is made. Having bringing huge numbers of poor into a country hurts the pocketbooks of everyone. It isn't good for anyone except Marxist demagogues.

Feryl said...

"Todays youth have electronic distractions and obesity, no surprise they aren't into violent crime. Many are also effeminate due to growing up as products of divorce, and deviate sexuality is normalized when they aren't asexual altogether. Some feminists have laughably reacted to the incel phenomenon by telling the incel to become gay or polyandrous. "

The Boomers were the first generation to have lots of their time be taken by the TV. Draw your own conclusions. Gen X-ers not only had TV, but rapidly expanding radio options, Hi-fi stereos and Walkmans (eventually Discmans too), and also a surge in video game popularity in the early 80's (arcades were genuinely hip in the early-mid 80's, I know early Gen X-er women who remember playing these games). Of course, it was Gen X-ers who were said to have had their brains rotted by MTV and such. None of these "distractions" stopped Boomers and X-ers from causing trouble. I would submit that Millennials (esp. the ones born after the 80's) were so horrified by the behavior of Boomer and Gen X teens/adults that they opted to not take after their elders.

Obesity jumped in the 1980's and esp. 1990's, primarily due to declining smoking and the utterly abysmal health of later Boomers (who kicked off the fitness crazes of the 80's and subsequent decades, yet this has been mainly an affectation of the affluent that's disguised the terrible habits of lower class Boomers and X-ers). The late Boomers are such a trainwreck that we have nowhere to go but up.

I agree that dysfunctional families have damaged a lot, but the interesting thing is that Boomers became pathologically destructive in spite of growing up in a time (the late 1940's-1960's) when abusive and greedy parents were the exception,not the rule. IME, Boomers and early Gen X-ers tend to be more resentful of their parents than late X-ers/Millennials, even though for example, child abuse and divorce surged from the late 70's-early 90's. Those of us who were young children during that period often give our Boomer parents the benefit of the doubt (maybe life really was that stressful by then), and to tend to think that we really were loved......Many Boomers and early X-ers sensed that their parents were "absent", if not physically then certainly emotionally...And usually the father was blamed, being that it was assumed that the Mother meant well enough and wanted better, but the dad was the one who sternly insisted that the wife and kids keep their mouths shut as he went about his business. Why can't dad listen to me, talk to me, understand me, on my terms?

Opinion of moms and dads seems quite generational, with Silents often resenting women in general as needy nags, and Boomers hating their "repressed" fathers and glorifying "mother Earth". Early Gen X-ers (many of whom had Boomer siblings) tend more toward Boomer sentiment in their views towards their parents, while those who had Boomer parents (late X-ers and Millennials) often side with their lovably hapless Boomer dad. In a major reversal of the abuse heaped on male authority figures by Boomers in the 60's and 70's.

Feryl said...

"If the fertility of the various African countries is 6x that of Korea (the lowest fertility country on Earth and maker of my incredible smartphone), then you would be talking about a 36-fold relative shift in two generations. Technology has to race ahead very fast indeed to overcome *that* headwind."

Sub-Saharan Africa has the most "artificially" elevated birth rate in the world, to say nothing of imported Africans reproducing elsewhere.

Since so much Western colonialism happened in Africa, +the slave trade etc., and Hitler destroyed the credibility of "tough" ethnic nationalism/eugenics, we've been guilt tripped for 70 years into bending over backwards to help Africans. Which ultimately means that the Four Horsemen are not allowed to do their job in Africa, and Western aid and tech is maximizing the pop. capacity of regions that historically were lightly populated backwaters.

A legit econ. crisis, that foments hostility toward elites and revives concerns about limits to growth, will probably be needed to overcome our addiction to lifting Africa up. Then again, we might also see populist nationalists in countries like Italy, Austria, Hungary etc. become sufficiently emboldened to further defy the EU and the most corrupt elements within Europe (the gentry class of France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK, and the neo-liberal elite within those countries and beyond), which could create a domino effect of Euro countries rising up and asserting tribal interests. These countries could then form their treaties and understandings, perhaps with the explicit intent of creating a bloc with which to thwart and possibly undermine the corporate whore countries. The corporate whore countries may not necessarily be able to fight their way out of the self-imposed burden of taking in tons of immigrants, an estranged prole native class, and economies built on hocus pocus which are most bogus in America and England (NYC and London). These countries would have such a poor demographic and economic structure that eventually something would have to give. Remember that the present crisis really began in earnest in the late 90's (when for example Tony Blair did to his country what Ted Kennedy did to America 3 decades before), when neo-liberals came to dominate both the Left and Right in the English speaking world and who were congenial to cultural Marxists (but not real Marxists). France, Germany, and Sweden are me-too countries on the neo-liberal band wagon, all three of which appear to be going to great lengths to make up for the action that they missed in the 70's-90's.


