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!

117 comments:

IHTG said...

Let's be real, though. In the American context, the kind of immigration restrictionist moves that are within the realm of political possibility also count as "policy nudging". Nothing Stephen Miller is thinking about right now is at the level of the mass deportations of millions and immigration moratariums that identitarians dream about to arrest the United States' demographic transformation. And the kinds of policies that are sufficient in Europe won't make much of a dent in the United States.

I don't think you can vote yourself out of a white minority. There is no politically realistic immigration policy lever that will prevent it from happening. But what is possible to set up the conditions for a resurgence in the white population in the longer term future. A return to being the majority after having already fallen below 50%. And it's here that all manner of "policy nudging" might in fact be useful.

For example, if it's already pre-ordained that whites are going to be a minority, it's worth switching to a merit-based immigration system that vastly prefers Asians over third worlders even at the cost of a large amnesty, because in the long term the Asians will have lower birthrates than whites. And Agnostic's economic ideas might have a role to play here as well (although by large the man's a kook and always has been).

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Policy nudging can be effective if done right.

After this November, due to the cuck exodus and the rise of nationalists, Trump will have a cabinet that is more agreeable to immigration reforms. E-Verify, no gibs for migrants, and more aggressive fines towards businesses who hire illegals were on Trump's comprehensive list of immigration reform in exchange for DACAmnesty. After this fall though, DACA should be dead and Trump no longer needs to make an exchange for these measures.

Unfortunately the public doesn't have the political will (balls) to just outright kick them out like what we're seeing in Austria or Italy. Policy nudging is not preferable but if they start nudging in the right ways, we could very well see a net migration reversal, especially if they start going after those who overstay visas.

Anonymous said...

I want the total elimination of the welfare state.

Cloudbuster said...

"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."

From one perspective, Agnostic is certainly right. When those policies have successfully turned the US into a Third-World shithole nobody will want to immigrate here anymore. Problem solved!

DissidentRight said...

Is it just me, or does it feel a bit quaint and dated when our socialist friends go on their little rants about economic policy? I think they've forgotten who their audience is. A bunch of far-right white guys are not going be swayed by the claims of central planners. After all, that's just Not Who We Are. The people they want to be talking to are the Invaders-of-Color. I have no doubt socialism will lead brown people into property, just like it did for Eastern Europe.

It's important to realize, though, that foreigners in the US--both legal and illegal--disproportionately reside in urban areas.

Prepare the holy siege-works.

Joe Suber said...

It is time to start nuking africa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H4QPn4X5iw

Okay, if that is too extreme, maybe we can compromise on some milquetoast things like walls, machine gun towers, etc.

Point is, we need to ask for the moon. As long as nobody is threatening "muh Social Security" we can ask for anything in the new climate of polarization. Whites will be called Nazis no matter how reasonable we try to sound.

Anonymous said...

@IHTG,

"Let's be real, though. In the American context, the kind of immigration restrictionist moves that are within the realm of political possibility also count as "policy nudging". Nothing Stephen Miller is thinking about right now is at the level of the mass deportations of millions and immigration moratariums that identitarians dream about to arrest the United States' demographic transformation. And the kinds of policies that are sufficient in Europe won't make much of a dent in the United States.

I don't think you can vote yourself out of a white minority. There is no politically realistic immigration policy lever that will prevent it from happening."

As much as it pains me to admit it,I believe you're right.

" But what is possible to set up the conditions for a resurgence in the white population in the longer term future. A return to being the majority after having already fallen below 50%. And it's here that all manner of "policy nudging" might in fact be useful."

While not impossible,
this isn't likely to happen either.
It's too late in the game for "nudging" to have much effect in a time frame which doesn't put White survival as a distinctive people, in an increasingly precarious position.

I believe the most probable futures are,
1)Whites become a minority.
The U.S. becomes increasingly multiracial and after an upsurge of racial tensions,violence subsides, and things settle down.
The incidence of interracial mating increases and thus the multiracial population grows.
Whites,already fragmented geographically, politically,and socioeconomically,
become even less cohesive in terms of racial identity and community.
White communities survive in small ethnoreligous groups like the Amish,and Mennonites.
A new culture less European, more Latin American,and African- American, emerges as the dominant culture.
A slow,irreversible drift towards third world status begins.

2)Whites become a minority.
The U.S. becomes increasingly multiracial.
Fear and anger among Whites fueled by the changes and fear and anger among non whites fueled by grievances real and imagined lead to sporadic but widespread violence.
Riots, and random attacks on Whites increase, leading to White flight to whiter areas.
Retaliation by Whites leads to non whites fleeing to their own areas.
This population reshuffling leads to more homogeneous regions,
with a corresponding reduction in violence.
Eventually the devolution of power from the central government to State or newly created, regional governments reduces tensions and gridlock at the Federal level.
The U.S.becomes essentially a Confederation of ethnoracial groups.
In time this may lead to dissolution.
3) The dissolution of the United States,definitely likely to be violent but probably not as violent as most fear.
The formation of a White American Ethnostate with the Midwest as its core but includes New England, the Mid Atlantic States,and probably the Upper South and the northern Rocky Mountain States.

One way or another the United States as we've known it, is gone.
I think the sooner we make our peace with this the better.
We need to focus on laying the foundation for a White Ethnostate.

Anonymous said...

Off topic:

The 2% issues an ultimatum, the Right is not allowed a platform.

https://twitter.com/Sethrogen/status/1014168992376766470

Seth Rogen has a country full of people like him, but he won't go there.
Be a mensch, loose the beer gut in the IDF.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

I agree you're probably right wrt voting our way out of this--this country of 330 million, that is. Post-political dissolution, it is far more conceivable, but even then it is a long shot. When political dissolution comes, the whiter the heritage American section(s), the better for ourselves and our posterity, especially if the dissolution is not peaceful. Diversity can kinda sorta work when the buffet is loaded up with food. When there are only a few scraps left, though, tribalism will reemerge in a violent hurry.

The idea of rolling out the red carpet in hopes that it will come in tandem with increases in real wage rates strikes me as absurdly risky. If any sort of compromise along those lines would be worked out among a socialist-populist left and a globalist neocon business 'right', the right would probably put the most pressure on keeping the minimum wage down while signing off on all the other stuff the socialist-populist left loves. No one in the Democrat party now can even pretend to think they might consider making some vague promise about maybe restricting immigration into the country in some vague way now--think that's going to change with the DSA as the intellectual core instead of the Brookings Institute? It'll become even more true.

Agnostic asked if a business here had to pay $20/hour, would they choose an American or an invader? While the point is well taken--I've been a supporter of increasing the minimum wage for a long time--it's becoming less and less effective as a rhetorical question. In urban areas where invaders are most heavily concentrated and where non-Hispanic whites are a minority, the businesses will be choosing between native Hispanics, blacks, and white deadbeats and druggies on one hand and aliens who want to work on the other. It's not obvious who they'll choose. And if they choose the alien, that means the native Hispanics, blacks, and white deadbeats and druggies really go in hard for an Ocasio with the gibs.

Random Dude,

If the policy is directly aimed at the problem, it can be effective. E-verify isn't foolproof but it will help.

The free gibs that will lead to higher wages that will then make movement here less attractive (despite the free gibs that are available to all, citizen or not) as a way to nudge back the foreign-born population, though? No way.

Anon,

Likewise, but that's definitely not in the cards.

Cloudbuster,

It's an old gag but it has staying power for a reason!

DissidentRight,

Five feet tall, TA experience, never signed a payroll. Bitter. I won't be any less cryptic than that.

Joe,

In a non-ironic way, that's really not who we are. We don't have it in us. I wouldn't want to even though I'm aware of the very real possibility that a century or two from now my great-great-great-grandson may wish I had it in me so that he wouldn't be ending up in the cannibal's pot.

The furthest out approach I can think of that could conceivably--as conceivably as finding a winning lottery ticket in the parking lot--catch on would be wealth transfers (as in African governments and/or individuals Africans sign up for it in return for cash) for Western-administered implantable contraceptive devices with the goal of radically reducing the human footprint in Africa and then turning the place into a continent-wide nature reserve.

Anon,

Scenario #1 seems the most likely to me as well. Uncucked, sincere whites could even begin concluding that it's the best way to ensure the safety and relative well being of their offspring. The Derb's kids do enjoy a shield my children don't have, after all.

A large influx of sub-Saharan Africans could change that. After all, there isn't that much race-mixing in South Africa given that whites have lived there, as a minority, for four centuries. Much different experience than in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Anon,

A cheer or two for Jack Dorsey, I guess. Maybe AmRen's twitter case made him reorient a bit.

Issac said...

The Grey Enlightenment "intellectual dark web," neocon crowd has far more dangous and realizable ideas. Their desire is to retain the white delusion of nihilistic individualism.

Anonymous said...

"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."

You've got it backwards. Europe for the last few years has experienced a concentrated massive influx comparable to what USA has experienced over the last lifetime.


People still don't realize how historically significant immigration in the last 40 years has been. The United States has gone from essentially white (around 90%) in 1970 to half white (for kids) or 3/4 white (for adults) in one generation. When I was a young kid, this country was white. I am not yet an old man: this country is no longer white.

To happen to a smaller nation, or small region? No big deal. To have this population change in the 3rd largest country on the planet? Absolutely historically unprecedented. It took whites 270 years to settle the continent (1620-1890 or so). It has taken Hispanics 40 years to do half of it.

anon

216 said...

At the current rate of transference, Mexico (15% now) would probably end up whiter than the US at the end of this century. Current trends also assume more Jews than Germans by 2100.

Trends are just that, trends. In 1948 the National Party presumed that whites (21%) would be (25%) by 2000. The Green Revolution which increased black birth rates and black immigration, and the Birth Control pill, were not foreseen. The National Party actually wanted to restrict white immigration, thinking that new white immigrants would be pro-Britain rather than pro-Afrikaner. Earlier in 1910, British and Afrikaner opinion resisted bringing in more Chinese and Indians into South Africa, blacks were easier to control or so they thought. (No black majority, No ANC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Ten_Years_of_Toryism.jpg

(This is not a hoax)

Right now we have one trend working in our favor, gentrification. We also have seen that fertility collapsed in Puerto Rico and Venezuela. If we could ever isolate ourselves from leftist cultural hegemony, we'd have back our self-determination in one generation.

Feryl said...

"Millennials, especially Millennial women, tilt more Democratic. As noted in our recent report on generations and politics, Millennial voters are more likely than older generations to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. Nearly six-in-ten Millennials (59%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with about half of Gen Xers and Boomers (48% each) and 43% of voters in the Silent Generation. A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic; four years ago, 56% of Millennial women did so. About half of Millennial men (49%) align with the Democratic Party, little changed in recent years. The gender gap in leaned party identification among Millennials is wider than among older generations."

Gender-wise, this shouldn't be all that concerning. Why? Women are conformist; they're an easy (ideological) lay for whatever is dominant in the zeitgeist. Their conception of politics and values is not that dissimilar from how they treat fashion: integrity, logic, and rigor don't really, what really matters is whether something is "in" or not. Seriously, ever try talking with a woman about say, interior decorating? The first thing they talk about is whether something is out of date or not. The greatest insult women have is that something is so "70's" or whenever.

What seems to be taking shape is that women become tireless enforcers of the dogma and values that's currently being imposed on high from (political or cultural) elites. Back in the 60's and 70's (most) twenty and thirtysomething (to say nothing of teenagers) women bought into the idea of being free wheeling, "strong", and independent; who needed to be held down by the notion of starting and maintaining a family? Yet in the 80's and 90's, these same generations of wild childs did an about face and started squalling about drunk driving, child abuse, and broken homes.

"Then look at white millennial men. They’ve gone from 48 percent to 37 percent Democratic support. More striking in their case is that they haven’t just moved away from the Democrats, but have now become Republicans. Their support for the GOP in the last two years has gone from 36 percent to 46. Which means that for white men between the ages of 18 and 34, the GOP now has a ten-point lead. It has achieved that swing in the last two years."

It would look as if now, perhaps as in previous eras, lower class men in particular have their misgivings about sudden uprisings in novel ideology and wish to keep their distance; recall that working class men in the late 60's tended to be more supportive of George Wallace than were women and elite men, while in 1992 working class men voiced their disapproval of neo-liberal Clinton (and bozo Bush) by supporting Ross Perot.

I'd be curious to know if the class and gender based ideological gaps accellerated in the late 1960's, because the Left at that time began to focus on the liberation of various "minorities" instead of class based economic justice. Recall that the "New Deal Coalition" was almost explicitly based on the notion of respecting white working and middle class values. Said coalition would've crumbled under the weight of squalling sheocrats and the decadent impulses of careless elites (such as removing homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, after, get this, the annual meeting of DSM caretakers was protested by Frisco fags in the early 70's). Crumble it did in the 1970's, when cultural liberals began to seriously pervert the progressive cause, culminating in the "Reagan Democrat" wave of the 1980's when Middle Americans began to wonder if we'd eventually be ruled by a hateful and ugly group of Lefty commissars who'd outlaw every last wholesome tradition. .

Feryl said...

Older women aren't as ditzy or devoid of critical thinking. Younger women need to find something relevant to submit to, so as to be trendy. And the "pull" of fertility is strong, clouding the judgement of younger women. Older women can harden into defenders of whatever was in style when they were in college. So the big sheocrat feminists were born in the 40's and early 50's (thus why later generations of women scorn the "feminist" label; it's SO 1960's), the Reaganite "family values" crusaders were born in the late 50's and 60's (which in turn was a movement derided by chicks born in the 70's).

Later Millennial women will likely carry SJW baggage with them throughout their lives....

As I said in a previous comment, it's important that the culture be restored to something more healthy and populist, to stop these outpourings of obnoxious screeching. It was ok when women had voting power and various "rights" in the 1930's-early 1960's, when society taught people to be modest, civil, and responsible. When the culture takes a a turn for the worse, watch out! Even the religious Right harpies turned out to be a fraud, since Boomers and Gen X-ers mostly failed to clean up their act in the 80's and 90's (improvement in behavior would really come with the Millennials, BTW). Also worth noting is that the Religious Right completely ignored any money related issue, failing to protest FIRE corruption, the creation of state lotteries in the late 80's (outside of a few regional movements), rising CEO pay and falling working class pay, etc. The Religious Right largely existed to exploit the hysteria and bigotry of cultural conservatives in the 80's and 90's, doing absolutely nothing to protect the incomes of people except in so far as a reduction in drug use and drinking would keep money in your pocket. In the 1920's-much of the 60's, there was no greater moral goal than insuring fairness and protecting the finances of the vulnerable; subsequent to then, we've been subjected to all kinds of moralistic flailing about where no one seems to understand the ground rules of insuring a better life for all.

216 said...

Feryl,

The Religious Right needs a "Darth Bane" type figure, they fell prey to the illusion that you could pick and choose parts of modernity. Their failure was as you describe not moving against "greed is good", black evangelicals and white ethnic Catholics weren't won over due in large part by support for Dems like Jesse Jackson, the Kennedys and Mario Cuomo.

While superficially counterintuitive, as women approach actual parity in wages with men, feminist agitation increases. Iceland, sitting on unlimited geothermal energy, is virulently feminist and the closest nation to eliminating the "pay gap". A "female EITC" funded by a "man tax" will be instituted in at least one country by 2030.

Any attempt to remove Roe v Wade will be seen as a coup d'├ętat. The Right views it as heresy to just simply pay women to not abort, nor will they note the success in reducing teenage pregnancy via the birth control mandate*. Further the Right isn't going to advocate the transformation of divorce from an adversarial to an administrative procedure as in some Euro countries, I predict the LGBTQQIAAZ will be at the forefront of that push. The weak GOP politicians will keep on giving tax breaks to the rot known as Hollywood and Sportsball.

There's a central problem with "fairness", it is still a policy rooted in egalitarianism. Along with liberalism, both need to be delegitimized.

216 said...

Off topic:

Bad lead item, good crosstabs (many at their highest level)

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2554

(23)"Healthcare" is at its highest level ever, though still badly underwater. Medicare for all is a sure winner for the Dems if it was in a vacuum. The GOP needs to de-federalize healthcare to allow the blue states to implement Canada style policies. The red states should adopt a Swiss system with a host of sumptuary laws. DSA would promise us Canada, but deliver Russia.


(39) 17% of Dems test positive on restricting legal immigration, surprising. (This question could test bureaucratic efficiency rather than numbers, but still 29% of GOP wants easier immigration)


(41) 41% of Hispanics think Trump isn't a racist. 30% of white men hate themselves.
(51) They ask the same question, but blatantly, white (women) college is our Achilles Heel

(52) have you stopped beating your wife

216 said...

Polls, contd;

A historically good result in a polling firm that Trump usually does bad in.

https://www.investors.com/politics/trump-approval-rating-immigration-generic-ballot-fbi-political-bias-ibd-tipp-poll/

Immigration is important for Trump's base, but irrelevant with normies. The economy is good, no concern is held about competition for jobs/public services. (Ick, sounds like Corvinus). Slight support in crosstabs for anti-sanctuary cities, but these issues should be at 70%+ levels in a normal country.

North Korea fully giving up nukes is important, healthcare disappearing as in issue is just as important. North Korea also might give leverage on Iran, imagine the propoganda value of getting a better deal than Obama, and imagine the neocons not getting their war.

Feryl said...

