Monday, July 30, 2018

Meditations on America and Rome

Historical comparisons between ancient Rome and the contemporary US are tough. It's easy to fall into the trap of inevitability about how things will be based on how things have been. And spergs will inevitably point out the places where the comparisons break down.

When a big-brained brow ridge takes a stab at it, though, it's as good an excuse as any to do the same:



Razib Khan is fond of noting we've yet to have our Sulla. He has, among other contexts, said this dismissively to people who pretend Trump is something like a Sulla.

I've variously thought of Trump as a Gracchan figure, a class traitor who is willing to piss all over the reigning power structure to do what he thinks needs to be done; a Julius Caesar--this one is so easy even historically illiterate thespians, who risibly use women and minorities as stand-ins for the conservative senators who assassinated the progressive Trump/Caesar, see it; a Hadrian who built a wall and pulled back the overextended boundaries of the empire; an Aurelian who was well on his way to putting things back together before prematurely being assassinated, an assassination that nearly led to the permanent dissolution of the empire; a Constantine who forever reorients politics and the understanding of the state; and a Justinian who gives Rome one last grasp at greatness before it collapses, never to become anything more than the shadow of its former self.

So in no particular order, some thoughts:

- Z's understanding of the intelligence agencies as a contemporary praetorian guard is a great way to think about it. From the Julio-Claudians all the way through to the tetrarchy, the praetorians played a major role in the power politics of the Roman state. It wasn't until Constantine literally went to war with them in the early 4th century that their influence was eliminated.

The decisive point in that war was the battle of the Milvian Bridge. Prior to that battle is when Constantine is said to have had a vision from God wherein he was told that in the sign of chi roh, he would conquer. To greatly oversimplify, he won the battle, eventually became sole emperor, and converted the empire to Christianity.

If Trump ends up in the same league as Constantine, the "god-emperor" stuff will move from memery to monuments. Considering that a real possibility may have been understandable a couple of years ago. It just feels silly now.

- The political class hate the idea of an interloper who does not work his way up the cursus honorum in the prescribed way. The path to the top is supposed to be through the legislative branch, preferably as house member and then senator, or through a governorship. Prior to Trump, we have to go back to Dwight Eisenhower for someone who got to the presidency without checking any of those boxes. Winning the second world war helped Ike, though. Trump doesn't have a legacy like that to trade on. It's another reason the Establishment hates him so much.

- Edward Gibbon famously designated the imperial reign from Nerva through Marcus Aurelius as the time of the five good emperors. I've thought of that as corresponding to America from the end of the WWII through the mid-60s, with the fifties as the zenith, the calm before the storm, the years of the golden boy, Antoninus Pius. It is in this rendering that Trump is an Aurelian figure, one who briefly emerges to cut against the grain of the time period he exists in but who is ultimately snuffed out by the dysfunctional power structure of the day.

The chaos he emerged from subsequently gets worse before it gets better. In Rome's case, the political dissolution that followed, with multiple proclaimed emperors fighting for control from different parts of the empire, was put back together again under Diocletian. It took a fundamental change the way Rome operated to stick. This is a parallel commenter Dissident Right can probably get on board with.

- Our impending dissolution may not be temporary, however. While Diocletian was able to put the Roman egg back together again, in a relatively short historical period of time the empire cracked harder, and Rome--ported 850 miles east--proceeded to live on as a shell of its former self for another millennia, trading on its former glory and its impenetrable walls (nuclear weapons!).

An American future comparable to that of Constantinople from the 6th century through the 15th century aligns well enough with the second of three possible scenarios the Derb sees for the US:
A different option, one which appeals to me more, would be to reconcile ourselves to relative decline. We could withdraw from our global commitments and settle down as a middling nation, well able to defend our sovereignty and with strictly controlled borders, but geostrategically unambitious. We could devote our national energies to commerce and culture. That is, after all, what our Founders intended.
- Derb's scenarios presume an effectively unified political entity. As Heartiste puts it, the contemporary US is an empire existing almost entirely within the borders of the mother country herself. Instead of maintaining an external empire, America invited one in.