I feel that without nukes, WW3 may have already broken out, with the English speaking countries allying with France and Germany to take on Russia. Central Europe would be a hot potato, and it's possible that Italy would not side with the neo-liberals. Many of us would be tried and arrested/hanged for pro-Russian sentiment, as older generations of Westerners can't get over their burning animus toward the Russkies which would grow as war became imminent. I still think that Boomers hated the Cold War for robbing them of the chance to blow up Moscow's beautiful skyline. Who knew that the best thing to ever come out of nukes is that it makes belligerence groups seethe with frustration?

Anonymous said...

We are heading towards a Yugoslavia type civil war within 25 years. Partition is the only answer that won't involve tremendous amounts of bloodshed.

Anonymous said...

Partition won't stop it.  The unproductive hordes will weigh down any sub-polity which accepts them, and they will either be eliminated by their elites or those territories will be taken over by the ones populated and ruled by productive people.

Jonathan Centauri said...

The black & brown hordes DO NOT GENERATE WEALTH. The "switching" to machines SHOWS how stupid and unproductive they are. This Failed State NEEDS machines to keep anything running. That dark crap is merely bio-weapons. THEY CANNOT FEED THEMSELVES. THAT IS WHY THEY COME HERE.
Those "gated communities" in places like Brazil are Colonies, fed by the West. China may have factories, but that technology ARE COME FROM US.

The White Man built this World. IT CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT WHITE MEN. Detroit, Haiti and Brazil show that what these goofballs are "building" is a Mad Max Road Warrior HELLHOLE. Skynet is THE ONLY WAY THESE DELUDED ANTI-WHITE RETARDS CAN KEEP ANYTHING RUNNING.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I thought this was a sedate genetics blog.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Control of our own borders for instance.
That alone will be worth the price of secession.


Indeed.

Dan,

Unless of course we get a severe financial downturn between now and 2020, which I'd put at better than 50/50 odds. The Fed is going to raise rates at least once more this year. The market volatility index remains high, inexplicably so.

Then the narrative is simple--Bush drove us into the ditch, Obama pulled us out, Trump drove us even deeper in, Harris/Sanders will pull us back out.

216,

Guaranteed basic income is probably how net-socialism will manifest itself. That's certainly what the FANG wants.

Corvinus said...

 Anonymous (1:16 a.m, said)…

“Do you expect West Virginia and Vermont to secede and form their own white country?…The demographic data you identify suggest that secession is impossible without massive population resettlement. And if massive population resettlement were even politically possible, secession wouldn't be necessary-resettlement would be the predicted future.”



Exactly. Those who insist that we are two decades away from one of the world’s most seismic political shift actually occurring are wishing upon a star like Jiminy Cricket.

Jim…

“Enforce the original intent of the 10th Amendment to permit States to exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever.”

What you are proposing is fascism. Exactly why the rest of your “solution” is indeed politically infeasible. You really need to hear those words.

“You establish the goal of compliance with the supreme law of the land -- which is the point of the Declaration of War -- and then subject the miscreants to physical punishment for failing to reach the goal.”



Who begins to establish this goal? How do they go about accomplishing their task? How is this war conducted? What miscreants are you alluding to? What type of physical punishment? Who carries out that punishment? You have a broad task in mind, and no specifics.

AE…

“Why would I pretend to know how political dissolution will play out? The path we're on now leads to perdition, that much is clear.”



What is clear is that there is speculation by a number of Alt Righters on this topic.

Jim Bowery said...

Strategically, replace prisons with exile. This will make very short work of those who proclaim their morally superior belief in an "open society" because what they _really_ want is a police state where they are the police. Call their bluff. Let them have their borderless society and if they try to put anyone in prison, kill them.

Jim Bowery said...

Corvinus, aside from the fact that you've demonstrated abysmal reading comprehension in your most recent response to me, you've also demonstrated prior responses, that this is not due to mere stupidity on your part. You are engaging in willful misreadings/obtuseness placing in evidence some sort of hidden agenda. Show some indication that you've made the effort of someone with 100IQ to honestly engage in discourse, and I might respond to your question that so evidences.