216:

Women activists in the 1920's and 30's campaigned against drunks, gamblers, usurers, the public tolerance of redlight districts, and so forth. Silent and Boomer libertines (many of whom are women) later claimed that this was a moralistic excess that drained the joy out of people's lives. Well, waddaya know, these libertines from the 60's-present day would later campaign to remove personal responsibility* (for one's moral contributions to society, or lack thereof) and modest norms from society. Even many of the "conservatives" balked at the notion of protecting the vulnerable from financial exploitation; I've long believed that the "war on crime" and and "war on drugs" was pushed by Boomers who wanted their precious resources (including their children) untouched, yet they didn't give a fuck about enforcing ethical behavior by businesses. Their "code" amounted to: stay off my lawn, keep your hands off my kids, but do whatever the fuck else you please. It's astonishing just how shallow and childish Boomer "ethics" are; the retaliate vindictively against perceived threats to their own stuff, but can't extend any concern to the overall ethical framework of society. We put million of people behind bars for street crime, yet it's common knowledge that corporate board rooms are dens of iniquity, academia and pop culture promote hedonistic experimentation, state sanctioned gambling has been constantly expanded since the 80's, etc. The hang up is one of consent; Boomers judge victims of dubious activities to be consenting and stupid, and not worthy of any great concern or protection. The only exception is street crime, in which the victim can never be said to have consented to theft and injury.

We've been (erroneously) conditioned to think that sexual relations between an 18 year old and a 17 year old is illegal everywhere (not at all true), or as a matter of moral judgement is unseemly and debased.

The going full retard approach to teen sexuality can be traced to Boomers, who in the 80's as parents and guardians did not want their precious teen kids to be touched by a "loser" (a case of status anxiety being conflated with morality). Their daughters were supposed to be "strong", "successful", "independent" women who simply could not be polluted "before their time" by some greasy haired horny doofus. All the while, society was stripping away protections for workers, consumers, and small businesses (mergers and acquisitions being a primary tool for economic growth after 1980). Since high taxes on assets, high levels of regulation, high levels of union activity, etc. infringed on the ability of a Silent or Boomer to be "rewarded" for working their butts off, then why not ferociously decimate every last vestige of the New Deal era in which elites agreed to chill out and spread the wealth, rather then compete needlessly for the sake of ego and self-gratification.

*personal responsibility in the 1920's-1960's was understood to mean owning up to your overall contribution to society, as measured by genuine acts of virtue, heroism, and kindness. Silents and Boomers distorted and perverted 'personal responsibility' to mean the practice of arrogantly attacking "losers" who hadn't worked hard enough to do better in life. It can't be emphasized enough just how often older generations recommended "hard work" as the cure all remedy in the 80's-2000's. But what the fuck did all the hard work by the Me Generation do? The results speak for themselves. A handful of elites do really well, others have developed a lot of problems over the last 40 years in this toxic me-first and greedy environment.

Lastly, when are older people going to take.....Personal responsibility for how debauched society got under their watch?

Feryl said...

According to liberal guy I've read, much of 80's pop culture inadvertently revealed how two-faced our culture was getting. On the one hand, you had celebration of attractive but essentially empty culture, and the obvious celebration of affluent professionals. On the other hand, you had a lot of narratives involving "respectable" people and places who were living a double life or hiding some terrible secret. E.g., A Nightmare on Elm Street is about older 1980's adults in a normal suburb whose past transgression (a vigilante murder) is desperately hidden even as it hurts the teenagers of the 1980's. This culture really spoke to the Silents and Boomers who created it; many of them had lived or were currently living "double lives"; be cool, friendly, and clean-cut on the surface, but underneath you might find a philanderer or swinger, or a closet coke head, or a "family-man" and city counsel member who's profession involves asset raids, mass layoffs ("downsizing"), off-shoring, and the like.

Sadly, in subsequent decades any sense of residual guilt and embarrassment over shameful behavior seemed to disappear. Everybody accepted that life came with a certain amount of sleaze, you might as well get used to it and make the best of it. Thing is, that attitude had and always would turn the stomach of the Lost and GI Generation who fought to morally uplift society in the 1920's-1960's, and who really knew how to do it.

Thank God Gen X-ers and Millennials are poised to start demanding real results; we're putting the debased culture of the 70's-2000's on notice. And since we didn't embrace sleaze like the Boomers did, we aren't going to act like the Elm Street parents and just pretend that it's ok to bury and forget the past, the better to live it up in the present. Younger people were robbed of the things that older generations could count on, and we know it.

216 said...

Feryl,

? about the 1920s/30s. Prohibition activism basically collapsed after the passage of the Volstead Act (passed by a harsher Congress than the one that authored the Amendment, people were expecting only hard liquor being banned). Society en masse decided to not enforce the law, and we transformed ethnic gangs into organized crime. You are right about the activists, but that's a Progressive Era (1895-1917) timeline, the 1920s were a time of hedonism, rural depopulation and escalating wealth gaps. Activism did return in the 1930s to censor out some debauchery from Hollywood fils, but sadly not imposing morality in Hollywood itself.

Boomers have adopted a hypocritical/false view of the New Deal/Great Society entitlements. SS and Medicare were "earned" benefits, while Medicaid(ACA),SNAP, SSDI are "undeserved benefits". It astonishes me that the Koch handlers allowed "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" to be written at their astroturf demos. No one "paid into" the entitlements, that is one the biggest hoaxes written, but quite necessary to sell the programs in an individualist culture.


The problem with the elderly "taking responsibility" for what they did, is that if it happened it would not lead to a populist GOP. Instead it would be an avalanche of white guilt resulting in more Ocasio-Cortez types. Boomers are our base, and we need their votes long after their natural deaths.

Feryl said...

N-Gram time:

"double life" rose in use from 1880-early 20's, tracking the rise in public awareness of corruption, which was growing. It begins to fall in the late 20's, and stays quite low from 1940-1980 (when most elites were Losts and GIs, and Silents hadn't had enough time or clout to begin debauching professional culture). Then, waddayya know, in the 80's usage of the phrase really goes up.

While we accepted that nobody is totally perfect, even in the best of times, during periods of (relative) elite virtue we tend to assume that most people play things straight. By the 1980's, you had Silents and Boomers totally take over every sphere of Western life, and to the shock of nobody it became assumed that a lot of lawyers, politicians, judges, attorneys, professors, artists, doctors, and other upper class professionals must've been hiding a lot of skeletons. Because we had countless examples of them being frauds and perverts.

We don't put much stock in the misdeeds of say, the local factory foreman or truck driver. They're not the ones leading us or setting the cultural tone. As elites and professionals, Losts and GIs earned the trust and respect they were sometimes begrudgingly driven.

216 said...

"younger people were robbed"

The problem with that is that youth politics these days is exclusively redistributionist. When it comes to culture the only thing that matters is aggressive enforcement of the principle of anti-discrimination. The demands of Millenials/Zeds seem to be (ranking): Free Education, Free Healthcare, Subsidized Housing, High Taxes on the Rich, Liberal Supremacy in Culture.


While the youth are less debauched, there hasn't been an increase in church attendance, and family formation is delayed via economic factors. This is no "family values" push, or even "affordable family formation". We are more likely to see removal of the tax exemptions on non-profits, and hate speech restrictions on religious activities for minors (already the law in the ascendant PRC). The US will certainly remain unstable in the 2020s-30s, barring the invention of a warp drive level technology. The PRC will be far more stable, and will begin to make the case abroad for their authoritarian pluralism model. The ethnic homogeneity of China might even be de-emphasized to win over dispirited progressives in the Americas and Europe.

In somewhat whitepill news, the arrival of 1K Yemini invaders touched off major protests in SK, reunification would bring 23 million cultural reactionaries to outweigh the growing poz in the south.

TPC said...

Voting works if people show up. But they don't. That's how a wealthy socialist won an upset win. Shoe leather does work, there simply aren't that many people showing up for the primaries even in massive metros with 200-300k in the general.

As for the money, the elephant in the room of high minimum wages is childcare. Over half of SAHMs use daycare centers for kids aged 0-4. The percentage is about the same nationwide. And that's women who aren't even in the workforce! Of course childless unmarried (so far as i know) Agnostic doesn't have any response to what happens there, and what has been happening as minimum wages have risen in specific states and cities. Short answer, it's not friendly to his weird Berniebro fandom.

DissidentRight said...

AE,
Five feet tall, TA experience, never signed a payroll. Bitter. I won't be any less cryptic than that.

Too cryptic for me.

216,
The Religious Right needs a "Darth Bane" type figure, they fell prey to the illusion that you could pick and choose parts of modernity.

Indeed. The Religious Right in particular will be slower in rejecting anti-nationalism because we're so heavily invested in the heretical application of "neither Jew nor Greek" and "turn the other cheek" to politics. We are going to have to wait for Boomer Churchianity to die out.

216 said...

TPC,

Interesting about the SAHM use of daycare. Another example of YT not picking his own damned crops? Unlike your neighborhood babysitter, daycare is a low-wage POC dominated industry.

https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/1014165005523148806?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Interesting comment, given who she was previously sleeping with (Elon Musk). It would greatly please me to see a billionaire be criminally charged for hiring illegals, even if they only waked away with a 10K fine that wouldn't cover the prosecution costs. The deterrence would be legendary.

Feryl said...

"? about the 1920s/30s. Prohibition activism basically collapsed after the passage of the Volstead Act (passed by a harsher Congress than the one that authored the Amendment, people were expecting only hard liquor being banned). Society en masse decided to not enforce the law, and we transformed ethnic gangs into organized crime. You are right about the activists, but that's a Progressive Era (1895-1917) timeline, the 1920s were a time of hedonism, rural depopulation and escalating wealth gaps. Activism did return in the 1930s to censor out some debauchery from Hollywood fils, but sadly not imposing morality in Hollywood itself."


You raise some important details, but ultimately no trend plays out "perfectly". Rather, we get initial flashes or spikes which presage a future period of either wholesome or decadent elite culture. For example, the Progressive period you cite set the table for the general public in the 1920's being widely disgusted by baseball gambling, immigrant gangs and terrorism, and so forth; a decent number of elites were listening to the concerns and responded by imposing a ban on players known to have associated with gamblers and also by imposing an immigration moratorium . By the 1920's, facial hair had totally fallen out of fashion aside from the occasional mustache, which is an indication that trend setters were getting serious about cleaning up society. But the 1920's also represent a last burst of decadence for the fair number of people who hadn't gotten the memo yet. The Great Depression and the 1930's surge in collectivist thinking spelled the end of the decadent me-first era that was built up from 1860-1890, then was chipped away at from 1890-1930. You can't expect a roughly 70 year process of growing and then declining corruption to play itself out at perfect intervals, or with everyone co-operating during any stage of the process.

In summary, we have 20-40 year long periods of growing corruption (elites become noticeably worse), plateauing high corruption (elites are considered corrupt and stupid), and declining corruption (elites shape up)

1860-1890
Growing corruption

1890-1920
Plateauing high corruption

1920-1960
Declining Corruption

1960-1980
Growing Corruption

1980-2010
Plateuaing high Corruption

2010-Present
Declining Corruption

Note that declining corruption periods aren't universally positive or successful, but the thing is that elites mean well and are at least trying. For example, as stupid as you might think UBI is, such measures of generosity were widely hated in the 80's-2000's, when LOLbertarian attacks on public spending and the safety net were at their height of popularity (and were naturally ret-conned to have been "common sense" during not just the 60's and 70's, but even the 1930's and 40's when FDR got elected three times!). Trump issued the death knell for Randroid types by promising to not attack popular gov. programs, and by endorsing concern over a lack of infrastructure spending(and Trump himself is a developer no less, a huge change of pace from the 80's-2000's when NIMBYism reigned). Trump BTFO'd the Reaganite Republicans, many of whom cried into their pillows (and Twitter feeds), and left the GOP, attacked the New Right, and in some cases are stepping down from office.

I measure trends mainly be elite behavior, not what rowdy teenagers or organized crime is doing. The mafia existed in the 1950's, ya know? But people in the 1950's did not equate Joseph Bonnano with Eisenhower. In times of good elite behavior, there's a firm distinction between low lives and heroes.

216 said...

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/03/blue-collar-wages-rising-red-hot-economy/

Our old friend H-1B strikes again (IT jobs). A small but potent reason that could explain why "white college" is hestitant-to-hostile towards Trump. Changing H-1B regulations has disappeared along with E-Verify, and it needs to come back. Restricting H-4 visas is good, but is bad optics because "anti-family".


H-1B was never needed, a product of the lesser known Immigration Act of 1990. All of the STEM talent could have been produced by means of a federal grant to every university in the Appalachian Regional Commission. Instead we got a hostile class of Subcontinentals with BJP voting relatives that refuse us the same dignity.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Well put. In this context, I meant that the US could conceivably be on the cusp of a race for America that is as rapid as the race for Europe has been. These things seem unlikely until suddenly they don't.

216,

Wow, thanks for that. South Africa for the Chinese!

The fertility collapse means throughout central and Latin America means after a few decades, the likelihood of large-scale migrations will be minimal. But there is still a lot of time between now and then, and coming to America--sometimes because that's what they come to America for!--gives invaders a fertility boost relative to their coethnics in their places of origin.

TPC,

That's a great question. Out of curiosity, I looked at the last time my district had a primary who challenged our rep. It drew well over twice as many voters as NY's 14th, our district is less Republican than the 14th is Democrat.

Septeus7 said...

I know a lot about the original Job Guarantee/Nation Service idea as proposed by Randall Wray the MMT economist. The idea as proposed by him was far different than Ocasio's warped version of it.

The purpose of program provide was replaced other programs and have zero fiscal increase to the budget longterm via the reductions in dependence on other programs.

None of the original promoters wanted the program in the context of open borders and mass immigration and paying 15 dollars an hour. Wray's book says 7.25 and limited hours so as not to compete with private sector jobs. All of original economic writing was in National context and is basically bringing back the Civilian Conservation Core.

The idea is the Jobs Guarantee is the transitional phase before the UBI to smooth out the process and provide social stability by keeping people busy rather than having roaming gangs of urban youth with nothing to do.

You must always keep in mind that it is cheaper than a UBI because the point of the program is provide work experience in order be able to move into private sector work because a great deal of why so many people are unemployable in the private sector is lack of work experience and massive time holes in their CV.

I believe that estimates for the program was about 300 billion in 2005 dollars but you get after several years you recover cost by being able to cut other programs like food Stamps (we could have full employment instead of the useless "stimulus" waste). On the other hand, a UBI would be about 6 trillion and so we are a ways off from being about to have such a program. When we have full automation it is more likely that 6 trillion won't be big of a deal by then because of growth.

If you look at the original people who restricted immigration to the US you will find socialist parties and unions. "Free Movement of Labor" is neoliberalism and cannot work with any of the old left socialist ideas.

The reason I gave up on the left is because I came to agree with 3rd positionist on the Alt-Right. "Socialism" can only worked if limited to a genetic in-group as a form of Kin selection. If you try to globalize any social safety net it will be played by outsiders who don't have "genes in the game" and won't reciprocate.

I've moved to the right because I don't that any useful program could be done for a country as large as the United State without Chinese style authoritarianism.

In order to have a "Nice White Country" like Switzerland I think you need to have smaller Nation States about the size of Nordic countries for that model to work.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

What are you complaining about? This should fix the invader problem--well, until the crash comes, anyway. Or maybe the Fed will refuse to keep tightening in the face of inflation and wages will keep rising. Problems--all of them--solved!

Feryl said...

"The problem with that is that youth politics these days is exclusively redistributionist. When it comes to culture the only thing that matters is aggressive enforcement of the principle of anti-discrimination. The demands of Millenials/Zeds seem to be (ranking): Free Education, Free Healthcare, Subsidized Housing, High Taxes on the Rich, Liberal Supremacy in Culture."


Sure, we all can quibble with the various ideas being bandied about. But that shouldn't be cause to throw your hands up in the hair and declare that We Have No Chance. That mindset was alright in the 80's-2000's, when people got shit on (and shit on each other) and nobody expected better.

Ya kow what Boomers did in the 80's-2000's? They said that every "big government" or "ambitious" idea that had ever been tried was an ignominious failure, and as such, only a fool would not subscribe to the principle of making government as small as possible. The younger me-too cucks (like Ben Shapiro) still reflexively regurgitate the most tired pablum of the Me Generation, and I can imagine younger people (ya know, the ones who will do better at running the government because there's no way on God's green Earth that they could be any worse than the Boomers) have absolutely know interest in hearing the talking points that were cutting edge among closeted fag Republicans in the 1980's. The phenom. of closeted Silents and Boomers becoming powerful GOP figures after 1980 says all you need to about how much those generations debauched everything. The whole risible "young Republican" campus movement was a hornet's nest of neatly groomed poofers who got stuffed into lockers by the kind of guys who in the 1940's-1970's would become proud Democrat voting union men. For all the theatrical pomp. the GOP started injecting into their image in the 1980's, in reality the GOP has always been the weasel party that sucks up to asshole elites. As much as dino Reaganites are disenchanted with the Millennial version of the GOP, it remains to be seen just how much the remaining GOP elites and donors are willing to allow a less perverted and corrupt version of their party to exist.

The GOP of the 1930's-1970's had to begrudgingly accept some form of aggressively enforced Robin Hood policies (which dis incentivized unethical behavior by elites and by the FIRE industry), because nobody trusted them anymore after the Great Depression. Not until the 80's would large numbers of elites began to act like Einsteins for claiming that the government expansion of the 1930's-1960's was stupid, wasteful, abusive, and unnecessary. And the upper middle class would register their full disowning of the New Deal in 1994, when Republicans attained their greatest level of congressional power since the very early 1930's.

My hunch is that as long as Dems act like SJW retards, the GOP can still get away with some level of social Darwinist manure, even though Millennials can't stand the idea of ruthless competition to "just win, baby". Nonetheless, which ever party can best appeal to younger generations will be the winner in the long run. At least one of the parties has a decent chance of going the Whig route and being irrelevant at some point. We'll see.