The western Roman empire--the one that contained Italy itself--is conventionally said to have fallen in the 5th century. But Justinian reconquered Italy 100 years later. Few people remember this, though, because Italy was no longer Roman by this point. The potential parallels with the American Southwest are obvious.

Parenthetically, this is why I'm increasingly more comfortable with the "identitarian" label than with the "nationalist" one. I feel more solidarity with Anatoly Karlin or a guy in Stratford who voted for Brexit than I do with Miguel who invaded through southern California last week or D'Brickshaw who drove by a funeral for La'quintisha and shot three of her cousins on the other side of the state line.

To the charge that the term "identitarian" is just an attempt to repurpose "white nationalist", I say identitarianism isn't just for whites. Maybe it's a more sophisticated-sounding way of saying "ethnic nationalist". That's fine, though it begs for "nationalist" to be distinguished from "ethnic nationalist" as something like "civic nationalist". And now we're getting into pretty thick spergweeds.

- Z admonishes those who see dissolution coming in the near future, reminding us that there is a lot of ruin in a nation. The point is well taken, though the sheer number of people within the American empire who hope for its ruination is surely much higher--in absolute terms, obviously, but also proportionally--than was ever the case in ancient Rome.

Self-determination based on identity is increasingly the prevailing idea of our age, the Demographic Age. One-in-three people living inside the American empire are open to the idea of it breaking up. That sentiment is only going to grow.

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Hispanic flight from white

Prompted by a post where Steve Sailer discusses how unlikely it is that American whiteness will be redefined more broadly, thereby extending further into the future the point in time when the US becomes "majority-minority", here are the percentages of respondents identifying ethnically as Hispanic who simultaneously racially identify as "white", by decade of birth (N = 2,583):

Pre-1949: 71.0%
1950s: 61.0%
1960s: 60.1%
1970s: 54.4%
1980s: 52.7%
1990s: 50.3%

Some portion of this flight from white among younger Hispanics--maybe most of it--must be attributable to shifts in the sources of Hispanic immigration into the US over time (ie more Cubans then, more Squatemalans now). The middle class Cubans were quite white. The Amerindian peasants are not.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2-16), HISPANIC(2-50), COHORT(1900-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Identity politics is the present and even more so the future

The following graph juxtaposes expressed hypothetical support for a candidate who is X but who is otherwise generic (ie nothing is known about his or her political orientation, partisan affiliation, etc). The first bar for each X, displayed in a color based on my editorial discretion, shows net support (% more likely to support - % less likely to support) among respondents who are themselves X. The second bar for each X, shown in grey, shows net support among respondents who are not themselves X.

For example, for a Muslim candidate, we get net support among Muslim respondents of +75.1. The percentage of Muslims who say they would be more likely to support a Muslim candidate minus the percentage of Muslims who say they would be less likely to support a Muslim candidate is a staggering +75.1. The vast majority of Muslims say they'd be more likely to support a Muslim candidate, virtually none say they'd be less likely to, and the residual say it'd make no difference either way.

Among non-Muslims, we get net support for a Muslim candidate of -43.2. The percentage of non-Muslims who say they would be more likely to support a Muslim candidate minus the percentage of non-Muslims who say they would be less likely to support a Muslim candidate is -43.2. Deus vult!

The same method is then employed for other demographic categories Reuters-Ipsos has conducted polling on, including for a Jewish candidate, a black candidate, a Hispanic candidate, an Asian candidate, a Mormon candidate, and a female candidate:


Ben Shapiro wept.

Without knowing anything else about a hypothetical candidate beyond his or her sex, race, or religion, people who share that sex, race, or religion are substantially more likely to support him or her while people who do not share the demographic characteristic in question are more modestly less likely to do so (with the exception of men, who are marginally more likely to support a female candidate because she is female than oppose her because she is female).

The late Lee Kuan Yew for the win:
In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
Diversity + Democracy = A Skins Game.