Anonymous said...

I doubt secession is going to occur by a formal political process.
No State Conventions ,no plebiscites is going to decide this.
Talk of secession will definitely increase against a backdrop of rising tensions between the increasingly non-White "Left" and the White Right.
Demands by non-whites for special treatment ie.affirmative action, for reparations,along with the continuing demonization of Whites are going to increase once non-whites control the Democratic party.
Once enough States turn Blue ,they'll be no immigration control, at least not on the southern border.
Whites will be locked into a permanent minority status, facing a majority that looks on them with a mixture of distrust, hatred and fear.
A majority that has been radicalized to believe all Whites are racist, that any expression of White identity is evil (even implicit whiteness) and that Whites are the bad guys in American history.
This is the narrative that is being pushed by the social "sciences" in academia and echoed by much of the media.
We already have people in academia calling for White genocide, the abolition of
"Whiteness" ,and an end to White privilege,etc.
These people are laying the intellectual foundations for justifying the oppression of Whites,whether that's what they intend to do or not.
This rhetoric will intensify. It will be running parallel to Democratic policies that have the effect of advancing the interest of non-whites at White people's expense.
Opposition by Whites will be called racism, a shameless defense of White privilege.
Public demonstrations and protest by Whites will be physically attacked, the authorities might step aside and allow the violence to run its course or use the violence as a pretext to outlaw such demonstrations,protests and even organizations which advocate for Whites.
During times when racial tension increases ,Whites will be increasingly attacked physically like they were in '16 in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and I believe ,North Carolina.
These attacks, by the way,
did more to get Trump elected, than "Russian interference" ever did.
If you don't see that the demonization of Whites is likely to continue and accelerate, that the anti-White rhetoric coming out of academia is going to shape public policies as well as race relations and the behavior of people
in their day to day interactions,all the effects of which are going to be magnified by social media,then I think you're deliberately trying not to see this.
The end result of this is likely to be war. Not by governors calling out the National Guard to fight the Feds or a neighboring State, but by civilians, White and non-white , organizing to defend themselves and their neighborhood, county etc.
It is these Militias that will grow into the armies that fight the war.
The men and women which fill the ranks of the State and Federal Armed Forces, will have their hands full trying to suppress them and I suspect many, probably most ,will join the Militia
that represents their side.
The Federal Armed Forces are likely to waste away.
There's no reason to believe the States, as we know them will all survive as political entities, as secession would imply, many of the States will be broken up.
This roughly is how I believe it is likely to play out.
I think we're still a generation or two from this.

Jim Bowery said...

In response to my proposal of noon CDT May 29 as the start synchronized attacks on infrastructure supporting cities, Anonymous Anonymous said...

January 29 would have a lot more impact in the north.

The idea isn't to maximize impact. The idea is to to treat leviathan as a beast that needs discipline. Stop thinking of "leviathan" as a metaphor. It is a real organism albiet not quite an "animal" but more like a slime mold -- it has conditionally independent cells. The big difference is that leviathan's cells may recover to the point they are human again -- so you don't want to kill them if you don't have to. You want to punish leviathan. Think "Bad Levi, BAD!" and smack it on the snout at noon CDT May 29, repeating the punishment with increasing severity and frequency as necessary. This is, quite simply, the ultimate expression true sovereignty of The People over the state.

The reason for an initial one year haitus in the punishment before a second and, one month later, secondsmack on the snout, is the slow reaction time of Levi (I think I'll start using that pet name for it.) You want to give it a chance to change its behavior. Also, since women will start reacting to the "jerk boy" dimension, you want to give men who are sitting on the fence time to realize how beneficial it is to do what women clearly are demanding of men: "Tear down civilization or we'll treat you like scum!" Of course, this is the monkey brain of women saying that -- a brain that has been hijacked by the "powerful" (heh).

People who don't think this would work -- given an incisively stated Declaration of War embodying the conditions that must be met for the State of War to end (ie "plausible promise" of the "insurgency") that appeals to the moral sensiblities of The People (as opposed to zombies) -- haven't done their homework on military theory and practice in the 21st century.

Jim Bowery said...

I'll, again, invite those who are skeptical to click through to this scatter plot showing the correlation between support of Clinton and population density.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Right, there is no end to this. If whites are completely wiped out, they'll continue to be blamed for the "legacy of white privilege/supremacy" (see Zimbabwe).

Jim,

What's the r-value for that scatterplot?