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

War is here. The Left isn't gonna vote itself in either. That "celebration" of THE END of White Power may be premature, but its unraveling the crazy quilt of non-Whites ALREADY. The DNC just had a NASTY CIVIL WAR all by itself between blacks and Hispanics. IT'LL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN.
They're ALREADY KICKING OUT Huwhites that were traitors. White women are being pushed off the stage. This is why they are going so violent.

THEY HAVE TO. Their coalition is crumbling.

Audacious Epigone said...

Septeus7,

Thanks. One takeaway from that thoughtful progression is that political dissolution is the only chance for a lot of disparate groups of people to have a shot at living in the sorts of societies they'd like to live in. I'm for American cantons.

Feryl said...

"In order to have a "Nice White Country" like Switzerland I think you need to have smaller Nation States about the size of Nordic countries for that model to work."

WRT outcome by country, national character is certainly important, but it doesn't determine everything. Germans are great people in many regards, but cripes, they let Hitler happen.....And they never got around to forcing him from power, even as he succumbed to drug addiction and an almost complete mental breakdown. Failures of leadership, however well-intentioned or sincere a leader may be, happen. So do failures to properly hold bad elites to account.

My 2c is that every generation leaves it's mark on every society, for better or for worse. We all go towards a certain destination during a cultural and generational phase, but the path is different for each tribe and nation. The 1930's-early 1960's saw great levels of collectivism; for Scandinavia and the English speaking countries, it worked out pretty good. For Germany, Japan, and China.....well, not so much. The other parts of Europe did ok.

I certainly think that the high corruption era tendency to flat out dismiss the possibility of leadership being able to achieve great things is nothing to crow about. And just because Boomers managed to be even worse leaders than the older generations who (unwisely) allowed many Boomers to achieve high status and power at a youngish age, that doesn't mean we need to flatter the Boomer conviction that any earnest and large scale effort to improve society will always fail.

Besides, the manifest nihilism, narcissism, and overall failure of personal discipline and modesty that happened during the peak of Boomer influence (the 1980's-2000's) may not have been the "cinematic" scaled horror of The Great Leap Forward, or concentration camps, or dropping an atom bomb. But as John Goodman said in The Big Lebowski, "at least National Socialism is an ethos". The funny thing in that movie is that the 1990's are portrayed as being so shallow and depressing that the main group of thugs in the movie are literally called "nihilists", as though the movie makers have judged the 1990's to be the Seinfeldian decade: a decade about nothing.

Boomers may despise the idea of personally dirtying their hands at the behest of some remote authority, but in their own personal way they themselves have pushed the button on many "mini-Hiroshimas", every time they step on other people's toes and take a leak on the commons.

Feryl said...

I once heard an actor say that a bad movie he did was about.....two hours along. The 1990's were about......11 years long (1991-2001 being the cultural 90's).

WinstonSmith17 said...

This only goes to show that we must speak up, speak up, speak up. Go to rallies. Get spat on by filthy antifa terrorists and spit the eff back, like I did in Chicago. Call your pols. Our positions on immigration are inching close to the mainstream GOP position. It will be going very fast if we continue pushing and pushing. Keep trolling those lefties on FB. Keep triggering these amygdalae. We have more power than we think.

216 said...

AE,

If you read the chart at Breitbart you can see the indication of real terms wage decline in IT positions. That indicates an oversupply, which H-1B(H-4) is exacerbating. "White College" voters are much more skeptical about Trump's handling of the economy than "Some College/No College" whites. They also turn out at higher rates.

While this should logically result in "white college" desiring more cuts in immigration, their work culture precludes this from arising organically.

Another depression would be great in terms of driving the invaders back home. But I can't fantasize about Mad Max when its been ruined by feminism.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

that doesn't mean we need to flatter the Boomer conviction that any earnest and large scale effort to improve society will always fail.

As long as there is a laser-like focus on group disparities in outcomes, I don't see one working out. It seemed silly to me at the time, but Herrnstein/Murray's suggestion in TBC that we stop tracking things by race and ethnicity was a lot more sensible than it was given credit for. It seems to be necessary (though far from sufficient) for civic nationalism to have a fighting chance. That ship has sailed though now, I think.

WinstonSmith,

Indeed. Others who have come before us have done a lot more with a lot less. Despair porn is not helpful. There are little battles we can all fight in our own lives. We should be fighting those.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Indeed. Others who have come before us have done a lot more with a lot less. Despair porn is not helpful. There are little battles we can all fight in our own lives. We should be fighting those.

Yep. Be politically active. Get involved in local politics, start the long march through the institutions, have a family with at least three white children, work towards financial independence, etc. Lots of things we can do on an individual level to turn things around. I'm a huge advocate of white taqiyya (deception) because that's our only viable option right now if you don't want to end up unemployed or injured or worse.

Unfortunately the golden age of social media trolling is over (because it worked too well) so we have to redirect our energy towards something else more productive.

Anonymous said...

I didn't intend to bring you down AE.
I didn't list those scenarios from most to least likely.
I started with what I,personally, dislike most and went to what I favor.
I didn't make that clear.
My fault.
I believe #2 is least likely.
1 and 3 are a toss up.
It will depend a lot on what the non whites and Left do,as to which will be realized.
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!

Corvinus said...

Off topic, but relevant...

Looks like Vox Day is up to his tricks again. In reality, it’s not identity politics, but rather it’s about ideology.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/07/immigration-has-consequences.html

The Alt Right has a major problem here. VD insists that “The USA cannot return to its founding principles without repatriating more than 50 percent of its population. Most of the citizenry does not respect the Constitution, and with good reason, since it was not written to defend their rights and they have never understood it. They are not, and never will be, Posterity”.

Now before anyone says he is referring to exclusively immigrants post-1965, try again.

“Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them.”

And there is this gem…

“As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerors, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People”.

So, how in the world is the Alt Right going to recruit European-Americans to its causes when one of its elitist leaders constantly shames them for being utterly incapable of comprehending the Constitution and repeatedly insists that they must go back? Because I’m 3SD smarter than you.

216 said...

Corvinus,

Your concern trolling isn't recruiting anyone to your brand of liberalism.

The System envisoned by the Constitution presumes an individualist society of property owners. Socialism is by its very nature Anti-American, as are the voters who support it. An urbanized multikult rabble will always demand socialism when they get a free election. And people like us are always forced to maintain socialism without being given the preferential status we deserve.

I'm not here to defend the Constitution, as it has plainly failed. I'd in all honesty prefer a new Constitution set up on the Iranian model over the current unwritten Constitution written by the 2% kritarchy.

Vox Day as far as I knew lived in Italy, but he really lives rent free in your head.

Corvinus said...

"Your concern trolling isn't recruiting anyone to your brand of liberalism."

It's not concern trolling, it's called truth. And hate to disappoint you, but I'm not a socialist. But that's what you have to say to keep your wits about you.

"The System envisoned by the Constitution presumes an individualist society of property owners."

Who collectively make decisions for the welfare of their society.

"Socialism is by its very nature Anti-American..."

Talk about concern trolling!

"And people like us are always forced to maintain socialism without being given the preferential status we deserve."

Who is this "we", Kemosabe? And for what reasons do you deserve this "preferential status"?

"I'm not here to defend the Constitution, as it has plainly failed."

No, the argument could be that the people who attempt to defend it have failed.

"I'd in all honesty prefer a new Constitution set up on the Iranian model over the current unwritten Constitution written by the 2% kritarchy."

Good luck with your endeavor.

"Vox Day as far as I knew lived in Italy, but he really lives rent free in your head."

He lives in Italy, and he is going to be a monumental headache moving forward for the Alt Right's recruiting efforts. Do yourself a favor and admit this immutable truth.

Feryl said...

"As long as there is a laser-like focus on group disparities in outcomes, I don't see one working out. It seemed silly to me at the time, but Herrnstein/Murray's suggestion in TBC that we stop tracking things by race and ethnicity was a lot more sensible than it was given credit for. It seems to be necessary (though far from sufficient) for civic nationalism to have a fighting chance. That ship has sailed though now, I think."

What I was getting at is the ascetic mentality of Boomers (and quite a few Gen X-ers), which is fueled by a sense of rage that the damn gubmint took my money (without my explicit permission) and then spread it around to various people and causes that I either don't like on principle, or that I agree with in principle yet feel as though the execution is lacking or futile so why should I be asked to support it?

Since (nearly ALL) institutions have hemorrhaged credibility and support under the guidance of Silents and Boomers, it's caused Boomers to develop this sort of nihilism under the guise of individualist ideology. Every Boomer believes himself to be smart, strong, capable etc., yet is immediately suspicious and questioning of any institution (w/ the government being the central bete noir, since nobody can escape the tax man). Because Boomers are by all indications incapable of making concessions, setting aside their ego, thinking about long-term consequences, etc., their behavior and attitude destroys any collective sense of effort and camaraderie.

Put it another way: what do you bring to the table? A willingness to listen to other people? A sense from the get-go that you can't have it all? The ability to put your faith in a goal that a team or system can and will work towards (and no, deliberately destroying a system as countless Boomers have done esp. in regard to government doesn't count)?

As I said above, the primary ethical failing of Boomers is that they get hung up on the matter of consent. In their view, individuals (including business owners, lawyers, agents, bookies, pill dispensing doctors etc.) ought to have the freedom to do as they wish because any government attempt to legislate or mediate the affairs of consenting adults is wasteful and intrusive. Boomers have overwhelmingly penalized street crime, because even they understand that this sort of crime is abusive and wrong, and deserves to be quickly punished. Yet in other arenas of life the Boomers have presided over a systemic failure to punish theft, greed, and lies. Because to go down that path would be lose certain "freedoms" (the freedom to act as you wish, as opposed to the freedom to not be victimized by con-men).

This mentality is 180 degrees from Millennials, who as a generation have produced almost no street criminals aside from the expected immigrant gangs and black ghetto hell holes in Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore (and thus have little investment in mass incarceration, whereas non-violent Boomers hated and feared the many street criminals in their generation) and are disgusted by financial excess, greed, and individualism run amok.

Anonymous said...

@Corvinus,

While I respect Vox, I, and I suspect most Alt Right, disagree with his definition of posterity.

The first Naturalization Act of the United States makes it clear that they envisioned other Europeans and European descended people becoming citizens of the U.S. and their descendants becoming part of the "Posterity"
of which they spoke.

Vox's opinion on this issue is irrelevant and will have no bearing on the future of White American Nationalism.

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

Oh Corvy. You have to realize that Theodore Beale lives in Italy. He hasn't been here in over a decade. Irregardless of how smart this guy really is, he's using assumptions based on outdated facts. You really have to be here to FEEL the sense of gloom and doom most Whites have now.
Any dull facts and opinions really cannot get a real sense of the atmosphere as they say.
Also, he's done himself no good identifying as an American Indian. That crazy ex-professor that has blonde hair and blue eyes is a fucking joke to anyone not Deep Blue. His American Indian profile wins him no friends here on the other side of the pond. His strategery leaves much to be desired. He has a whole lot of comic book geeks following him now, but the Real Right has pretty much abandoned this guy. He actually banned me himself. He's using censorship and claiming that as an "Alpha Male" anyone who disagrees is a beta or gamma. I'm beginning to get the feeling he's a gheyboy like Milo. He just GUSHES about Prince.

who he shall not be named said...

re urban foreigners--this is why the civil war will be rural/suburban whites fighting against the elites and their foreign urbanite hordes...the whites rebels can win using guerrilla warfare attacking urban infrastructure, such as water, electric, sewer etc

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

No, the argument could be that the people who attempt to defend it have failed.

That is one of the Alt Right's strongest arguments--not just with the American constitution, but with Liberia's as well!

Wrt Vox Day, his argument is that recruitment is unnecessary. He regularly reiterates that he sees these things as inevitable. How does he envision the repatriation taking place? Probably most likely through political dissolution.

Feryl,

Thanks, well put. It's easier for millennials not to do things (we're fantastic at that!), but are we capable of putting anything together and executing it?

DissidentRight said...

Anon,

While I respect Vox, I, and I suspect most Alt Right, disagree with his definition of posterity.

The first Naturalization Act of the United States makes it clear that they envisioned other Europeans and European descended people becoming citizens of the U.S. and their descendants becoming part of the "Posterity"
of which they spoke.

Vox's opinion on this issue is irrelevant and will have no bearing on the future of White American Nationalism.


You have it backwards. The Constitution interprets Congress, not the other way around. Posterity means posterity. It doesn't mean "immigrants" any more than it means "slaves". Far from being irrelevant, this is absolutely integral to nationalist political theory. Future Constitutions needs to state it even more clearly and unambiguously. The sole purpose of a nation-state is to secure the liberty and the future of its nation. A nation state does not exist to secure the liberty or the future of immigrants, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or nationality. Period.

Indeed, the reason the United States failed is precisely because the Federal government's immigration and naturalization policy did NOT secure a future for WASPs, but permitted capitalists to import cheap European labor. Compare Yankee America between 1850 and 1950. Mass European immigration made the country unrecognizable. For example, without white immigrant cannon fodder, the Yankees could not have won Lincoln's War. Without white immigrant votes, the Democrats and (((Democrats))) would not have won the first battles for socialism (including the national bank). Without white immigrant votes, the Civil Rights Movement would have failed.

After the United States dissolves and the invaders and traitors are sent home, whatever new nation-states form will have to explicitly declare that they exist to secure the existence of their own peoples. Actual nationalism > white civic nationalism.

------

AE,

It's easier for millennials not to do things (we're fantastic at that!)

Heh, that's a critical hit.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"That is one of the Alt Right's strongest arguments--not just with the American constitution, but with Liberia's as well!"

And if the Alt Right was in charge, it would be a verifiable nightmare. No thanks, we'll pass.

"Wrt Vox Day, his argument is that recruitment is unnecessary."

It absolutely is necessary, and he is fouling it up big time. All one has to do is show those in Flyover Country that they are not "real Americans", and the foot soldiers necessary for the Second Civil War will become scant in numbers. Because wrong ancestors.

"He regularly reiterates that he sees these things as inevitable."

Which does not make it true.

"How does he envision the repatriation taking place? Probably most likely through political dissolution."

If it ever gets that far.

Dissident Right...

"You have it backwards. The Constitution interprets Congress, not the other way around."

You had one too many beers during the 4th. The Constitution CREATED the legislative branch, which in turn determines immigration criteria.

Posterity--the future generations of people. In the United States, that means many different groups of people who chart the next course for their nation.

"A nation state does not exist to secure the liberty or the future of immigrants, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or nationality. Period."

We get it already. You have an opinion on the matter.

"Indeed, the reason the United States failed is precisely because the Federal government's immigration and naturalization policy did NOT secure a future for WASPs..."

It secured a future for ALL Americans, WASP and non-WASP.

"After the United States dissolves and the invaders and traitors are sent home..."

You are absolutely dreaming.

Vox is way too enamored with his own rhetoric. Vox picks an “ought” and calls it an “is”, then becomes irate when people dare correct him using practicality, so he belabors the point with specious reasoning. He has two big IFS--the original Independence Declaration signers intended our nation to be inherited by their direct descendants, and our nation was to be exclusively defined by the designs of those signers. So VD insists he has the "right" definition down pat. Big f----- deal.

The fact of the matter is that non-English who came to our nation are now irrevocably meshed genetically and culturally with the "original" peoples who came here. They assimilated and put their own stamp with their impress to the point they are so far removed from the "old country", that the only logical name to give to these fine peoples are Americans.. It is Vox who demands this separation even though we are no longer separable.

Anonymous said...

The generation that adopted the Constitution also passed the first Naturalization Act.
The Constitution has to be interpreted.
Who better to interpret than the generation that ordained and ratified it?
Do you honestly believe we're going to deport the descendants of Germans,Dutch, Swedes and Italians that came after the U.S was established?
We're not even going to deport most who've come since 1965,or their descendants.
Dissolution with Ethnoracial Nationalist from all groups working together is the most peaceful and just ending we can achieve.
As well as the only practicable one we can expect.

DissidentRight said...

Anon,

Do you honestly believe we're going to deport the descendants of Germans,Dutch, Swedes and Italians that came after the U.S was established? 

Of course not, any more than the red Indians are going to deport anyone. There's been way too much white intermarriage. But that's beside the point. Are you serious about nationalist theory, or not? If you are, then any Constitution must clearly state that the State exists only to secure the future of its NATIVE population, and the State does not have a right to redefine that population. Naturalization policies would have to be based on intermarriage. Amendments like the 14th would be treasonous.

Why is this important? Because the US Constitution does explicitly states "posterity". And yet, thanks to the mistakes of history, the population that now inhabits the United States absolutely rejects that the US Constitution was written only for the posterity.

We're not even going to deport most who've come since 1965,or their descendants. 

You overestimate their position.

(1) There is no moral reason we should give up an inch of our country to any post-1965 population, least of all the spics. They all have homelands they can go back to.

(2) The Alien-American population is overwhelmingly concentrated in metropolitan areas, which has two implications: 1) under a dissolution, they would be left not with states, but with counties and fractions of counties—they would not have enough land to support themselves. So their position is inherently untenable. 2) They are highly vulnerable to 3rd and 4th gen warfare. Again, their position is inherently untenable.

(3) The non-spic, non-black Alien-American population has no particular ties to the soil. Most of them will run rather than fight. As far as the spics go:

(4) Their national IQ is 0.5 SD behind ours (worse for the blacks); they have no more chance of winning a real war than did the Iraqis.

(5) We have the guns, the vets, and the military infrastructure.

(6) Due to their dauntless hubris, longstanding national grievances, apparent demographic ascendancy, and virulent anti-white socialism, they are not going to back down. They will not attempt to compromise. They will not attempt to de-escalate.