Islam is the most divisive identity. The gulf is so wide among Muslims and dhimmis that even Conservative, Inc has its fair share of people who don't want the West taking in more exploding Muhammads.

Sex, in contrast, is the least divisive one. As Steve Sailer is fond of saying, there is simply too much fraternizing with the enemy for most men and most women to be at each others' throats.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Endorse Kobach

Georgia's secretary of state, Brian Kemp, just smashed the lieutenant governor, Casey Kagle, in a gubernatorial runoff election there. Kemp won by a nearly 40-point margin. The RCP average gave Kemp a far more modest 14-point edge. Kemp's the Trumpian among the two--not just implicitly, but explicitly as well. Trump endorsed him.

In Kansas, the secretary of state, Kris Kobach, is running against former lieutenant governor and now governor Jeff Colyer. Colyer became governor when Sam Brownback was tapped to convert the heathens. Kobach is definitely the Trumpian candidate here, Colyer the Cuckservatism, Inc marionette.

There hasn't been any recent polling in the Kansas race, though the Kobach campaign reported that internal polling shows Kris up by 11 points. The markets seem to buy it:


The situations in Georgia and Kansas are strikingly similar. Junior has endorsed Kobach. So has Ann Coulter:


It's time for the god-emperor himself to do so.

Yes, Kansas is in the cuck corridor. But even cuck corridor Republicans like Trump now. His approval-disapproval among Kansas registered Republicans is 80.2%-17.9% (N = 263). Because the August 7th vote in Kansas is a closed primary, they're the ones who matter.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

The gun gap (again)

The correlation between gun ownership rates at the state level and Romney's share of the presidential vote in 2012 was a robust .78.

Late last year into early this year, Reuters-Ipsos ran a poll on gun ownership with a 2016 presidential vote filter included for cross-tabbing. Trump won the gun owner vote 71%-29%.
He deserves the governorship
for the trolling alone

Though exit polling never inquires about gun ownership, it represents one of the widest electoral margins of all, not just at the state level but also at the level of individual voters. About the only thing wider is the Democrat margin among non-whites. The gun chasm is even larger among whites, with Trump winning 76%-24% among white gun owners.

Gun ownership isn't merely a proxy for whiteness. Most whites don't own guns. What it is more precisely is a strong proxy for badwhiteness. The quips about what happens if the Cold Civil War among whites turns hot are too easy.

Ashkenazi Jews are the ultimate goodwhites. Their gun ownership rate reflects that:


How convenient it would be for the gun grabbers if the black and white ownership rates were reversed. That blacks are only half as likely to own guns as whites are but are ten times as likely to murder people with them is... narratively problematic. It's the cause of each side perpetually talking past the other. As is the case with so many other things, anti-scientific race denialism makes us stupid.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Kobach in Koch country

Don Junior is a simulacrum of candidate Donald Trump. He frames everything in the context of whether it is America First or Not. Asked why he stays involved in politics now that the campaign is over, he answered that it was for the "good of our children and our children's children". Ourselves and our posterity, implicitly.

He attributes the weeks he spent as a kid each summer in communist Czechoslovakia for his inculcation against leftism. History has a sense of humor.

Junior can't be canned. We're fortunate he has dad's ear. No matter what happens, Trump will never
be fully isolated by his counselors.

The funniest moment of the night was when Junior was describing how he'd bought the media narrative about Trump supporters all being angry old white men. So when he was in the airport and a, uh, an, um, uh, it was, when a woman, uh, with dreadlocks--(yes, that will do!)--when a woman with dreadlocks saw him and said "I need to talk to you", he was expecting the third degree but instead she allegedly thanked him.

Junior hasn't been a shitlord for that long. Give him time, he'll figure it out!

Kris Kobach was fantastic. He effortlessly used the phrase "illegal aliens" instead of "illegal immigrants". It's not accidental:



Underscoring the intentionality is the fact that he regularly uses the phrase "illegal immigration", too. Consistently keeping "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigration" distinct while speaking extemporaneously is no mean feat.