Anonymous said...

The idea isn't to maximize impact. The idea is to to treat leviathan as a beast that needs discipline.

Threatening its voter-plantations do that with little impact on humans.

Stop thinking of "leviathan" as a metaphor. It is a real organism albiet not quite an "animal" but more like a slime mold -- it has conditionally independent cells. The big difference is that leviathan's cells may recover to the point they are human again

The whole point of breeding and importing turd-worlders is that they CANNOT "recover"; they never were anything other than eaters.  Using the turd-worlders against the libtarded urbans will shift their allegiance or kill them.  Either will do.

Jim Bowery said...

What's the r-value for that scatterplot?

0.47

Jim Bowery said...

Using the turd-worlders against the libtarded urbans will shift their allegiance or kill them. Either will do.

Precisely. The residual problem is with the libtarded urbans that have already fled to the rural areas in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. There are a _lot_ of boomer women and wealthy men* in this category. Transporting them to their purported utopias is one of the biggest benefits of replacing prisons with exile.

*In a recent Republican caucus, I sat next to a large agricultural land owner who had returned to Iowa after having lived in Arizona and he was just about the only person in attendance who objected strenuously to my proposal for a 2 generation immigration moratorium. He thought Mexicans were so wonderful. I asked him if he didn't care about the fact that 80% of naturalized citizens voted for ever greater violations of the 10th Amendment in direct contravention of their oaths of citizenship to uphold and defend the constitution. Since I was sitting right next to him, seriously interested in his response, I was looking straight at the side of his head. He had an excuse to look straight ahead into empty space as he said, "No." These zombies really need our help to wake up and we really need to get them out of the rural areas.

Jim Bowery said...

Links to preparatory material for The War:

Brave New War

The Global Guerrillas blog

Global Guerrillas Reports ($5 each via Patreon)

Sortocracy: Sorting Proponents of Social Theories Into Governments That Test Them The philosophical basis for a minimal and incisive Declaration of War -- a plausible promise to restore the original intent of the US Constitution with over 200 years of hindsight.

Joe Suber said...

Jim Bowery,
I recently had a long convo with a California zombie republican akin to your Arizona guy. He is very concerned with the price and availability of fresh fruit for his personal consumption. He has a nice house that has increased in value about $500k since he bought it, due to zoning and environmental regs he supports that thwart builders. He knows of Mexicans who show up to work on time at the racquet club and raise their families somewhere else.

These types will never rock the boat as long as their massive investment in the status quo is intact. My polite red pills seemed to bounce off his California armor. This guy thinks he has built a castle out there and he thinks he has serfs who don't mind that he goofs off and watches sports. I'm not sure any kind of disturbing thoughts can penetrate that.

Jim Bowery said...

This guy thinks he has built a castle out there and he thinks he has serfs who don't mind that he goofs off and watches sports. I'm not sure any kind of disturbing thoughts can penetrate that.

Yes and that's why it's necessary as well as desirable for countries dumping immigrants on the US to cede territory to the US as new States while devolving unenumerated powers to the States from the Feds, including States controlling their own borders. If these guys want to play masters and servants with the mestizo/latino/hispanics -- there are places that have been doing that for quite some time where they should feel quite "at home" with their fellow aristocrats like Vincente Fox. So off they go along with the post-1965 demographic revolution. Brazil is a place where such aristocrats would fit right in!

Anonymous said...

I'm curious about absolute numbers as well.

Has the hispanic fertility rate continued to drop more rapidly than the others?

Corvinus said...

"Corvinus, aside from the fact that you've demonstrated abysmal reading comprehension in your most recent response to me, you've also demonstrated prior response..."

No, Jim, I know exactly what you are talking about. My inquiries reflect your positions. You said--“You establish the goal of compliance with the supreme law of the land -- which is the point of the Declaration of War -- and then subject the miscreants to physical punishment for failing to reach the goal.”



I asked--Who begins to establish this goal? How do they go about accomplishing their task? How is this war conducted? What miscreants are you alluding to? What type of physical punishment? Who carries out that punishment?

"You are engaging in willful misreadings/obtuseness placing in evidence some sort of hidden agenda."

I suggest that you chronicle your behavioral patterns with regards to how you interact with others, since it is extremely east to categorize your behavioral form through the eyes of someone else. Most people have no ability, they have no ability whatsoever, to honestly judge themselves. Take this advice by someone famous from the Alt Right to heart.

"The idea is to to treat leviathan as a beast that needs discipline."