They will bring the war to us, whether we like it or not. And our sons and grandsons will drive them out. If you're not convinced, you should spend more time reading the comments at Vox's blog.

Dissolution with Ethnoracial Nationalist from all groups working together is the most peaceful and just ending we can achieve. 

That won't be workable or peaceful, because the Alien-Americans desire a unique sort of Lebensraum: free access to white societies. Since we're going to have to fight them anyway, we might as well send them all home. Thankfully, I'm told Mexico is within driving distance for los refugiados who will have to escape us enojado gringos.

Corvie,

Gammas gonna gamma.

snorlax said...

DissidentRight -

While I agree that a second civil war is the only workable resolution that leaves us with an actual and proverbial fighting chance, and the sooner the better, you are overestimating our position.

First of all, some percentage (currently a large percentage) of whites can be expected to side with the invaders, narrowing any IQ advantage. A significantly larger percentage of Asians can as well, narrowing it further.

To that last point, one of the more likely endgames for Civil War II, and for hundreds of other civil wars in history, is that one side appeals to a foreign power (China) to intervene, and the foreigners do intervene but take power for themselves.

Feryl said...

"First of all, some percentage (currently a large percentage) of whites can be expected to side with the invaders, narrowing any IQ advantage. A significantly larger percentage of Asians can as well, narrowing it further."

Every civilization (or just, uh, a tribe) can be brought down by a combination of poor logistics and/or hubris.

To compare and contrast, in the early 20th century we responded to immigrant violence and political radicalization with a large segment of nativist elites printing anti-immigrant screeds in mainstream news and gradually building a social and political case to halt immigration.

Nowadays, the media is blatantly in the pocket of immigrants (upon whom many crooked elites rely). The media blatantly resorts to greater and greater levels of lying and manipulation in the face of mounting evidence that we've drunkenly binged on mass immigration.

There's really only three ways out:

1) An economic collapse sobers people up
2) Ethnic champions and/or socialists began to stir up violent animosity towards economic and cultural elites, thus giving the elites a wake up call.
3) Nativist champions and/or mobs stir up more hostility towards elites. Hate to say it, but it might take several acts of considerable aggression to wake them up.

Now the unsettling thing is that today's elder generations are mostly too young to understand and/or care about the sentiment and problems of the 1920's and 30's. They probably have thought about the Great Depression, and maybe the rise of totalitarian fascism and communism. But since most Silents, and all Boomers, have largely lived a life of freedom and good fortune (all things considered), they can't appreciate the background that leads younger generations to loath excessive individualism. Over the last several years comparisons to the 60's are somewhat common (of course), but that's pretty clueless because that was a period of fighting for greater freedom which was preceded by social and economic calm. Whereas these days, like in the 20's/30's, we've arrived at a certain mood which has been preceded by a good 40 years of moral and political unravelling (instigated by Missionairies from about 1880-1920, and for the current period it was instigated by Boomers from 1970-2010).

The collectivist surges of the 20's and 30's were made possible by teen and young adults GIs. who were mobilized into action by Missionary leaders who wanted to clean up the trash, while the Lost Generation proved to be effectively unsentimental at carrying out tasks while allowing arrogant Missionaries and confident GIs to take almost all the credit. If this were to happen again, we'd need Boomers to finally (finally!) produce a class of worthy leaders and priests to help guide us to the promised land. Is that in the cards? Mark Hamill recently said that his character of Luke Skywalker was portrayed as a mess in the last Star Wars movie because he thinks that his generation (Boomers) have let us down, and younger people don't have the confidence to make the world better like young Boomers once did. Neil Howe says that these prophet generations wander in the mental and/or physical wilderness for decades, and then they can during a moment of crisis provide a vision of clarity and conviction to point us in the right direction.

216 said...

A second civil war could easily see the use of nuclear weapons on US soil, and might spread into a Third World War. Nationalist currents would be running in the other Anglo Five, Europe and possibly in LatAm on racial lines. I expect Russia and China to mediate the partition of this country into at least 3 successor states. The EU won't be around or will be a Russian puppet. It is possible that Putin's successor might be more nationalistic, doing away with the Muslim pandering that has been endemic under his rule.

The immediate reaction to large inter-ethnic violence in Middle America would be a refugee exchange similar to that of the 1948 war that resulted in the formation of Israel. Illegals are for starters only here for economic reasons, if those reasons dry up they will return. Any violence would be preceded by years of legislative harassment from red state governments. A good reason to get involved in your local GOP, as raising the popularity of E-Verify is the first step.

Many of the unassimilated post-1965 invaders won't require much more than a "nudge" to go back to a homeland somewhat more prosperous circa 2030, versus staying in eeevil racist America. Denmark might be setting down this path with their "double punishment assimilation" policy, which I cannot see ever surviving a lawsuit in the ECHR. Lots of "Danes" will start settling in the more cucked Euro countries soon.

DissidentRight said...

snorlax,

 is that one side appeals to a foreign power (China) to intervene

Thanks to Trump, any military intervention by a foreign power is at best highly implausible. Why? Because Trump has ensured that the essential elements of the US Armed Forces and in particular the nuclear arsenal, will remain loyal. Yes, military readiness will continue to decline, and yes, the ability of the US Empire to project power overseas will also decline, and yes, China will continue to grow in military power, but that won't give China the ability to invade or desire to invade the US. China will expand their empire elsewhere; there's plenty of low-hanging fruit in the Third World. Even if the nuclear equation somehow changes in the mid-future, China doesn't stand to gain anything in a war on US soil.

How has Trump ensured this? Through his war on the Deep State, which will continue to fracture the elite power base. Don't forget, it is more than likely that another white male Republican will win in 2024, since the SJWs and spic nationalists are going to continue to piss off the moderate white vote. (See below.)

In any case, historical precedents concerning civil wars don't apply then you're talking about The Empire. There was no foreign power to intervene for either Caesar or Pompey.

First of all, some percentage (currently a large percentage) of whites can be expected to side with the invaders

That's an oversimplification. First of all, only the most rabid SJWs and most soy-cucked faglets will be seriously willing to fight on the "side" of the invaders. But given the nature of 4th Gen war, they won't really have the physical capability to do so, in large part because the invaders won't actually trust them. You can expect to hear more than a few stories about braindead-SJWs ending up in the proverbial cannibal's pot because they thought they'd "join up" Iwith the other side.

Obviously the greater part of the (white) population will just be trying to keep their heads down, and there will be factionalism amongst white combatants, in particular the "Americans & Whites" Nationalists vs. the Civic "Service Equals Citizenship" Nationalists. Everyone will agree that serious allegiance is necessary, the only question will be 'who is permitted to apply'. But at the end of the day, the various instances of these groups (probably) won't be fighting each other (very much) since they will have roughly the same goal (restore some semblance of American Constitutional Order), although the more cucked CivNats elements probably won't be interested in repatriating "unaligned" alien civilians.

In any case there won't end up being that many Fake Americans signing up for service with the CivNats. There will be some. In some regions, a lot. But on the whole not that many. This is because, in the case of the blacks and the spics, they will prefer to stick with their own kind, since they will be fundamentally opposed to American Government due to their historical grievances. The others will find it much easier to just go home and leave the Americans to their stupid little war.

narrowing any IQ advantage.

What they'll add in IQ they'll take away in testosterone.

A significantly larger percentage of Asians can as well, narrowing it further.

Asians won't side with muds, not in large numbers anyway. The culture gap is way too large. That's something else to keep in mind: the Invaders won't be able to present a unified front, even though they will whine and wail about how everyone should be united against whites. I tend to think most Asians will end up going home or siding with the white CivNats. In the case of Asian ghettos, I'm sure they'll just form their own independent self-defense forces.

(1/2)

DissidentRight said...

(2/2)

While I agree that a second civil war is the only workable resolution that leaves us with an actual and proverbial fighting chance

This war is going to be a lot more like the Thirty Years War than Lincoln's War, if you take "the United States" to correspond to "all of Europe". Thanks to favorable demographics, some regions may be relatively untouched by war for a long time, only to finally swoop in like the Swedes, or the Rohirrim. The point is, it will take a long time to drive them out. The other point is, war is literally inevitable thanks to Trump.

The only way war was in doubt was if the Deep State could 1) remain supreme and 2) keep the economy solvent until their demographics could beat our demographics. But the Deep State can longer prevent the rise of American Nationalism through normal political channels.

you are overestimating our position.

I think my estimate is pretty conservative. You have to try to imagine how radically different this country is going to look even by 2024. Remember, the Diversity Coalition still thinks it can win by doubling down! Just look at Alexandria Orlando-Cortex or whatever her name is. The Invaders are only beginning to poach Blue seats that are historically white or historically (((white))). Second, don't forget that the hammer has yet to drop on the Deep State. If a tenth of this stuff (especially the pedo stuff) gets official confirmation, that will do more to redpill normies than anything any of us have ever done. By the time we start to hear tales of paramilitary ops, the country will be far more polarized along national lines than it currently is.

And that comes to my final point: the generation war. If the action kicks off sooner rather than later, you'll see older Millenials, Gen Xers, and younger Boomers tilting the field heavily towards militarized CivNat, which implies that we might very well see some kind of regional peace that tolerates Invader-American colonies (e.g., in the Southwest).

But here's the thing. Younger Millenials, Zyklons and Alphas won't give a crap about Boomer cuckery, because this is our land. Boomers lack the authority to sell off our birthright, and we have an inherent right to reclaim it in any case.

Compare to Charles Martel and the Reconquista. The Spaniards recovered their land even though it took 700 years. Similarly, look at how the Thirty Years War started. First, the German Lutherans won the Peace of Augsburg, which preserved their religious freedom within the HRE. Fast forward about 2 generations and you get a Holy Roman Emperor who thinks it is his duty to destroy Protestantism: in other words, HRE Ferdinand II did not give a crap about HRE Charles V's cuckery.

Of course, the HRE lost the war…so that's sort of a bad example, although the HRE was also white on white. But the point stands. There is not going to be "one civil war to end all civil wars". It's going to be a whole bunch of much smaller civil wars, punctuated by various attempts by the Feds to keep the peace, right up until the Feds become insolvent, at which point there will be a bunch of larger civil wars…punctuated by various attempts at peace.

That's the 'best' case for the Invaders, anyway. But they still lose, because we have a right to this land. 'Worst' case scenario…there is one big civil war. Which they promptly lose.

Feryl said...

To put things in perspective, the horrors of collectivism can be recited readily by today's living generations. You can read vast wikipedia articles about the failures of economic, cultural, and political policy from the period spanning roughly 1920-1970. Certainly the most spectacular failures have been subjects of great interest and investigation; the worst outcome of nuclear research (dropping atom bombs) that was championed most by GIs; Dr. Mengele and every Nazi atrocity and aspect of their ideology; Chairman Mao's disastrous "reforms" leading to mass starvation; Stalin's secret police, strict regulation of behavior, and gulags.

Alas, the ample evidence of the failures of individualism from 1970-present (such as massive levels of drug use, suicide, mass murder, the obesity epidemic, the general sense of communal and ethical spirit being under attack,riches for elites and squalor for many others) can be proven via uh, anodyne statistics, as well as anecdotal experience, yet Boomers and many Gen X-ers either yawn, or sigh, or misjudge these things..

Evidently it's superior to grant people almost unlimited freedom, even when it leads to many people "choosing" to ruin their lives or fall behind in the rat race, than it is to ask that people follow a strict set of orders of conduct and purpose. One has to consider the effect of being told for 40, 50, 60, 70 years that simply "following orders" led to horrific stuff in the past with responsibility for such being spread across thousands and thousands of people (whereas Boomers are a-ok with all kinds of sleazy crap as long as it's done under the aegis of private citzens, who are held in Darwinian terms to be responsible for everything that happens to them).

DissidentRight said...

216,

A second civil war could easily see the use of nuclear weapons on US soil

Under the Deep State? Yes. Post-Trump? I think not.

I expect Russia and China to mediate the partition of this country into at least 3 successor states.

Russia will never (at least for the mid-future) have the capability to project conventional power into the continental US. China may, or may not—presuming they can beat our submarine fleet. But it's totally moot because you can't project power into a country that has nukes. Which we do. And thanks to Trump those nukes will stay loyal.

Neither China nor Russia will be mediating anything in the former United States. They will be busy expanding their power elsewhere, picking off the low-hanging fruit.

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

I don't know why all of you expect to have to give a ride home to these invaders. War is far more cruel than policy you will find. Those that can run will. Those that stay can be trapped where they are. Most of these idiots rely on the failed state for their very sustenance. Look at the electoral map. The blue areas are SMALL and can be CUT OFF. Once cut off, the food cannot be delivered. Did you know that these places have ONLY 3 DAYS OF FOOD? Turn off the electricity and these places will EXPLODE. Remember the New York City Blackout?
The Top will RUN to the Airport. The State will hunker down in bunkers. The Key to Victory in War is not tactics or strategy.

ITS LOGISTICS.

Anonymous said...

@DissidentRight
"Of course not, any more than the red Indians are going to deport anyone. There's been way too much white intermarriage. But that's beside the point."

It's not beside the point
if I understand Vox correctly.
He seems to believe the direct descendants of those people who were living in the U.S. as citizens at the time of the Revolution and adoption of the Constitution ,are the ONLY "posterity" of which the Constitution speaks.
They ,and they alone are the American Nation.
While a strict reading of the Constitution could justify such an interpretation it's clear that the founding generation didn't expect or desire immigration from Europe to
end.
The Naturalization Act of 1790,said, " That any alien,being a free white person ,who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, ..."
So the founding generation didn't accept what I understand as Vox's definition of "posterity" .

I accept Crevecoeur's
definition of Americans,
" What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. "


" If you are, then any Constitution must clearly state that the State exists only to secure the future of its NATIVE population, and the State does not have a right to redefine that population. "

I agree that any Constitution of the Ethnostate must make the preservation,protection, and prosperity, of a distinctive Euro- American people the State's sole raison d'etre.

" Why is this important? Because the US Constitution does explicitly states "posterity". And yet, thanks to the mistakes of history, the population that now inhabits the United States absolutely rejects that the US Constitution was written only for the posterity."

I agree with this, assuming you give the term "posterity" the same meaning I do, i.e. White/European-Americans.

I said, "We're not even going to deport most who've come since 1965,or their descendants. "

To which you replied,
"You overestimate their position."

I think you overestimate ours.

Once we're less than half the population deportations are going to become almost an impossibility.
At that point not only are there just too many ,but they'll dominate the government and many of the institutions of the State,with White Civ- Nats and Leftist dominating the rest.
The assumption we'll still control the military is a dangerous one.
I think most of the military brass is likely to remain loyal to whomever controls the government.
Many White NCO's and enlisted men will support us, but a far smaller percentage of Officers

Secession of those areas we control might be feasible, because they'll balk at the prospect of trying to conquer us.
At this point negotiations become possible,since neither side would see defeating the other as likely and thus partition would come anyway.
So why fight?

In terms of White unity and the will to secede,we're still at least a generation away from this,maybe two.
It's possible that a Hispanic dominated State or region might secede before then.
If that happens it will be the Civic Nationalist that lead an attempted Reconquista.
If Blacks follow the Hispanic example, in the southeast , then White Nationalism will be seen as the logical and ethical position by the majority of Whites.
The Civ- Nats and extreme Left will be neutered.
But don't hold your breath waiting on non-whites to secede ,they need us and they know it,but
I'm betting they won't fight to hold us.

We can win,but we have to be realistic about it.
A lesser (as in not claiming all the U.S.)White American Nationalism has the best chance of being successful.


Corvinus said...

Anony 9:35...

"They ,and they alone are the American Nation."

In the end, it is a moot point, an academic exercise in futility. Vox has gone full sperge, with several posts on this issue in a few days.

"I accept Crevecoeur's definition of Americans, "What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. "

Which was reflective of the time period. But, as I correctly noted, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress, by way of its citizens, to chart its own course when it comes to race and culture...and immigration criteria.

"I agree that any Constitution of the Ethnostate must make the preservation,protection, and prosperity, of a distinctive Euro- American people the State's sole raison d'etre."

Not if a significant part of the population vehemently opposes. And everything hinges upon the Alt Right assuming it will ultimately prevail in this impending Civil War.

'I think you overestimate ours."

No.

"Many White NCO's and enlisted men will support us..."

May or could.

"In terms of White unity and the will to secede,we're still at least a generation away from this,maybe two."

Or several generations away.

"It's possible that a Hispanic dominated State or region might secede before then."

Perhaps, buy probably not.

"We can win,but we have to be realistic about it."

The longer you wait, your already slim chances fade to essentially a hope and a prayer.

Dissident Right...

"This war is going to be a lot more like the Thirty Years War than Lincoln's War..."

It was the Civil War, not Lincoln's War. And I doubt there be anything remotely like the 30 Years War on American soil.

"But they still lose, because we have a right to this land. 'Worst' case scenario…there is one big civil war. Which they promptly lose."

Now that is the essence of being a Gamma, folks. But, I get it, it makes yourself feel good believing in a lie.

DissidentRight said...

Anon,

In the new Constitution (or, more likely, several new Constitutions), "posterity" will be redefined to include Americanized whites who were "not-posterity" under the old Constitution.

It's not beside the point 
if I understand Vox correctly.


It's beside the point for PRACTICAL reasons: namely, the true Posterity are already a minority and are too mixed-up with European imports. Most of the Posterity wouldn't even go along with an attempt to enforce their Constitutional rights on Not-Posterity whites—to say nothing of the Not-Posterity whites themselves.

Nevertheless, it is legally indisputable that no white IMMIGRANT to the United States (i.e., any immigrant who came in after the Constitution was ratified) counts as Posterity. This does not imply that everyone who was already in the country does count as Posterity. But obviously no one who came later counts.