What other options are there? "Illegal alienization"? "Illegal invasion" (or merely "invasion") is probably a bridge too far for now. Kobach is too seasoned and shrewd an operator to fall into anything like a Paul Nehlen or Patrick Little trap. But Kobach never concedes ground or qualifies. He's unapologetic without being self-defeating.

Junior's cringeworthy Hispanics-are-natural-conservatives bromide was, to people who pay attention to these things, in stark contrast to Kobach's observation that "blue-collar workers are natural Republicans, they just don't all know it yet." Kobach also said that the blue wall Trump broke by flipping voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is "the future of the Republican party".

Kobach understands the Sailer Strategy. He probably reads Steve. If he doesn't now, he did in the past. My first encounter with Kobach was back in 2006 (or maybe 2007), when a local political club headed by Jack Cashill hosted a debate between Kobach and Richard Nadler on the invasion, Kobach in opposition and Nadler in favor. Nadler mentioned Steve multiple times. Kobach countered by redirecting to the arguments rather than the obvious guilt-by-intellectual-association angle Nadler was trying to work.

Here's a white pill to close out. A week ago, PredictIt had the primary in a virtual dead heat, Kobach 51%, Colyer 49%. After dominating the debate last week and selling out this fundraiser several days before the event date, Kobach has gained some ground and is now up 58%-42%. Trading is light as a feather, but a market signal is still a market signal.

For the sliver of readers who are registered Republicans in Kansas, it is emphatically not permission for complacency of any kind. No matter how wide the margin of victory, we'd trade it all for a little more.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Galless Gauls

A lot of people on the dissident right were hoping for a Croatian win in the World Cup. The sentiment is understandable. Despite being under the thumb of the Soviet Union for half a century and part of the doomed conglomerate, Yugoslavia, that gave us the term "balkanization", Croatia is a real country today.

France, on the other hand, increasingly is not. While it is no longer a nation, it does represent the vision for the future that our rulers have in store for us:


Indeed. They are winning the war. The invading Africans took over the "French" soccer team just as they've taken over Paris, Toulouse, and other major urban centers throughout the nation formerly known as France:



Since the video will likely be taken down soon, here are some still frames:


The mayhem and destruction that would result from the legacy French population forcibly deporting the invaders would make ructions like these look like child's play.

That does not mean it shouldn't happen, only that it will likely never happen. France has been conquered and colonized.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Support for the death penalty by selected demographics

After reading a recent post by Heartiste on a young woman throwing herself on a convicted serial killer old enough to be her father (or her grandfather!) and thinking for the 4,140th time how if the vote was restricted to property-owning married men with children so many social ills would be ameliorated almost overnight, I took a look at a series of Reuters-Ipsos polls on capital punishment. I come to dispense a couple of white pills.

The first graph shows percentages, by selected demographics, who support the potential use of capital punishment. The y-axis here is set at 50%, with "don't know" responses (constituting 9.2% of the total) excluded. Even a majority of blacks support the death penalty (N = 8,219):


Unmarried women are the least moored by sex and marital status. The marriage gap is wider among women than it is among men, a pattern that consistently emerges across a whole host of issues from gun rights to border walls. When it comes to politics, marriage tends to move wives closer to their husbands rather than moving husbands closer to their wives.

Parenthetically, I wonder if attraction to murderous badboys follows a similar distribution among women as the propensity to be a murderous badboy does among men. After all, women don't do much killing. They do apparently do their fair share--and then some!--of loving killers, though.

The greata beta in me may be skewing my perception, but these women rarely seem to be very feminine. If that assessment is accurate, it's a little tough to reconcile with the tendency for feminine women to be attracted to masculine men and for soyboys and manjaws to settle for one another.