That is false premise, Jim. Anyone who dares to challenge your assertions is automatically, from your perspective, is deemed to be an ally of the beast, and thus must be destroyed. In your world, there is little to no disagreement allowed.

"People who don't think this would work -- given an incisively stated Declaration of War embodying the conditions that must be met for the State of War to end (ie "plausible promise" of the "insurgency") that appeals to the moral sensiblities of The People (as opposed to zombies) -- haven't done their homework on military theory and practice in the 21st century."

If it was that decisive of a strategy, why hasn't it been employed? How do you propose to properly educate people on this "military theory and practice"? Suppose there is dissension among the ranks as far as how to execute this strategy. Do you propose everyone must be on board, that there is but a unilateral decision that must be adhered to? What preparations must be made if there is fierce resistance by the government to this "insurgency"? What contingency plans must be put in place as a result of push back by the feds and/or citizens?

See, one must have thought about these scenarios clearly and concisely before spouting off pie in the sky notions.

"I asked him if he didn't care about the fact that 80% of naturalized citizens voted for ever greater violations of the 10th Amendment in direct contravention of their oaths of citizenship to uphold and defend the constitution."

That is another false premise. Cannot citizens decide for themselves what they believe are these "violations" without being virtue signaled to death by you? Or, must they kow tow to your every wish and serve as your liege?

lineman said...

So it sounds to me like you want others to lay out a plan so you can run to your Masters and jump up and down and say see see I told you they wanted to take down the government and get a nice little pat on the head like a good little puppy...

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

No, the largest drop in absolute numbers was still among n-H whites.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Corvy is the scarecrow sent to delay you. Delay is all they have now.
The invaders do not care about "globalism". They are not loyal.
Its a slaver plan. Slaves require FORCE to control.
The enemy doesn't seem to realize POWER is about CONTROL.
They are useful idiots. They are no longer useful.
They have done their task, although unwittingly.
Being nothing but covetous layabouts, they were just tools.
They are no longer a necessary component.

The enemy NEVER wins. They are a self-defeating problem.
These demographics CANNOT feed themselves or create value.
This is a Giant Locust, not an army.
They will feed and die off.
They CANNOT be Controlled by the enemy.

Jim Bowery said...

If Corvy's output-only posturing represents the resources available to "delay", even in an out-of-the-way blog such as this (no offense AE), then the ammo must be running short. Given what's happened to media and what is happening to academia, the resupply logistics don't look good.

Sailer's Taki column on the attempts to shore up Lewontin's Creed in the face of a flood of DNA data means the social pseudosciences are losing their ability to churn out cannon fodder of even mediocre quality.

Jonathan Centauri said...

They have to go for broke now Jim. They went too far, AGAIN. No self-control here. Like a bad gambler, they double down to try to make up losses. They have as much monopoly money as they want, but its causing inflation across the board. The petrodollar is the keystone. Russia and China have an alternative. The Rothschild Bankers wanted an "American Century". The Russians and Chinese are PISSED. The Swamp is no longer a Superpower. The Forever War cost them dearly. North Korea is a Proxy Attack on China.

Corvinus said...

Jim...

"If Corvy's output-only posturing represents the resources available to "delay", even in an out-of-the-way blog such as this (no offense AE), then the ammo must be running short. "

Not posturing, but inquiring. If you are unable or unwilling to provide a cogent plan of action, complete with details that takes at least a modicum of consideration for potential counter responses, then your powder is all wet.

Lineman...

"So it sounds to me like you want others to lay out a plan..."

You honestly think Jim's suggestions as is will resonate with the majority of normies/the mushy middle, without regard to contingencies?

lineman said...

I hope they are at least paying you double time for making you work on a Sun.

Jim Bowery said...

To the point of the OP: Since civilization is a womb war, the "jerk boy hypothesis" Game impact of the synchronized disruption of infrastructure does more than merely raise morale by making the hamsters salivate. It is quite reasonable to expect that it will raise white total fertility rate. Of course, since this is a womb WAR, what matters is raising WTFR relative to the TFR of the invading forces. Would it?

The answer is likely, "Yes!" for the following reason:

The invading men depend on treason in high places. Think about that and what it will do to hamster brains when those "high places" are shown to be in less control than they thought.

Of course, although this is reasonable theory and there is statistical evidence to suggest it is true, it would help to obtain time series data on births by geography and ancestry -- particularly paternal ancestry -- and compare it against disruptions such as disasters.