Again, when the new Constitutions are written, "posterity" will obviously NOT be limited to those who are posterity under the original definition. The definition will be changed to reflect the fact that the people have changed. And, in recognition of the fact that the original Constitution failed catastrophically in securing a future for the original posterity, the new Constitution will deny the State any general power over immigration and citizenship. Critical limitations include:

1) The alien population consists of those persons who have less than 50% native ancestry.* Ancestry should be determined by family trees (which are unambiguous), not by genetic tests.
2) No immigration will be permitted if the alien population exceeds say, 1% of the total population.
3) Aliens may be granted limited citizenship, revokable in case of criminal behavior, but no alien will be permitted to vote, serve on a jury, serve in public office, or own land.
4) Alien citizenship is not passed on to children. Alien children must apply for citizenship as if they were 1st generation immigrations. Persons with 50% or more native ancestry are full citizens by birth.

*If a full-blood native marries a full-blood alien, the children count as native. This policy is necessary because otherwise no native will ever marry a foreigner, since their children would not be counted as natives—in which case you would have to ban all immigration, which is unreasonable. However, if a child with 1 native and 1 alien parent marries an alien, then their children would revert back to being aliens. Alien inbreeding must be discouraged since it does not serve the interests of the native population.

I accept Crevecoeur's definition of Americans, 

Have you learned nothing from the American Experiment? White civic nationalism is 100% bullshit and it doesn't work. Magic dirt does not turn populations of krauts, wops, or micks into WASPs any more than it turns populations of kikes, niggers, spics, or chinks into WASPs. That's why America is socialist. That's why the Civil Rights Movement was successful.

You can't assimilate populations. Period. You also can't assimilate individuals. Period. The most that can ever happen is an individual foreigner marries a native, producing children who are half native. Then those children go on to marry natives, so the grandchildren are 75% native, and so on.

The only advantage whites have in this game is that our alien phenotypes wash out more quickly in a white population. But all alien phenotypes wash out sooner or later.

I agree that any Constitution of the Ethnostate must make the preservation,protection, and prosperity, of a distinctive Euro- American people the State's sole raison d'etre.


What does "a distinctive Euro-American people" mean? Surely you refer to the white-American population(s) that already exist. Those are the specific populations ordaining and establishing their Constitution (or respective Constitutions). I presume the American South will have its own Constitution independent of everyone else.

(1/2)

DissidentRight said...

(2/2)

Once we're less than half the population deportations are going to become almost an impossibility. 

First, you're flat out wrong, for reasons I already explained. Second, we're not going to become less than half the population anyway. You can thank Trump for that.

but they'll dominate the government and many of the institutions of the State,with White Civ- Nats and Leftist dominating the rest. 

Wrong. The fighting CivNats believe in the Constitution. The Invaders don't. That's why the CivNats will, however grudgingly, side with us. (The ones who are serious about fighting, anyway.)

The assumption we'll still control the military is a dangerous one. 
I think most of the military brass is likely to remain loyal to whomever controls the government. 
Many White NCO's and enlisted men will support us, but a far smaller percentage of Officers 


All the white combatants will either side with us outright, or they'll side with us because they're CivNats and the spic socialists reject the Constitution.

So why fight? 

It's our land.

Secession of those areas we control might be feasible, because they'll balk at the prospect of trying to conquer us. 

This is fag talk. I'm descended from German and Slavic warriors. Didn't you read the post about logistics? Logistics means that low IQ populations cannot beat high IQ ones in a 'real' war. Period. A real war, in this case, entails a war over the high IQ population's ancestral lands.

In terms of White unity and the will to secede,we're still at least a generation away from this,maybe two. 

We're about one generation away from the will to dissolve the United States. Two generations from the will to reconquer all lost territory.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,

You're whole counter argument can be summarized as, "Maybe, Maybe not. "
We already know this.
Nothing is determined.

It's amusing to me that you need to spend so much time trolling us.
It suggest you're not as confident as you pretend.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

The most plausible approach is to leverage high time preference against the invaders. Pay them handsomely to leave. It has to be done in tandem with real interior and border enforcement, of course.

Wrt the civil war of Caesar and Pompey and then of Augustus and Antony, there is definitely a strong element of the natives vs the invaders ("New Romans") in each of them.

Feryl,

To compare and contrast, in the early 20th century we responded to immigrant violence and political radicalization with a large segment of nativist elites printing anti-immigrant screeds in mainstream news and gradually building a social and political case to halt immigration.

Have you explained this to Agnostic yet?!?

Anon,

Once we're less than half the population deportations are going to become almost an impossibility.

At some point before the dissolution, there will be a governor or coalition of governors who will begin enforcing immigration law in their own states rather than deferring to the dereliction of the federal government. The media will call it a "constitutional crisis", but we'll now it's the beginning of something much larger.

Who will that governor be? Ask me to handicap someone with greater odds than Kris Kobach and I'm not sure I'd be able to.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

You're making VD more accessible than VD tends to. Thanks, genuinely. I'm going to reread your comments in this thread again later.

Feryl said...

"I think my estimate is pretty conservative. You have to try to imagine how radically different this country is going to look even by 2024. Remember, the Diversity Coalition still thinks it can win by doubling down! Just look at Alexandria Orlando-Cortex or whatever her name is. The Invaders are only beginning to poach Blue seats that are historically white or historically (((white))). Second, don't forget that the hammer has yet to drop on the Deep State. If a tenth of this stuff (especially the pedo stuff) gets official confirmation, that will do more to redpill normies than anything any of us have ever done. By the time we start to hear tales of paramilitary ops, the country will be far more polarized along national lines than it currently is."

Thus far most normie/SWPL liberals think they have a good grasp of their underclass voters. So they continue to play out the good whites V bad whites battle. But how will they react to noisy demands for a radical re-orientation of the Democrats by ethnic and underclass champions? We're beginning to see these shifts, as Millennials and non-whites see middle aged and elderly politicians, esp. the white ones, as proponents of a dated and dying ideology (basically, economic conservatives with the exceptions of moderate set asides for minorities, and emphasizing cultural issues to divert attention away from class issues and FIRE corruption). Whether the voters were aware of it or not, they saw Joe Crowley as a neo-liberal swamp dweller who did little to further the material interests of hard-up under 40 voters, and in addition older voters at this point are beginning to tire of a failed system, though they don't feel as urgent a need to radically change things as younger voters, since older people got off easier.

For the muh free market zealots, and the ID Right which balks at goodies for non-whites, keep in mind that when Millennials have been given little opportunity for good jobs, affordable housing, affordable education, financial independence etc., it's insanity to expect the ideology of mergers and acquisitions, cut throat competition, regressive taxes, union busting, etc. to have immediate and lasting appeal for younger generations who didn't build that ideology but rather were unwilling inheritors of it.

You can explain away Joe Crowley's loss on ID grounds, but what if he'd gone down the road of full throated soak the rich, lock up the (economic) crooks, criminalize abusive loans, etc., don't you suppose he would've done better? Crowley stupidly played the I'm a poor white guy card, which probably alienated voters (here's this fat cat incumbent who decides to play the victim instead of putting compassion where it belongs).

The debt jubilee (whatever ethical or logistical qualms you have about it) is a no-brainer populist measure that will get just about anyone elected in a race with a sufficient numbers of young voters. Morally speaking, these loans were horribly abusive and had no business being legally permissible in the first place. In the Reaganite and Clintonite mindset, the responsibility is always on the consumer to read the fine print and accept the consequences of dubious financial arrangements. This kind of sociopathy was unacceptable from the Hoover era thru the Nixon era, and it's about time we junk the legal and ethical paradigm of Carter-Obama.

Ja D said...

Great work.

snorlax said...

what if he'd gone down the road of full throated soak the rich, lock up the (economic) crooks, criminalize abusive loans, etc., don't you suppose he would've done better?

No.

Feryl said...

Feryl,

"To compare and contrast, in the early 20th century we responded to immigrant violence and political radicalization with a large segment of nativist elites printing anti-immigrant screeds in mainstream news and gradually building a social and political case to halt immigration.

Have you explained this to Agnostic yet?!?"

Not really, because:

1) I assume he knows but doesn't want to come clean or just doesn't care that much about some of the details of 1920's populism, for whatever reason

2) He's alluded to this sort of general theme before, esp. WRT generations (e.g. by calling out the Boomers for their corruption, you can read between the lines that they have not and may never produce a Lincoln or FDR who keeps America together during a rough patch). The greed and treasonous alliances with foreigners that we see among modern elites are but another sign of how debased the US became under Silents and Boomers.

3) He himself suffers from, or at least begrudgingly accepts, lingering post-WW2 dread over the possibility of a fascist maniac coming to power and throwing a large chunk of the world into chaos. The default response towards many questions for the last 50-70 years has been that which is least likely to be interpreted as support for Nazi ideology. Throw the baby out with the bath water. Nazis and Stalinists sometimes had the right idea, but their execution was off. The whole Western world throughout the 1920's and 30's fed off each other's growing xenophobia and nativism. We should be so fortunate as to grasp that the mere possesion of nativist beliefs is not prima facie evidence of Nazism, since after all America/Canada/England/Scandinavia never succumbed to the horrors of fascism. Yet here we are after decades of stigma towards early 20th century populism, when nobody in polite company is supposed to express unflattering truths about immigrants because that's the first step to reviving Nazism.

How are we supposed to deprogram people from 50+ years of fear (or terror) of being called a Nazi? Many people (least of all liberals) don't understand just how aberrant from standard tribal practices the last 50 years have been. Since we saved the world from a fascist jerkoff, that somehow became fuel for an epidemic of declining tribal solidarity and communal defense? News flash: we fought Hitler and Japan because they lost their minds and were actively threatening much of the world, not because we disagreed in principle with the cultural practices and racial theories of Germany and Japan at that time (in fact, America was much ideologically closer to fascism than it was to communism in the 1920's and 30's, communism being considered weird godless crap from the East).

But of course leave it to Boomers to revise the history of it all; and under their watch we saw moralistic and idealistic justifications for war ("nation building", "spreading democracy"), instead of just flat out stating America's (presumed) strategic interests, as previous generations were more likely to do.

Feryl said...

Snorlax

The 2016 election let me learn a lot about how fucked up the primaries are. The Dems put their thumbs on the scales constantly. I recall that in NYC in particular their was a lot of to-do about many people having a hard time verifying their ID and getting to vote, or being confused as to when and where to vote, etc. Their was a massive wave of election oddities, irregularities, idiosyncratic practices by region, etc. that were all pretty well covered in 2016 because everyone was so interested in the 2016 election process. It's time consuming to go back and find specific examples beyond what's generally known already (such as DWS resigning as Dem chairman, the lawsuit filed by Bernie Supporters against the DNC, and so forth).

I also remember the goofy Jill Stein lawsuit which had the effect of revealing how crooked or stupid the poll workers in urban MI are. Many of these precincts were reporting vote totals which didn't reconcile with the paper ballot records. The machines weren't functioning right or people weren't correctly using them (allegedly), and workers encouraged voters to send the same ballot thru several times; but the workers weren't verifying and correcting the machine's vote tally after it was clear that the same ballot was counted several times. Some big districts by law were not eligible for the recount because the poll workers were not reconciling the machine tally with the paper ballot tally (under MI law, reported votes must reconcile with the paper ballots).

The entire Eastern Seaboard is swampy and full of Clintonites, and I don't trust the primary results of such states as Virginia, D.C., Maryland (these three being the heart of the Swamp), and New York for fuck's sake (you don't suppose Wall Street's favorite whore called in some favors?). I think the "shock" of the Sanders' MI win (where incidentally there's not many elites around for the swamp to rely on) activated further attempts by the Clintonites to job Sanders. Though I am aware that legions of old black women are heavily responsible for Clinton's win.

If we keep seeing Joe Crowleys get BTFO by radicals, what do you suppose the Dems do?

On the GOP side, there was some hinky stuff pulled by the Cruz campaign (such as passing out misleading mailers in Iowa), but I don't think there was much evidence of vote rigging. By all indications the RNC was doing much less BS than the DNC, probably because there was so damn many GOP candidates that the party was schizo about who to support and how to do it.

Feryl said...

Also, a lot of younger voters in 2016 still didn't have their shit together enough to vote in a primary. Depending on the state, primary voting can be a major chores (some states require party membership in a given party in order to vote in that party's primary, some states require party membership but also allow cross over voting, while some states only require being a registered voter; moreover if I'm not mistaken the rules can be different for each party in the same state). End result? Primaries are heavily weighted towards older, established, and partisan voters. Not exactly gonna help the candidate of younger voters. Minnesota and Iowa use the dreaded "caucus" system, that requires people to spend up to several hours milling around a gym, a conference center, a basement, etc. This system in particular is notorious for alienating casual voters.

Moral of the story: America's elections stink, and the primaries are the worst due to the lack of uniform and common sense standards. We shouldn't have each state deciding how to adjudicate something as important as the presidential primaries.

Anonymous said...

@ DissidentRight,

" It's beside the point for PRACTICAL reasons: namely, the true Posterity are already a minority and are too mixed-up with European imports. Most of the Posterity wouldn't even go along with an attempt to enforce their Constitutional rights on Not-Posterity whites—to say nothing of the Not-Posterity whites themselves."

" Nevertheless, it is legally indisputable that no white IMMIGRANT to the United States (i.e., any immigrant who came in after the Constitution was ratified) counts as Posterity. This does not imply that everyone who was already in the country does count as Posterity. But obviously no one who came later counts."

You are being too literal in your interpretation of the language in the Constitution.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed by the same generation that had ordained and ratified the Constitution.
Do you believe you know what they meant better than they did?
It's clear, that to them "posterity" meant not only their descendants, but any "free white person" who became a citizen, as well as that persons descendants.
Otherwise they would have stopped immigration.
They didn't envision white immigrants being designated non-citizens in perpetuity.
They didn't intend for those immigrants or their descendants to be denied the "blessings of liberty" the Constitution was adopted to ensure.
They had no intention of dividing the White American population.

" Again, when the new Constitutions are written, "posterity" will obviously NOT be limited to those who are posterity under the original definition. The definition will be changed to reflect the fact that the people have changed."

The Constitution of the Ethnostate state should limit citizenship to people who are descended from one or more of the ethnic groups native to Europe.
Basically what this means is if you look White and society accepts you as White then your White.
As I've said before
studies have shown a very high correspondence of
Self Identified Race/ Ethnicity and assignment to that same racial group on the basis of DNA analysis.

" 1) The alien population consists of those persons who have less than 50% native ancestry.* Ancestry should be determined by family trees (which are unambiguous), not by genetic tests.
2) No immigration will be permitted if the alien population exceeds say, 1% of the total population.
3) Aliens may be granted limited citizenship, revokable in case of criminal behavior, but no alien will be permitted to vote, serve on a jury, serve in public office, or own land.
4) Alien citizenship is not passed on to children. Alien children must apply for citizenship as if they were 1st generation immigrations. Persons with 50% or more native ancestry are full citizens by birth.

*If a full-blood native marries a full-blood alien, the children count as native. This policy is necessary because otherwise no native will ever marry a foreigner, since their children would not be counted as natives—in which case you would have to ban all immigration, which is unreasonable. However, if a child with 1 native and 1 alien parent marries an alien, then their children would revert back to being aliens. Alien inbreeding must be discouraged since it does not serve the interests of the native population."

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself here Chief.
Let's get the Ethnostate first.

I will add.
Citizenship for Whites only.
Immigration for Whites only.
No interracial marriage.
Interracial offspring are not citizens and must leave at 18.
Otherwise it's a slow boat to Brazil.




Anonymous said...

@ DissidentRight,
" Have you learned nothing from the American Experiment? White civic nationalism is 100% bullshit and it doesn't work. Magic dirt does not turn populations of krauts, wops, or micks into WASPs any more than it turns populations of kikes, niggers, spics, or chinks into WASPs. That's why America is socialist. That's why the Civil Rights Movement was successful."

I think your seeing a causal chain where there isn't one. The notion that because White immigrants were allowed to become citizens and part of the "Posterity" , lead us to the civil rights movement
movement is ludicrous.

WASP in New England were behind abolition, and the civil rights movement.

As far as your contention that
"Magic dirt does not turn populations of krauts, wops, or micks into WASPs..."
you're right. It turns them into White Americans, which WASP are also.
By the way, the founding fathers never heard of WASP, and they had no problem believing White immigrants could assimilate.


You seem to have no problem believing that the English, Scots, Welsh, Scotch- Irish, Dutch,Germans and Swedes which were in the colonies before the Revolution ,could blend into a new group,with a new identity.
Well it's the same process that made post- Revolutionary immigrants, Germans, Italians, Irish and other Europeans, into White Americans as well.
It's called Ethnogenesis.
It's nothing new.
It's as old as humanity.

" You can't assimilate populations. Period. You also can't assimilate individuals. Period. The most that can ever happen is an individual foreigner marries a native, producing children who are half native. Then those children go on to marry natives, so the grandchildren are 75% native, and so on."

The groups you derisively call krauts, wops and micks aren't fixed and immutable.
They're the products of Ethnogenesis.
As are the others you insult.
Ethnogenesis occurs in two ways.
Fission and Fusion.
In Fission one group becomes two or more groups.
While in Fusion two or more groups become one group.
White Americans are the result of the fusion of the English, Germans,Dutch, Swedes, Slavs,Irish,French and other Europeans.
The English are the result of the fusion of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes,Normans, and Celtic tribes.
While the Angles ,Saxons etc. are the result of fusions of tribes whose names are lost to history.
See how it works?
It's not difficult.
So yes Germans,Italians, Irish and other Europeans can and did become White Americans.