Not only does bringing the hypothetical hammer down enjoy overwhelming public support, concerns about dindus disproportionately being on the receiving end doesn't bother people much, either. The second graph shows the percentages of respondents, by selected demographics, who are concerned about racial disparities in capital punishment sentences (N = 8,219):


In this graph the highest y-value shown is just 40%. Again, even blacks, at least in the abstract, don't object to D'BrickshAdonis getting a lethal injection for mowing down funeral-goers in a drive-by.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Kobach for Kansas 2018

The most important gubernatorial primary in the country takes place on Tuesday, August 7th, right in the middle American heartland. When Trump tapped Sam Brownback to convert the heathens, then-lieutenant governor Jeff Colyer inherited the spot.

Colyer is an open borders cuck. He's in the farm lobby's back pocket. Under Sebelius, Brownback, and now Colyer, Kansas has become the Midwestern state that coddles invaders more than any other:


That's Colyer on the left, his mushroom button pressed tightly between his thighs. Here's a side-by-side of Colyer and Kobach. ID the alpha:

Physiognomy is real
If memory serves, Brownback earned a lifetime grade of D- from NumbersUSA, though his career grade is now unavailable. It was archived in 2002, though, at about the midway point of his congressional career. It was an abysmal 18% at the time. By comparison, John McCain earns a lifetime score of 27%. Yes, Brownback is even worse than McCain on the National Question, and so is Colyer.

Colyer, with the same nation-wrecking combination of aw-shucks religiously-influenced pathological altruism and plaid shirt pocket stuffed with agricultural lobby dollars as Brownback, has continued in the latter's footsteps. His campaign site doesn't mention immigration at all. The closest we get is this phrase:
We are going to fight to ensure our agriculture producers have the chance to grow their businesses
We know what that means--door's wide open, muchachos!

Kobach, in contrast:
Strong borders are essential to our nation and to our State. They are essential to fighting terrorism, essential to fighting crime, and essential to protecting American workers. And the only way to combat a problem as severe as a lawless immigration system is to have action at both the federal and the state level.

Unfortunately, Kansas has become the sanctuary state of the Midwest. We are the only state in the 5-state area that has done nothing to discourage illegal immigration.

This hurts Kansas taxpayers. This puts Kansans’ jobs at risk. And it puts Kansans’ lives at risk. We can solve this problem in Kansas. But it takes leadership and political will. I’ll get the job done.
Not so much as even a verbal sop to invaders or their enablers about "comprehensive reform", "compassion", or "making the process fair". Kobach, who owns 160 acres of farmland, even said at the debate that farmers are going to have to be okay with making less on their crops for the good of the MAGA agenda, both trade and immigration.

My first encounter with Kobach was in the mid-2000s when he debated the late Richard Nadler on... immigration. Nadler was one of those charlatans selling the Rovian lies about Hispanics being natural conservatives, the kind of cuckservatives who were everywhere in the Bush years.

Kobach was fighting this fight long before it was a cause celebre on the mainstream American right. Restrictionism is not something he's just glomming onto now because it's popular to do so. He was the primary author of Arizona's SB 1070 in 2010, something that led the $PLC to characterize Kobach as a "hate group lawyer".

This race has ramifications extending well beyond Kansas. The Trump administration is backing Kobach. Next week Don Jr. will be dispatched for a fundraiser in Wichita. This despite the fact that the state's Republican party apparatus favors Colyer.

If the Trump-backed insurgent running on a MAGA agenda overthrows Cuckservatism, Inc's marionette, it'll be an indication that the revolution is alive and well. If Colyer staves off the challenger, it'll be an indication to Team Trump that the pragmatic course of action is to play nice with the GOPe as it continues to sell the country out.

Incidentally, Kobach's opposition to the invasion probably isn't the biggest reason the party establishment despises him. Since being elected secretary of state for Kansas in 2010, he has reduced the office's budget by $2.4 million, from $7 million when he came in to the $4.6 million it spent last year.

That's not merely a baseline budgeting faux cut, it's a real decrease in absolute expenditures. A big part of how he's done it is by cutting the department's staff by 25% over the last eight years. When a bureaucrat retires, Kobach doesn't hire anyone to replace him.