Anonymous said...

@ DissidentRight
"The only advantage whites have in this game is that our alien phenotypes wash out more quickly in a white population. But all alien phenotypes wash out sooner or later."

Can you distinguish a Celt, German, and Slav from each other more than 50% of the time?
Probably not.
How about an Asian, African, and European from one another 100% of the time?
Absolutely.
So you see White Phenotypes aren't that "alien" ,because of recently shared ancestors.
We're kin. An extended family.

" What does "a distinctive Euro-American people" mean? Surely you refer to the white-American population(s) that already exist."

Yes, I want to preserve White Americans. An ethnic group which is culturally distinctive from
Whites in Europe and racially distinctive from non- whites in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

@ DissidentRight

" you're flat out wrong, for reasons I already explained. Second, we're not going to become less than half the population anyway. You can thank Trump for that."

You're wrong. Unless he builds the wall AND begins mass deportations we're destined for minority status.


"Wrong. The fighting CivNats believe in the Constitution. The Invaders don't. That's why the CivNats will, however grudgingly, side with us. (The ones who are serious about fighting, anyway.)"

The Civic Nationalist have a different understanding of the Constitution than either of us.
The Civic Nationalist want assimilation and amalgamation.
For them the Union and the Constitution are ends in themselves, and not means as I ,and I think ,you see them.
They aren't going to deport in anywhere near the numbers we need.
Don't look to them for help.
Not their leaders.
Many of the rank and file will join us.

"All the white combatants will either side with us outright, or they'll side with us because they're CivNats and the spic socialists reject the Constitution."

And the non- white combatants?

Also you should know,
many Civic Nationalist have no problem with Socialism.

" This is fag talk. I'm descended from German and Slavic warriors. Didn't you read the post about logistics? Logistics means that low IQ populations cannot beat high IQ ones in a 'real' war. Period. A real war, in this case, entails a war over the high IQ population's ancestral lands."

Overlooking your gratuitous insult, and the fact that just because your ancestors were great warriors doesn't mean you are, I'll cut to the chase.

Your basic point in the last paragraph is, "Real men stand and Fight no matter what! "
"We're smart, they're stupid! "
"They can't even spell logistics! "

That thinking might have its usefulness in an adolescent street gang.
But as for guiding
a Nation. Not so much.
The survival of the Nation (White Americans) is the top priority,not holding every square inch of land so we can thump our chest,grab our dicks and say, "See ,weez da reels min!"
We try to avoid setting into motion a chain of events that might do our people more harm than good.
Like an unnecessary war or a necessary war at the wrong time, when we're weak and they're strong.

I don't think that in late mid century or later when the shit hits the fan ,our relative strength will be what you believe it will be.

If Whites were united ,then no problem. We're not as united as the non- whites, and though we will be more united in time , we'll still have a higher percent of Civic Nationalist, and Kumbaya Leftist than will our POTENTIAL, not necessarily ACTUAL enemies.

So working with Nationalist among non whites.
Treating them as competent human beings, giving respect and demanding it in return, making concessions, drawing lines in the sand and laying out what we consider non negotiable, while listening to them.
This is the path we should try first.Fight only when necessary .
Then fight hard.
In time recognized leaders will emerge among Whites .
Those we trust to represent our interest,and whom non- whites will recognize as our leaders and whom they'll talk with.

DR your belief we can't possibly lose because of our higher IQ, is a fatal conceit.
I believe history shows we make some of the best soldiers in the world.
But we're not invincible.
Ask Custer.

This all assumes of course the Union becomes untenable to a majority of its citizens.
Only time will tell.

DissidentRight said...

AE,

The most plausible approach is to leverage high time preference against the invaders. Pay them handsomely to leave.

Indeed. And part of what will convince them to take the money and run is the realization that yes, we are deadly serious, and that their only other option is to go back empty-handed.

But if we don't believe we're deadly serious, they certainly won't. Obviously paid-repatriation is a much cheaper solution (financially as well as morally) than hot war. But both require the same level of public conviction, because it's war either way—just with different weapons.

You're making VD more accessible than VD tends to. Thanks, genuinely.

Much appreciated. His reasoning can definitely be arcane.

DissidentRight said...

Feryl,

Agreed.

You can explain away Joe Crowley's loss on ID grounds, but what if he'd gone down the road of full throated soak the rich, lock up the (economic) crooks, criminalize abusive loans, etc., don't you suppose he would've done better?

Possibly, but I think it's important to look at this from an institutional perspective. The individual white and Jewish cogs in the Democrat Machine can go script at their peril, but they can't actually leave the reservation. (See: Bernie.) Even if the Liberal-Progressive Institution wanted to change (even if individual cogs could see that change was necessary!) it wouldn't matter. When you're dealing with an institution this large, change is a process measured in decades, or even generations.

So the institutional cogs have no defense mechanism against the crap-world commie masses. In fact the same thing is happening in the Republican party with Trumpism—see AE's newer post. The GOPe isn't institutionally capable of changing gears to accommodate the changing views of white voters. Ergo, the cogs in the GOPe machine get replaced.

My point is, the old Democrat Machine and the old Republican Machine are relics that no longer have any relevance to this new era of identity politics. The Democrat Machine was built on an older (and now irrelevant) version identity politics. The Republican Machine never cared about identity to begin with. Some of the cogs in the old machines will find homes in the new one. But most won't.

The debt jubilee (whatever ethical or logistical qualms you have about it) is a no-brainer populist measure that will get just about anyone elected in a race with a sufficient numbers of young voters. Morally speaking, these loans were horribly abusive and had no business being legally permissible in the first place.

I don't have any qualms about a debt jubilee. The lying free-market ideologues (while I would agree with those ideologues on about 99% of the issues, I am not an ideologue) can't accept the fact that cheap labor and outsourcing (and the enormous wealth-transfers they have permitted) are fundamentally wrong. Most of these capitalists' wealth was acquired by cheating. Don't even talk about the banking industry, is about 99.99% based on cheating.

However, the people who have rightly grown suspicious of capitalism need to understand that capitalism works very, very differently when the money is centrally planned, especially when you add in a labor surplus on top of it. That puts all the power in the hands of wealth capitalists. But when you have a labor equilibrium, suddenly employers actually have to make serious sacrifices to retain their employees. And when you have real money instead of fake money, investors actually have to make good investments.

What I always say is that capitalism is currently "working as intended". Capitalism works with whatever rules you set for it. If your rules are "fiat money, big government, open borders, free trade" then capitalism will deliver you precisely the sort of shithole economy you want. If the rules are "hard money, small government, closed borders, autarky", then low and behold, capitalism will maximize real economic growth for both employers and employees while minimizing the wealth disparity. You just have to remember prevent employers from changing the rules (as they are naturally inclined to do) since fake money, big government, open borders and free trade all directly enrich them.

If we keep seeing Joe Crowleys get BTFO by radicals, what do you suppose the Dems do?

The Democrat Institution can't do anything except try to run muds who are more moderate. You have to keep in mind that there are powerful groups within the Dem Institution that want radical socialism…

DissidentRight said...

Anon,

You are being too literal in your interpretation of the language in the Constitution.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed by the same generation that had ordained and ratified the Constitution. 


No. The Naturalization Act of 1790 does not modify, reinterpret, or in any way alter the meaning of the Preamble. You have it exactly backwards. The Preamble inherently defines and limits the scope of all Federal activities.

It's clear, that to them "posterity" meant not only their descendants, but any "free white person" who became a citizen, as well as that persons descendants. 
Otherwise they would have stopped immigration.


Nope. They permitted the immigration of free white persons under the assumption that this immigration would serve the interests of Posterity. If they had known what the country would look like in 1865, or in 1940, or in 1965, they probably would have banned all immigration. They certainly would have at least amended the Constitution to strictly limit the size of the foreign population.

They didn't envision white immigrants being designated non-citizens in perpetuity. 

Citizen ≠ Posterity. Immigrants can become citizens, it doesn't make them Posterity. But the children of immigrants will be part Posterity if the immigrants intermarry with actual Posterity.

They had no intention of dividing the White American population. 

Correct, and they also had no intention of themselves or their Posterity being overwhelmed and outvoted by German Lutheran immigrants, Irish Catholic immigrants, or Italian Catholic immigrants, let alone by black slaves.

Magic Dirt doesn't work for white people. White civic nationalism is not nationalism. It is opposed to nationalism. That is why it doesn't work.

We can demonstrate that it doesn't work very easily: just look at the United States. The United States was ordained and established for the American Nation. Now, the Founding Fathers didn't have a perfect definition of that Nation, but they knew it when they saw it—the same way we can't perfectly define white people, but we know them when we see them.

As foreign white people immigrated en mass to the United States, they changed the demographics and the fundamental nature of society, government, and politics changed, just as when the blacks were treasonously declared citizens, they also changed the nature of society and government. The spics, Asians, Jews, Hindus, etc. are all doing the exact same thing.

The Founding Fathers did NOT envision a country in which Roman Catholic immigrants were playing identity politics against WASPs. They did NOT envision a country with income taxes, Social Security, unions, a compulsory draft, a military-industrial complex, entangling foreign wars, or a Federal government that completely ignored the Constitution. They did not envision civil rights for the entire black slave population. They certainly did NOT envision an immigration policy that would open the floodgates to the third world. All of this happened thanks to white immigration.

White civic nationalism irreversibly changed the country that was ordained and established in 1788. The 14th Amendment changed the country irreversibly. And the global civic nationalism of 1965 changed the country irreversibly.

Nationalism demands that you hand down to your posterity the same country that your fathers handed down to you. White civic nationalism is incompatible with that. When the United States breaks apart into new white countries, those countries will have a chance to embrace REAL nationalism. That means they will define their EXISTING white population as the "Nation" and treat all immigrants—particularly white immigrants from other American states—as aliens.

(1/2)

DissidentRight said...

(2/2)

Otherwise you'll just end up in exactly the same boat a few generations down the road. You'll lose your country to aliens. This is exactly what has happened in states like Colorado, which are suffering from the influx of white liberal refugees from California.

As the Christian Right begins to move towards hard right nationalism (we're years if not decades away from that, put it will come), this will become more clear. We have a much, much higher bar than simply "being a white American". We are going to restore Western Civilization, particularly its American incarnation. Within our own nations, we are not going to be particularly tolerant of whites who preach socialism and mixed-economies, or preach secularism and religious equality. We learned our lesson. Whites who are not on board will be free to move to the People's Democratic Utopia of Massachusetts or whatever.

Yes, I want to preserve White Americans. An ethnic group which is culturally distinctive from Whites in Europe

Good.

Unless he builds the wall AND begins mass deportations we're destined for minority status. 

Demographic projections which place whites as a minority within a generation assume continued immigration at the current rate and they assume no change in white birthrates. Simply shutting off immigration, which will happen thanks to Trump, buys us decades—decades to prepare for mass deportation. And yes, eventually, white birthrates will climb.

The Civic Nationalist have a different understanding of the Constitution than either of us. 
The Civic Nationalist want assimilation and amalgamation. 


That's your understanding of the Constitution. The assimilation and amalgamation of white people is part of how we got into this mess.

The survival of the Nation (White Americans) is the top priority,not holding every square inch of land so we can thump our chest,grab our dicks and say, "See ,weez da reels min!"

You have it backwards. Chest-thumping and dick-grabbing (aka, national pride and national conviction) is the only thing that permits any nation to survive. You talk like a Zionist Jew trying to establish Israel—as if you're outnumbered and outgunned 1000 to 1. But we're Americans. We're the biggest, strongest bad-asses in the world. And you think we need to negotiate with invaders for our OWN land? Please. Didn't you learn anything from Trump?

Treating them as competent human beings, giving respect and demanding it in return, making concessions, drawing lines in the sand and laying out what we consider non negotiable, while listening to them. 

Have you really learned NOTHING from Trump? As I said elsewhere, removing the invaders with deadly force is the final solution, not the primary solution. But if you've already committed to "respecting" them and "listening" to them and "making concessions", you can be certain they'll interpret that as weakness, which will end up getting a lot of people killed for no reason. They are not entitled to respect or attention or concessions. They are invaders who have no right to be here—once you accept that the US Constitution was written specifically to secure the blessings of liberty to the pre-existing American Nation, that will make a lot more sense. The 1965 Immigration Act was treason.

DR your belief we can't possibly lose because of our higher IQ, is a fatal conceit. I believe history shows we make some of the best soldiers in the world. But we're not invincible. Ask Custer. 

1. It's not just our higher IQ. It's because of how 3rd generation war is fought, and the fact that we already have a massive military infrastructure. That's why we can't lose. In pre-modern times, IQ would not have been the deciding factor in war, because large armies could not be coordinated, disease was a limiting factor, and logistics were far less decisive.

2. Custer's people won the war. Easily.

DissidentRight said...

Anon,

One last point. There is a Christian man of some minor influence who is enthusiastic about smiting the socialists and Social Justice Warriors. No compromise. But he is also an avowed CivNat.

Why is this okay?

Because the invaders think the Constitution was written by dead white supremacists for dead white supremacists…and they think they are entitled to Social Justice. Meanwhile, the CivNats have no ability to change the invaders' minds.

Therefore, when the time comes to actually enforce the propositions of the "Proposition Nation", CivNats will find themselves enforcing it disproportionately on people-of-color. Incidentally, that is why it is necessary for all American nationalists to support the principles of the Constitution and reject all forms of socialism and central planning—that way the CivNats will have to side with us…or violate their own principles.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Agree re: the weird neoliberal assumption that the responsibility for making good on loans is solely the responsibility of the lendee. I'm skeptical of the assumption that millennials care that much about their own material well-being. Their status signaling is a lot more based on lifestyle than on physical things. Is that a consequence of their not being able to obtain material affluence?

216 said...

A total jubilee of student debt would be the bank bailout of 2008 all over again, with large amounts of government debt being written and then used to buy up and cancel the student debt. It would probably work out better than buying up worthless toxic assets, as it would immediately improve the mental health of several million people. On the other hand, the bank bailout didn't result in those in foreclosure getting a free house. I don't mean to sound like a Boomer, but this is moral hazard.

The easiest step to do is to allow student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy as they were prior to some time during the Bush II years. What is most insidious about the "wipe out student debt" campaign is the corresponding demand for "tuition free college". That's a new entitlement (albeit cheaper than some neocon wars), at a time when we need to be slashing higher ed down to size. The only reason we should ever support it is if Agnostic's Bernie Bros give the Right half of the professorships.

Corvinus said...

Anony 5:09 p.m...

“Dissolution with Ethnoracial Nationalist from all groups working together is the most peaceful and just ending we can achieve.”

It’s the most unworkable and most complicated...and most unrealistic.

“It's amusing to me that you need to spend so much time trolling us.”

It’s not trolling, it’s simple, effective rhetoric.

“Citizenship for Whites only. Immigration for Whites only. No interracial marriage. Interracial offspring are not citizens and must leave at 18.”

Proposals that will NEVER make considerable and sustainable headway with the younger generations.

“So yes Germans,Italians, Irish and other Europeans can and did become White Americans.”

So, obviously, WASPs and nativists were wrong in their insistence that these groups could never properly assimilate, correct?

“White Americans are the result of the fusion of the English, Germans,Dutch, Swedes, Slavs,Irish,French and other Europeans.”

You mean ethnic mixing between disparate groups of people. Interesting, considering their relative disdain in the “old country” to intermingle. And it took America for these differences to disappear. Again, interesting.

“Yes, I want to preserve White Americans...”

Yes, YOU. But other white Americans may not have that same designs or goals. Which is THEIR liberty.


DissidentRight...

“There is no moral reason we should give up an inch of our country....”

It's your nation and it is also my nation.

“We have the guns, the vets, and the military infrastructure.”

Not the education, the leadership, or the overall numbers. All the “opposition” has to do is show the words of Vox Day, and yourself...and any potential recruits will turn on you. Besides, the longer you wait, the less likely your hell on earth vision will come to fruition.

“Younger Millenials, Zyklons and Alphas won't give a crap about Boomer cuckery, because this is our land.”

Here is what they most care about...popular culture, weed, and homosexual marriage, NOT creating a “white ethnostate”. I don’t know if I should be laughing or crying with regards to your rants.

“Nevertheless, it is legally indisputable that no white IMMIGRANT to the United States (i.e., any immigrant who came in after the Constitution was ratified) counts as Posterity.”

Says who, you? You are woefully ignorant. But carry on, because you are just digging yourself a deeper hole with “younger millennials, zyklons, and alphas”.

“The Preamble inherently defines and limits the scope of all Federal activities.”

No, you are horrifically wrong here.

“If they had known what the country would look like in 1865, or in 1940, or in 1965, they probably would have banned all immigration.”

No, the Founding Fathers enabled future generations to chart their own path.

“Immigrants can become citizens, it doesn't make them Posterity.”

Actually, it does.

“Within our own nations, we are not going to be particularly tolerant of whites who preach socialism and mixed-economies, or preach secularism and religious equality.“

Then you are going to have a fight on your hands, one that you will lose...decidedly.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

The problem with what most of us call concern trolling is that we’ve seen this our entire virtual lives. Our opposition argues for and justified the continuance of the quotidian because that seems the most self-evident at the time, and then when things change those same people recalibrate to the new quotidian and do the same.

I’m interested in seeing where you’ve provided some unique and generally unforeseen outcome. You’ve engaged in a lot of comment threads at a lot of places, so you should be able to point to such instances if they exist.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
I said:
“Dissolution with Ethnoracial Nationalist from all groups working together is the most peaceful and just ending we can achieve.”

You said:
"It’s the most unworkable and most complicated...and most unrealistic."

Why is this unworkable?
We know that multinational states often breakup, unless held together by an authoritarian government.
A government normally dominated by members of one of the constituent Nations.
We know the breakups are usually violent, and that they end in partition anyway.
Knowing this we can, hopefully avoid the violence and go straight to the divorce.

Those with an irrational emotional attachment,to an increasingly dysfunctional Union are opposed to this, as well as many who fear they'll have to move in order to be in their Nation's territory,
(I'm one of the people who might have to do that) and of course those whose livelihood depends on the Union government.

You don't believe such a breakup is necessary.
You believe we're exaggerating the ethnic tensions in U.S society.

Polls are indispensable tools for those trying to keep track of public opinion.
There are polls concerning opinions on immigration, identity and secession among the younger generations, that indicate the Alt Right is correct as to where this is headed.
I don't have time to link to them.
AE has covered this.
Go back and look for yourself.

While polls are indispensable ,
actual political behavior is more important an indicator of which way the winds are blowing.
The Republicans (a proxy for Whites) are moving to the right on immigration (which is demographic replacement or not ) and Democrats (increasingly a proxy for non- whites) to the Left on it.
As a result the Democrats are becoming increasingly anti- White.

Even those Stormtroupers (not a typo) of the Left, Antifa, are having racial issues:

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/hispanic-antifa-to-white-antifa-racism-is-in-your-dna/


As the White demographic
which supports Democrats shrink the country will become more racially polarized.



The issues that divide the electorate are, or soon will be, increasingly concerned with the future demographics of the U.S.(immigration) ,access to resources:education, jobs,promotions (affirmative action) ,and
wealth redistribution,
Largely White to non- white.

We're in a cold war phase right now.
With sporadic acts of violence:

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/viral-video-shows-teen-attacked-for-wearing-make-american-great-again-hat


Just wait until the equivalent of the Pottawatomie massacre or Harper's Ferry occurs.

Non- whites are consciously organizing along ethnoracial lines,and being very militant about it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yaog2PHhBTc

Whites,perhaps less consciously or explicitly for now ,are too.

The racial, cultural and ideological bonds that held the Union together are unraveling.

Gen Z's attitudes will move right with time and experience ,as did White Boomers.

The generation of Whites after them will grow up in a different country than we've known.
A country in which non- whites control the Democratic Party, and use it as a vehicle for their interest


jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

Blackbird you lost, get over it. Your talking breakup instead of outright surrender by Whites is a sign your Control is nervous. All of the Cabal is sweating now. That mass media doesn't draw flies anymore. You have no loyal soldiers moron. The fact that Hispanics and blacks are splintering off shows it. It doesn't matter if you have control over the leaders of these groups. Strategy is beyond their pay grade. The leaders may have followers, but its tribal loyalties leading it. Fact is, these fake leaders have only nominal control. Unlike Whites they will not follow any orders not in line with tribal loyalties. They will be discarded by the mobs if they try to stop them attacking YOU. They have no time element. They do not defer gratification. They cannot be made to wait.

Just 500,000 Whites can take it ALL back. There is no way to stop it now. Your Cabal went WAY TOO FAR. There is no "coexist". You and yours ALSO LACK SELF-CONTROL. ITS BEEN NOTICED. You cannot walk this back for even a PARTIAL VICTORY. NOT ANYMORE.

BRICS is UP and RUNNING. The petrodollar is living on fumes. Time is running out. TICK TOCK.

DissidentRight said...

Relieving student debt, by whatever process, would have to correspond to sticking academic institutions with the bill.

Just 500,000 Whites can take it ALL back. There is no way to stop it now. Your Cabal went WAY TOO FAR. There is no "coexist". You and yours ALSO LACK SELF-CONTROL. ITS BEEN NOTICED. You cannot walk this back for even a PARTIAL VICTORY. NOT ANYMORE.

BRICS is UP and RUNNING. The petrodollar is living on fumes. Time is running out. TICK TOCK.


Exactly. Now is not the time to be talking about "compromise". They will compromise in the face of our conviction.

Corvie,

Hush now.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,

" So, obviously, WASPs and nativists were wrong in their insistence that these groups could never properly assimilate, correct?"
"You mean ethnic mixing between disparate groups of people. Interesting, considering their relative disdain in the “old country” to intermingle.And it took America for these differences to disappear. Again, interesting."

In America race has always played the role language and religion have in racially homogeneous societies,that of an ethnic marker.
In order for a group identity to develop ,there must be an "other" with which its members are contrasted.
In the European diaspora : the U.S.,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, the other has been non- whites.

Who will be the "other"
against whom this New American, you believe is emerging, will be contrasted?

Another consideration is the very different social circumstances under which European national identities were born.
Descendants of Danish Vikings in Yorkshire were physically indistinguishable from an Anglo Saxon Northumbrian.
So once the language and religious differences were gone, a consciousness of being distinctive vanished.
It will be generations before racial groups are indistinguishable in the U.S.
Time isn't on the Union's side.

Also ,in England for instance ,there was only one historical narrative, that of the Venerable Bede,which was an Anglo Saxon narrative.
The Danish, Norwegian, Normans and even Celts(the original inhabitants) living under the English kings eventually adopted the Anglo- Saxon narrative ,or their children and grandchildren did.Coming to think of themselves as English.

In those parts of Great Britain where rival narratives existed,
Wales and Scotland, different identities were strengthened and have survived until today.

Each of the Nation's of the United States has its own historical experiences, its own heroes, its own holidays, its own narrative.

In the narratives the more extreme non- whites are constructing, Whites are the "other" ,the oppressors.
Genetically determined to be "racist" and therefore their enemies.
Medieval England,France etc. didn't face this.

Finally, Medieval societies and
Early Modern European
States weren't democracies.
Democracy encourages groups to organize to advance or defend their interest.
Ethnic and racial identities are an obvious basis for organizing people politically.
Racial differences, which are essentially indicative of relatedness,and similarity of interest,are a particularly potent basis for group identity and loyalty.

In short the conditions under which a "New American" nation can be formed no longer exist .
Make no mistake. A "New" American identity is what the Left is attempting to create.

I've mentioned this quote before, but it's worth mentioning again.
Rupert Emerson said,(I'm paraphrasing, )
" The Nation is the largest community, which when the chips are down, effectively commands men's loyalty.
Overriding the claims of the smaller groups contained within it, as well as those that cut across it, or potentially enfold in a still larger society."

By this definition an American Nation which commands the first and final loyalty of most of the people of the United States, likely no longer exist.

I believe future political events are going to bear this out.


No need to respond Corvinus. I already know what you'll say,
"Maybe, Maybe not."

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

This "othering" of Whites by non-Whites is an important lesson to learn.
Those ancient ethnic divisions that caused WWI and WWII were used against US by our enemies. We should see now that White Europe is actually one much LARGER Racial Group SURROUNDED by barbarians that WANT WHAT WE HAVE because THEY CANNOT BUILT IT or EVEN MAINTAIN IT.
That is THE IMPORTANT POINT. Norwegian, English, French, Italian, Greek or other European is assimilable. Similar enough. NECESSARY to OUR MUTUAL SURVIVAL.

SAY HELLO TO: THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.

The Pan European Defense League based ONLY ON EUROPEAN TRADITIONS.

Feryl said...

"I don't have any qualms about a debt jubilee. The lying free-market ideologues (while I would agree with those ideologues on about 99% of the issues, I am not an ideologue) can't accept the fact that cheap labor and outsourcing (and the enormous wealth-transfers they have permitted) are fundamentally wrong. Most of these capitalists' wealth was acquired by cheating. Don't even talk about the banking industry, is about 99.99% based on cheating."


As long as so many people think they can "make it big", then we can't expect a transition away from neo-liberalism and supply siding. Generic complaints about corruption and greed don't really matter; I know a lot of Boomers who are angry but have a very confused and incoherent attitude about what to do about it. A lot of them want changes, yet are not comfortable with the government (who else?) dictating any affair involving "consenting" adults or representative parties thereof (such as corporations). There's also the whole meme about high taxes on the income and assets of wealthy people being a disincentive for hard work, which is total bullshit because America's high point (the 1940's-1960's) was a time in which the wealthy were asked to shoulder a large burden.

I heard a fella on the Dave Rubin report who said that since the early 70's people have simultaneously been working harder yet gaining less. Whereas in the 1940's-1960's, moderate work was heavily rewarded. He said that while Boomers romanticized the "hard work" ideal, as a matter of reality they had no choice but to invest in hard work to gain higher status because beginning in the 1970's, we no longer gave as much economic security to lower status workers. But here's the paradox: by definition, a certain number of people will never be upper or even middle class. What then do we do about them? Lately, UBI and so forth has been talked about as a way of dealing with these people. At least we recognize that we have a problem, whereas in the 80's-2000's anyone who didn't attain higher status was dismissed as a whiner and sore loser.

BTW, the UBI people don't seem to understand that it's incumbent on elites and those who regulate them to insure that lower status jobs become more rewarding. The idea of the government itself trying to a provide a decent living for so many people seems a little much. If we reduce immigration and the pay/benefits of upper management, it shouldn't be that hard for people to find decent work; look at what happened in the 1930's-1960's when immigration was low. People could easily find work and the work they got was often rewarding financially. So my biggest problem with UBI is that lets business managers off the hook (pay people shit wages and give them shit benefits, and the government is on the hook for a lot of stuff)..

Corvinus said...

Dissident Right...

“Hush now”.

Hello Nate from Vox Day’s blog. What you are advocating is good old fashioned fascism. So, no, I will not "hush".


Anony...

“Who will be the "other" against whom this New American, you believe is emerging, will be contrasted?”

Simple. One group of people who promote anti-liberty, as evident by the proposals drawn by you and Anti-Dissident, against another group of people opposed to such an agenda.

It is based on ideology, not race.

“So once the language and religious differences were gone, a consciousness of being distinctive vanished.”

No, their customs remained, as did keeping their ancestral roots.

“It will be generations before racial groups are indistinguishable in the U.S. Time isn't on the Union's side.”

Assuming that most white people focus squarely on the physical features of these groups and are perpetually repelled by such traits.

“Also ,in England for instance ,there was only one historical narrative, that of the Venerable Bede,which was an Anglo Saxon narrative.”

Actually, there were many historical narratives. It was just that the Anglo-Saxon one emerged from the pack.

“The Danish, Norwegian, Normans and even Celts(the original inhabitants) living under the English kings eventually adopted the Anglo- Saxon narrative ,or their children and grandchildren did.Coming to think of themselves as English.”

And in America, the Chinese, the Assyrians, and the Kenyans have also adopted the American narrative, with a number of whites in support, past and present.

“Each of the Nation's of the United States has its own historical experiences, its own heroes, its own holidays, its own narrative.”

Yet, there remains the dominant narrative, that being an American.

“In the narratives the more extreme non- whites are constructing...”

You mean the extreme whites AND non-whites. It’s what Sailer says is the Coalition of the Fringes.

“Genetically determined to be "racist" and therefore their enemies. Medieval England,France etc. didn't face this.”

Actually, the enemies to the Franks were non-Franks, the enemies to the Celts were non-Celts, the enemies to Anglo-Saxons were non-Anglo-Saxons.

“Democracy encourages groups to organize to advance or defend their interest.”

That’s the best thing about it.

“Ethnic and racial identities are an obvious basis for organizing people politically.”

As is socio-economic standing, as well as religious affiliation. ALL play key roles here.

“Racial differences, which are essentially indicative of relatedness,and similarity of interest,are a particularly potent basis for group identity and loyalty.”

Assuming that white people in mass numbers will be bound exclusively to racial loyalties, and cede their personal and group interests accordingly.

"Make no mistake. A "New" American identity is what the Left is attempting to create. “

That would be projection on your part.

“By this definition an American Nation which commands the first and final loyalty of most of the people of the United States, likely no longer exist.”

Americans will ultimately decide what is the most important group they will show loyalty, as they have many intertwined affinities with groups they belong to. Be prepared for that likely outcome.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,

" Simple. One group of people who promote anti-liberty, as evident by the proposals drawn by you and Anti-Dissident, against another group of people opposed to such an agenda.

It is based on ideology, not race."

You're advocating the Proposition "Nation" concept.

A Proposition "Nation"
isn't a Nation, it's more like a religious community
masquerading as a Nation.
A "church" in the garb of a State.

A religious community whose authority and membership is limited to the territory of the State,with no universalistic pretensions like Christianity or Islam.

One can be born into this religion or convert to it by moving to its territory and swearing fidelity to its creed.

Apparently you would agree with the newly elected President of the Failing States of Mexico, who believes immigration to the United States is a human right. No?

Just as there are millions of potential Christians and Moslems all over the world, so are there millions of potential "Americans".
Which it is our American duty to aid and abet to get here;and a "sin" to turn away,regardless of how they get here, according to some.

The problem with religious communities is their particularly vulnerable to heresies, and schisms.

The Orthodoxy finds it must suppress these
schisms and heresies, with persecutions and Inquisitions,to prevent them from growing.
Their advocates are not allowed to try to convert new members to their "evil" views,so freedom of speech must be denied them, so must their right to protest, demonstrate,and organize.
They must be denied access to the means by which they convert others.
(Sound familiar? )
Every instrument of society will be used to contain the "evil" and purge it from the community.
Lawfare ,the "Church's" official enforcement police, and even self appointed censors and guardians of the Orthodoxy like the Maoist Red Guard,and the would be "American" Stormtroupers, Antifa.
The Orthodox consider this good because the "heretics" are "evil" and they have no rights.


When the schism occurs largely along ethnic lines, as it did in the Reformation in Europe ,with the Germanic north embracing "heresy" and the Latin south clinging to Orthodoxy.
Then the ties within the "Church" are weakened even further.

That's what's happening in the U.S.
The schism is occurring largely along ethnic lines.
Each side sees itself as the defender of the true faith, the faith of the "Fathers"

I think we're heading to a new period of "Wars of Religion".
A war ,or wars, that will end in the division of the "Church".



However we're still several decades from the actual "hot" war.

Your path takes us to either Totalitarianism, with the Orthodoxy imposed by force, and maintained by terror.
With millions of citizens willingly enforcing the Orthodoxy,by harassing,shaming even physically attacking the heretics,wherever they find them. In restaurants,bookstores, even their homes.
The whole country becomes 17th century Salem,Massachusetts.

Or your view leads to Civil War and dissolution.

That's where this society is at.

Corvinus said...

'You're advocating the Proposition "Nation" concept."

Which most white Americans embrace. See, all one has to do is show them this quotation from Alt Right leader Vox Day...

"So I'm going to make some of you extremely uncomfortable here, because what I'm going to tell you - and this is not going to be comfortable for those of you who are US citizens - a lot of you are not Americans and you never were. Your parents aren't, you're grandparents aren't, because Americans are defined very, very clearly and the United States Constitution was written for a very specific group of people and that doesn't include immigrants, it doesn't include refugees, it doesn't include the great grand children of former immigrants, it doesn't include anybody except for the sons and daughters of the American Revolution."

...and they will go all Hulk on him and anyone else who tries to jam this "red pill" down their throats.

"A Proposition "Nation"isn't a Nation, it's more like a religious community masquerading as a Nation. A "church" in the garb of a State."

No, the Proposition Nation is NOT a religion. You are arguing from a false premise..

"Apparently you would agree with the newly elected President of the Failing States of Mexico, who believes immigration to the United States is a human right. No?"

Actually, I believe that immigration ought to be limited and that the current laws in place ought to be executed. I've been consistent on this position.

"Just as there are millions of potential Christians and Moslems all over the world, so are there millions of potential "Americans"."

Key word is "potential". For immigrants who come to our land, there is criteria to be met. Does it mean we should let everyone in? No. Does it mean only certain groups of people are capable of being an American? No.

"When the schism occurs largely along ethnic lines, as it did in the Reformation in Europe ,with the Germanic north embracing "heresy" and the Latin south clinging to Orthodoxy."

It occurred along theological lines, with the byproduct being different ethnic groups siding with Western or Eastern patriarchs.
The theological genius of the East was different from that of the West. The Eastern theology had its roots in Greek philosophy, whereas a great deal of Western theology was based on Roman law. This gave rise to misunderstandings and at last led to two widely separate ways of regarding and defining one important doctrine—the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son. The Roman churches, without consulting the East, added “and from the Son” (Latin: Filioque) to the Nicene Creed. Also, the Eastern churches resented the Roman enforcement of clerical celibacy, the limitation of the right of confirmation to the bishop, and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.

"That's what's happening in the U.S. The schism is occurring largely along ethnic lines."

You are undervaluing the distinct role of religion and socioeconomic status here.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The idea of the government itself trying to a provide a decent living for so many people seems a little much.

That's an understatement!

So my biggest problem with UBI is that lets business managers off the hook (pay people shit wages and give them shit benefits, and the government is on the hook for a lot of stuff).

Right. We'll get a bazillion entry-level Walmart jobs that combined with UBI will allow for a bunch of people to bump along at the bottom.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
"No, the Proposition Nation is NOT a religion. You are arguing from a false premise."

As a form of community, it is more like a religion than a Nation.
Like a religion it is based on a set of beliefs,not shared ancestry, traditions, history etc.
You can convert to it or become
an apostate from it.

The beliefs can be put in the form of propositions.
These propositions are accepted as true without proof.
They are a creed, a doctrine, a statement of faith.
Questioning them makes one a "heretic",i.e. racist, Nazi, fascist etc.

" For immigrants who come to our land, there is criteria to be met."

Yes, and the criteria are accepting the creed and pledging fidelity to the "Church".
A lot like joining a new faith.

" It occurred along theological lines, with the byproduct being different ethnic groups siding with Western or Eastern patriarchs."