This terrifies the porcine trough-feeders that make up the party establishment. A governor Kobach would not only expose how little the vast majority of government employees do, he'd phase out many of their sinecures through attrition.

The primary is going to be a close one. PredictIt currently handicaps it at 51%-49% in Kobach's very marginal favor. For the less than 1% of the blog's readers who are from Kansas (and registered Republican), get in gear on Tuesday, August 7th.

Everyone else, if you have a contact in Kansas, work it. I'll never ask for a dime but I am asking for that. Thank you very much for the consideration.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Open border blacks

Z-Man devotes another full-length show to a single topic. As he concedes, an hour isn't enough to cover everything, but this is an invaluable primer for alt lite guys who are becoming restless with the captain of the Washington Generals and lessons from the dragon in Solzhenitsyn. Charon ferrying people across the river:



The phrase "identity politics" really entered the public lexicon in the mid-eighties:


Ngrams only goes through completed year 2007, but the phrase got a second wind on account of the Trump phenomenon:


As Z points out, lamentations about the rise in identity politics are coming from cuckservatives who hate how politically successful Trump has been.

Little Bennie Shapiro's appearance with Bill Maher is a great example of this. I'm #SometimesTrump, there is violence and threats on both sides, collectivism is a problem on the left and on the right, blah blah blah blah blah. Members of the Respectable Right--well, individuals who happen to share the same principles, that is, as the only thing we're member to is our own sacred individualism!--are supposed to hang separately, not band together to win.

I'll take issue with one assertion Z makes:
Blacks have never been fond of immigration because it dilutes their share.
It's an assertion heard frequently. After all, it should logically be the case that blacks oppose open borders, especially low-skilled immigration, because it dilutes their political power and reduces their economic opportunities.

But surveys and polling never seem to bear it out. Blacks favor of open borders--or at least they say they do and vote for people who do. Percentages who approve of the way Trump has handled immigration, by selected demographic characteristics ("don't know"s excluded; N = 146,021--yeah, massive!):


Percentages who identify immigration as the top issue when deciding on how to vote (N = 9,898):


The relatively high Hispanic numbers are plausibly attributable to their support for open borders, and there is some of that going on. But in the case of non-whites, those who voted for Trump are considerably more likely to put immigration at the top of the heap than those who voted for Clinton are, suggesting that concern about immigration is for most voters concern about too much immigration rather than concern about too little.

Maybe another subject Z addresses--negative identity--accounts for blacks waving the invaders in. The invasion hurts white Americans. Supporting it is a thing worth doing. Like the scorpion stings, black America resents white America.

Saturday, July 07, 2018

The ideology of itinerants

Heartiste on rootlessness and ideological identification:
Shitlibs more strongly identify along ideological axes. This is why, for instance, they can’t tolerate the company of those with differing world views. (White libchicks are the absolute worst at tolerating those with opposing political views.)

And, although I don’t have confirmatory data at hand, I suspect shitlibs are more likely to wander and become itinerants, always looking for a shiny new city to infest.
Something is better than nothing. In this case, the something leaves plenty to be desired--but hey, it's something.

The GSS asks respondents where they lived at age 16 in addition to tracking where they live at the time of survey participation. In both cases it is only by Census region rather than by state, let alone county or city.

The following graph shows the percentages of respondents aged 40 and older (because asking an 18 year-old where he lived at 16 probably isn't very informative) who lived in a different region at the time of survey participation than they did when they were 16 years old (N = 28,571):


The differences aren't huge (but the sample size is, so the modest differences, especially at the 'extremes', aren't merely noise). There is a greater tendency for liberals to deracinate than there is for conservatives to, though. Those self-describing as "extremely liberal" are 36% more likely than those who self-describe as "extremely conservative" to live in a different region as adults than they did as teenagers.

Since cities are population sinkholes today, as they have been throughout human history, a finer-grained analysis would probably reveal a greater disparity between liberals and conservatives than the GSS reveals, with liberals from small towns and suburbia moving to urban centers while conservatives from small towns and suburbia put down shire roots.

GSS variables used: REG16(1-9), REGION, AGE(40-89), POLVIEWS(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

Friday, July 06, 2018

Front and center

A decade ago, immigration was a fringe issue, even among Republican voters. The following graph shows the percentages of registered voters in 2008 and today, by partisan affiliation, who identified (or identify) "immigration" as the most important issue facing the country:


The poll from 2008 (N = 1,100) includes eleven possible responses. Among Republicans, immigration was tied for eighth, ahead of just "energy" and "don't know".

The ongoing Reuters-Ipsos poll (N = 8,997) includes sixteen possible responses. Among Republicans, immigration is the single most important issue of all.

The National Question is becoming THE question. No Republican presidential aspirant is going to be able to secure the nomination by ignoring immigration anymore. Recall that both Trump and Cruz took harder restrictionist lines than any other GOP presidential candidate had save for Tom Tancredo's hapless campaign in 2008 and Pat Buchanan's noble defeats in the early- and mid-nineties. 

Tancredo never got above 1% in popular support. Buchanan won fours states. Trump and Cruz together picked up 70% of Republican primary votes and won all but two states between them.


Keep the pressure on. And let's provide the invaders and their anti-white allies all the rope they need to hang themselves with:


via

Monday, July 02, 2018

The invasion won't stop itself, it has to be halted

Agnostic's assertion that higher wages through left-economic populism--free college tuition, free health care, guaranteed jobs and wages for everyone (including criminals and aliens), etc--will ultimately lead to a reduction in immigration is one we can take a contemporary empirical look at.

At the state level, the correlation between the minimum wage and the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is a positive .48. That is, states with higher minimum wages tend to attract--or have, anyway, because of course correlation is not (necessarily) causation--more immigrants than states with lower minimum wages do.

The best state-to-state comparison here is between California and Texas. Both are southern border states with comparable unemployment rates. California's minimum wage, at $11, is country's second-highest after Washington, while Texas' is the $7.25 mandated by federal law. While California has a minimum wage over 50% higher than that of Texas, the percentage of its population that is foreign-born is about 65% higher than Texas', too!

That's not to say California's wage rate is necessarily a net driver of immigration to the state nor that Texas' is a net repellent. But it suggests that other factors are more important. Most saliently, the entire state of California is a sanctuary for illegal aliens. In contrast, there is not a single sanctuary city in all of Texas. It's too easy to be an illegal alien anywhere in the US, but there are differences between states. It's relatively more difficult to squat in Texas than it is in California.

Policy nudging isn't going to stop the invasion. The West's peak labor force participation rate is in the rear view mirror. Guaranteed basic income is probably a question of when rather than of if. That'll be one hell of a global magnet, one with a stronger pull even than Sweden's current cradle-to-grave setup.

It's probably also a question of when rather than if the US will face a concentrated massive influx from the Global South comparable to what Europe has experienced over the last few years. Currently the focus is on central America, but that's relatively small potatoes. It could easily expand to places in South America like Venezuela.

Or to Africa. Think a president Harris or ¡Ocasio! will heed the call for the US to take its fair share of 'refugees' from a continent set to add 3 billion people over the next century?

Imagine a presidential platform in 2020 or 2024 calling for the abolition of ICE. If that wins, what sort of mass migration does it set off on inauguration day?

It's going to have to be enforcement or nothing at all.

The Italian populist left-right coalition attacking that country's invasion has done so not by improving worker conditions but by telling would-be invaders they are not welcome and by pledging to boot those currently squatting in the country out of it.

The Visegrad group's resistance isn't based primarily on material concerns. It's based on cultural and identitarian ones. In Stephen Mill--I mean, Donald Trump's words--the fundamental question of the 21st century is whether or not the West has the will to survive.

Save for a total elimination of the welfare state--something the DSA/Sanders-wing of the American left could not possibly be more wholly opposed to--there isn't an economic way to halt the invasion.

That's the great lesson from our cousins across the pond. Europe's invaders are primarily bypassing the relative low wage countries of southern and central Europe and heading instead to the high wage (and in the case of Germany, significantly unionized) countries of northwestern Europe and Scandinavia. In the central European--and now with Italy, part of the southern--countries, enforcement is very high and welfare is relatively low.

In Austria, the ruling People's Party is similar to the Republican party in the US--center-right, anti-Marxist, economically liberal in the Reaganesque mold--and recently turned quite restrictionist. That's our blueprint with the greatest chance of success.

It's unfortunate president Trump isn't as doggedly focused on the National Question as many of us hoped he would be. He has created a template for others with high political aspirations to follow, though.

And the Republican party is changing. There is no path to the presidency in the GOP that doesn't involve a hardline stance on immigration anymore. Trump and Cruz, the only two restrictionist utterly dominated the field. For the first time ever, immigration is now consistently a top issue among Republican voters, especially younger ones. The party's most shamelessly open-borders shills are leaving. We're approaching the first election cycle after Trump's election.
Republicans,

The process will take some time and the Chamber of Commerce wing will fight to maintain the upper hand, but the greedy grip will become more tenuous with each passing day.

Parenthetically, we rightly hear a lot of grumbling about the agricultural industry crying about crops rotting in the fields. The farming sector's desire to socialize costs while privatizing profits is one of many reasons the invasion is ongoing.

It's important to realize, though, that foreigners in the US--both legal and illegal--disproportionately reside in urban areas. America's large cities are teeming with them. The countryside and even suburbia, not so much. While the number of native whites in urban areas and rural ones are the same, there are ten times as many foreigners in urban areas as there are in rural ones!

Sunday, July 01, 2018

Would a socialist white guy have unseated a ten-term Latina in NY's 14th? Rhetorical

Thought experiment: 

Instead of Joe Crowley as the ten-term House representative up for re-election, it's a woman named Maria Sanchez. And instead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the upstart challenging that ten-term congress critter, it's a young white man named Hayden Stoddard. Keep everything else constant about their political careers and campaign positions--Sanchez is the party machine woman, Stoddard the DSA-endorsed insurgent. Who wins?

Come on, BernieBros, engage with this hypothetical in good faith. Not only would Sanchez win--especially if she'd been talked up as the first Latina speaker of the House!--but her margin of victory probably would've been wider than Ocasio's was. A 20-point swing from the real result seems, if anything, like a conservative estimate to me.

This socialist PoC ascendancy isn't going to lead to something like the Immigration Act of 1924

Or if it does, it's not going to be in the way Agnostic imagines it will--with the socialist Sanders wing of the left leading it. The 1924 Act was pushed by heritage America, including their elites, as a way of stopping the invaders. It wasn't led by the invaders. Many Irish, Italians, and Jews mostly fought it (Samuel Gompers being a notable exception). 

It's not inconceivable that having their noses rubbed in the reality that American democracy is becoming a skins game and begrudgingly coming to the conclusion that there is no place on the contemporary left for white men, a sizable enough fraction of SWPLs and BernieBros could join the increasingly-restrictionist GOP to pass an updated Johnson-Reed Act a century after the first one.

That's way off on the optimistic end of my probability assessment, but it's not totally unfathomable. As I wrote there, we are both ecstatic about the results of the 14th district's primary, albeit for very different reasons. 

If Ocasio is anyone in an unfolding historical reboot, she's the 21st century's Emanuel Celler, operating just down the road from where he did. As a young Jewish congressman, he fought tooth and nail against the Act. But heritage America rolled over the invader opposition and enacted a severe curtailing of immigration from recent sources of 'new Americans'. 

Celler got his revenge on heritage America four decades later. If an the PoC coalition is unable to stop the 2024 Moratorium and Assimilation Act and it stands until Ocasio is finally able to overturn it in 2065, well, that buys us another forty years. We fight the battles that are in front of us, for ourselves and our posterity.