What? The schism I'm talking about was within the Western Church.
Eastern Christianity wasn't involved.

I don't deny theological issues were involved, indeed they were central to the Reformation.
It's still interesting, and a testament to the power of ethnicity, that the Western Church split as it did,largely along ethnic lines.

"You are undervaluing the distinct role of religion and socioeconomic status here."

You've overvalued them.
Every universalistic religion;
Christianity, Islam, even Buddhism AND every secular attempt to unite socioeconomic groups across Ethnic lines;Communism, Socialism, has broken on the shoals of Ethnic Nationalism.

The same is likely to be true of this New American identity.

DissidentRight said...

Feryl,

who said that since the early 70's people have simultaneously been working harder yet gaining less. Whereas in the 1940's-1960's, moderate work was heavily rewarded.

Vox Day has pointed out that this transition occurred thanks to the addition of women to the general labor supply. Any major increase in the labor supply pulls the rug out from under employees. Of course there were plenty of other minor factors: Nixon's dollar crash, an ever-expanding government spending burden, ever-increasing public/private debt, and economically-useless growth in the financial sector, healthcare sector, etc… Not to mention outsourcing was beginning to go into effect in the latter quarter of the century.

But here's the paradox: by definition, a certain number of people will never be upper or even middle class. What then do we do about them? Lately, UBI and so forth has been talked about as a way of dealing with these people. At least we recognize that we have a problem, whereas in the 80's-2000's anyone who didn't attain higher status was dismissed as a whiner and sore loser.

Right. I used to be one of those people who dismissed everyone else as a loser. Of course that was way back in the day when I believed that education = intelligence. After all, everyone in my family members was pretty smart—so everyone has got to be smart, right? Not my fault they didn't apply themselves. An understandable delusion when you live in white suburbia.

But here's the thing. Free markets DO actually solve this problem, assuming the following conditions are met:

1) Foreign labor is banned from competing in the domestic labor market, whether through immigration or through imported consumer goods.

And that's it. Hard money is ideal…but not necessary. Low government spending is ideal…but not necessary. (Of course taxes actually have to cover the spending.) And frankly you don't even have to get rid of labor regulations, although that's ideal too.

On the flip side, if you permit foreign labor to compete in your labor market, hard money is irrelevant, low government spending is irrelevant, and a regulation-free economy is irrelevant. Your population will become impoverished regardless. That's how the free markets works.

If we reduce immigration and the pay/benefits of upper management, it shouldn't be that hard for people to find decent work; look at what happened in the 1930's-1960's when immigration was low.

Exactly—and you don't even need to reduce pay for upper management. The market will do that automatically. The extra upper management compensation is literally drawn from payroll cuts. Those cuts are possible because the labor surplus puts downward pressure on wages, meaning employees are being paid less than their marginal productivity. If you get rid of the labor surplus, the market will force wages to rise back up to marginal productivity. Management will have to eat the costs. (Of course, insofar as upper managers are more productive than other employees, they will still be paid more. But the delta will return to levels we saw in the first half of the 20th century.)

So my biggest problem with UBI is that lets business managers off the hook (pay people shit wages and give them shit benefits, and the government is on the hook for a lot of stuff)..

Yes. My position remains that the government is a horrible manager. It is horrible at managing the military, horrible at managing the court systems, horrible at managing the borders. Now, in those three cases, we have to suck it up because the alternative is worse. But in this case, our people don't need welfare. They need to be protected from foreign labor.

- - - - - - - -

Corvie,

Hello Nate from Vox Day’s blog.

Now that's a compliment. But I can assure you that I am not Nate, sugar tits.

DissidentRight said...

The schism I'm talking about was within the Western Church. 

It's honestly not necessary to argue that national tensions ALWAYS cause multinational political orders to break up. It is enough to point that when multinational political orders break up (for whatever reason), they always break up along national lines, regardless of the original source of the tension.

For example, the German Lutherans weren't really fighting for the German people's right to be Lutheran. They were fighting for the right to be Lutheran…and they "just so happened" to all be German. A small but important distinction.

Of course the reason the Reformation was focused in Germany was because Luther was a German and he therefore had a much greater influence on the German nobility and the German people.

Similarly, when the USA breaks up, not everyone who sides with White America will be specifically seeking to to secure the interests of White Americans. But it will work out that way, just like it did in the Holy Roman Empire.

As a form of community, it is more like a religion than a Nation. 
Like a religion it is based on a set of beliefs,not shared ancestry, traditions, history etc. 
You can convert to it or become 
an apostate from it. 


Bingo. Exactly this. And as I have pointed out to other Christians many times, Christianity is a shaky foundation for political unity. Civic nationalism is also a shaky foundation for political unity.

That's because the political unit ordained by God and natural law is the Nation. Now, nations sometimes fracture politically, for whatever reason, just like marriages and families sometimes fracture, for whatever reason. But that doesn't change the fact that any social order not based on marriage and any political order not based on the nation is guaranteed to dissolve, sooner or later.

This is not to say that Christianity and civic patriotism do not improve political unity—of course they do. But they need to be built on the solid foundation of nationalism.

Anonymous said...

@ DissidentRight,

"It's honestly not necessary to argue that national tensions ALWAYS cause multinational political orders to break up. It is enough to point that when multinational political orders break up (for whatever reason), they always break up along national lines, regardless of the original source of the tension."

My point was when social tensions reach a breaking point in multinational States, the fractures generally follow very close to the ethnic contours inside the society,not exactly along those contours, but close.

When people are forced by events to make a choice between various identities, ethnic identities usually triumph for MOST people, not all.

Corvinus said...

Anony...

"As a form of community, it is more like a religion than a Nation. Like a religion it is based on a set of beliefs,not shared ancestry, traditions, history etc. You can convert to it or become an apostate from it."

Continue on this path if you desire, but it remains that your argument is based on a false premise. Doubling down is not a very good look for you.

Because using your "logic", one could take the position that the Alt Right is a religion (more like a cult). You can convert to it or become an apostate from it. The beliefs can be put in the form of propositions. These propositions are accepted as true without proof. They are a creed, a doctrine, a statement of faith. Questioning them makes one "anti-white", "a cuck", a "race traitor"...or "an enemy" who must be eliminated. Which, of course, is ridiculous. White men and women make their own decisions rather than be virtue signaled and jackbooted to death about the "truisms" of race realism and white nationalism at the expense of their own personal liberty.

"It's still interesting, and a testament to the power of ethnicity, that the Western Church split as it did,largely along ethnic lines."

Largely along theological lines, Cochise.

"Every universalistic religion; Christianity, Islam, even Buddhism AND every secular attempt to unite socioeconomic groups across Ethnic lines;Communism, Socialism, has broken on the shoals of Ethnic Nationalism."

Do you have any sources that would back up this claim? I am interested here to bear witness to the reasoning and logic employed.


Dissident Right...

"Now that's a compliment. But I can assure you that I am not Nate, sugar tits."

I highly doubt it.

"Similarly, when the USA breaks up, not everyone who sides with White America will be specifically seeking to to secure the interests of White Americans. But it will work out that way, just like it did in the Holy Roman Empire."

IF America breaks up. And you are counting on tens of millions of whites to magically side with the Alt Right, not taking into account the amount of information ammunition and military grade hardware they will have in their possession to combat your fascist ideology. They will not be hoodwinked. So expect a bloody fight. Hope you are trained in the art of war.


Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Someone who writes "trained in the art of war" has probably never so much as sparred in her life!

DissidentRight said...

Anon,

My point was when social tensions reach a breaking point in multinational States, the fractures generally follow very close to the ethnic contours inside the society,not exactly along those contours, but close. 

When people are forced by events to make a choice between various identities, ethnic identities usually triumph for MOST people, not all.


Agreed. Notably, cultural, religious, and political views are not distributed randomly throughout multinational political orders. Even for people who either don't care about race (or claim to not care), they will find the most overlap on the other issues within their own national group.

All of these things reinforce each other.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Corvie,

Show me on the doll where Nate called you a gamma.

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

War is an Art, ask Sun Tzu. Its a canvas painted with the blood of theorists and mastered by hard men who have learned to fight in the streets and studied strategy by forming friendships. That said, Wars are not won by tactics or strategy or even weapons. Its won on logistics alone. Even the best equipment is useless in the hands of idiots and underfed and disinterested paycheck soldiers. The British alrady learned this lesson in 1776 where the Hessians, the best mercenaries money could buy, surrendered by the droves to tenant farmers fighting for their homes and families. Napoleon said that the morale is to the material as 3 to 1. That truism still stands. Who will fight for Mos Eisley? Who will die for the fake nation based on a shopping mall?
Economic issues always start uprisings. Empty stomachs spark wars. However, no one smart or sane will EVER FIGHT TO PRESERVE THEIR MASSIVE DEBTS TO USURERS. TRUST ME ON THIS.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,

"Because using your "logic", one could take the position that the Alt Right is a religion (more like a cult). You can convert to it or become an apostate from it."

Actually I agree completely with the above,but that doesn't refute my original argument.

The Alt Right IS a set of beliefs.
Actually a set of overlapping belief systems.
Which share many premises in common.
In this respect it is like a religion.
It's a belief system.
Belief systems include Religions,and Political, and Social ideologies.

Those who hold Alt Right beliefs
don't consider themselves a Nation, anymore than Democrats or Republicans do.

We reject Proposition Nations.

Belief systems on the other hand are by necessity, propositional.

Nations are a people bound by ancestry,language, customs, traditions and history.
Members of a Nation can hold different belief systems,but sharing a belief system doesn't make a group of people a Nation.

"Do you have any sources that would back up this claim? I am interested here to bear witness to the reasoning and logic employed."

Christians have fought Christians,Moslems have fought Moslems, Buddhist have fought Buddhist, all in defense of ,or on behalf of an Ethnic Group.
Any encyclopedia or history book bears this out.

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

Oh don't even throw a bone to the blackbird Corvy. He's a disinfo operator not a sincere commenter. How's your control Corvy? Did he tell you to not attack me? You ignore my comments blackbird, not that I mind.

This is a World of interests, boys. Common interests are not glue, but you need not to love your allies just to NEED them. This Anti-White alliance is the perfect means to FINALLY dispense with this ethnicity nonsense. You can celebrate any ethnic celebrations you want to in The Holy Roman Empire. Just don't let the enemy drive wedges between YOU and your ALLIES.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jonathan,

That remark wasn't intended to discount The Art of War--which is okay but not deserving of the obscene amount of praise it receives, or at any rate used to receive--it was to note that someone whose level of intimacy with violence is no closer than a book written millennia ago is someone who wouldn't know the first thing to do if war actually broke out.

Feryl said...

"Agree re: the weird neoliberal assumption that the responsibility for making good on loans is solely the responsibility of the lendee. I'm skeptical of the assumption that millennials care that much about their own material well-being. Their status signaling is a lot more based on lifestyle than on physical things. Is that a consequence of their not being able to obtain material affluence?"
Partly, which Agnostic has pointed out before. Part of the appeal of the "rat race" culture developed by Silents and Boomers in the 1970's and 80's was that a lot of people did well....REAL well. To the point that poor and working class people who fell behind were often considered to be stupid and lazy. This was a big change of pace from the 1930's-1960's, when people accepted modest pay for modest work, and almost always (e.g., aside from a handful of mega elites) were not interested in ostentatious acquisition and flaunting of wealth. Actually, as early as the 1950's and 1960's the Silent Gen targeted culture of the period tended to focus on affluent people (to the credit of Boomers, pop culture actually became more sympathetic to working class people in the 70's and 80's, probably because many Boomers at this time sensed that proles were starting to get a raw deal). But it wasn't until the 70's (when GIs began to retire) that Silent Gen status seeking began to get out of hand, and by the late 70's many Boomers were eager to jump into the rat race after they gave up LSD. The impression one gets is that as soon as a responsible (GI) generation gives way to a restless (Silents) or flaky (Boomer) generation, look out!

Anyway, Agnostic says that Gen X-ers and Millennials came of age too late to indulge in the yuppie rat race with the same zeal as older generations, so as a consequence they've developed their own status and fashion markers. Ultimately, a highly competitive environment has corrupted many people, but since the nature of the corruption differs between generation, so too does the effects of the corruption. People born after 1960 are less likely to be politically active, less likely to be conmen, etc. They tend to focus more on niche lifestyle pursuits and "coolness", rather than building up huge piles of money for the sake of having huge piles of money. Since the corporate sector obviously is driven by psychopathy, and now dominates everything, the end result has been the alienation of people born after 1960 who are disgusted by hyper competive rat race culture involving board rooms. On the other hand, you can see in Jackass type stunts that Gen X-ers can be competitive and showoffey; it's just that X-ers are doing it for attention and to be cool, not for the money. Since, after all, they never did get much opportunities to make money anyway, starting from their very first entry level jobs that didn't pay shit with older and higher level workers who refused to give younger workers promotions for years on end. In the case of Millennials, many can't or won't get a job......AT ALL. Studying and hanging around your parents is preferable to a shitty McJob at workplace likely to have ESL people or descendants of recent immigrants. Meanwhile, X-ers and Millennials came of age when many "normal" jobs were starting to disappear or were basically extinct (e.g., manufacturing). All this while immigration levels soared.

Note also that exceptions exist, and can be found in abundance (e.g. Jeff Bezos and Paul Ryan), but for what it's worth those born after 1960 tend to be less outright sleazy. Agnostic said that he looked at lists of big frauds of the last 50 years and found that those born between 1920 and 1960 tended to be the perps.

216 said...

Feryl,

IIRC Millenial as a descriptor ends somewhere either in the mid-90s or 2000. One often noted cutoff is those with living memory of 9/11. The average Millenial is now out of college, not just high school. Wrt to teenage unemployment, disinterest in working, during the recession years we had displaced older workers taking the low pay service industry jobs. Any employer would have taken the older adult over the teen on attendance reliability alone. Labor participation declines can be linked to immigration, but also to reduce incidence of dropouts, and higher levels of college prep coursework, and numerous application arms race activities (no longer just an upper-middle class thing, linked in part to an increase in foreign students)

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/teen-labor-force-participation-before-and-after-the-great-recession.htm

An interesting feedback loop, leftist teachers unions agitate against dropouts (job protection via social promotion/graduation) which increases the demands for leftist-voting immigrant labor. Never considered this before.

Another feedback loop is how drug abuse among whites/blacks leads to their displacement in the labor market by lower using Asians/Hispanics, the same groups that also run the drug trade. Will be interesting to see if growing cannabis tolerance (possibly even anti-discrimination protections) is able to stall or reverse this trend.

Feryl said...

A big reason for the current Millennial bash-fest is that decades of rat racing have not really paid off (financially and/or spiritually) for Boomers and X-ers, and in this sick as hell epoch that started around 1970, people often don't understand why they are unhappy and lonely. Too much energy devoted to work! work! work!, and anxiety about status (whether warranted or not), drives people nuts. It's interesting that so many Boomers and X-ers can't put their finger on what's wrong (status striving). They can attack certain manifestations of this climate (such as school shootings and the like), without understanding, to use my favorite Left wing phrase, the "root causes".

Since Millennials have not been rewarded at all, and in fact economic prospects are so transparently grim for them, they've largely checked out on the employment culture and mindset of older generations. They know so well that they got fucked, they can't be bothered to get too upset about it. Whereas older generations are bitter and feel cheated (like dude, back in the 70's and 80's I was told to work my butt off for 40-50 years and retire with a decent nest egg. Sheesh, the people who retired in the 70's and 80's made it all seem so easy).

Christ, Boomers and Gen X-ers tired of bills and debt (often related to their Millennial kids), still anxiously hanging on to whatever employment they can get (unlike GIs and Silents who retired when young and comfortable), need to get a clue. Millennials didn't create this idiotic and morally bankrupt culture, and feel as if it's beyond redemption. Look at what it did to people over the last 30 years; who'd have ever bought into "Voodoo economics", union busting, and "hard work" anyway. What did y'all expect? What's particularly galling is middle aged people saying that Millennials are a "threat" to them. Are you freakin' serious? Back in the 70's GIs and Silents could not have been more gracious to Boomers who got decent opening wages/salaries, and promotions, even as the Boomers bitterly swore at older generations for being too conservative, modest, and old-fashioned. Boomers to a large extent pissed away a lot of the advantages and resources they started with. How would they have liked to join the workforce in the 1990's or, I dunno, 2018? When upper management (read: older folks) openly shit all over lower level (read: younger) workers? Workplace shooting became a big problem by the late 80's, which ought to tell you how nasty workers were being treated, and the kinds of mind games and cruelty that were beginning to dominate workplaces. Boomers are horrible leaders and managers. First they sank productivity levels in the 70's (as youngsters), then abuse, bullying, cheating etc. accelerated in the 80's and 90's when they got upper management positions. Thanks a lot, fuckers. And it's not as if X-ers have done that much to improve basic standards of decency and respect in the workplace. Ya gotta hand it to older people who tell Millennials that this cesspit is "normal".

Feryl said...


"Vox Day has pointed out that this transition occurred thanks to the addition of women to the general labor supply. Any major increase in the labor supply pulls the rug out from under employees. Of course there were plenty of other minor factors: Nixon's dollar crash, an ever-expanding government spending burden, ever-increasing public/private debt, and economically-useless growth in the financial sector, healthcare sector, etc… Not to mention outsourcing was beginning to go into effect in the latter quarter of the century."

Leaving aside feminazi propaganda, what was the impetus behind all these women going to work? The burgeoning divorce rate (among Silents)? Early Boomers not getting married? Keeping up with the Joneses? Silent Gen women feeling "bored" of domestic life?

X-ers and Millennials take it for granted that women work. What choice do they have? But why after a decade of profound economic security (the 60's) for *anyone who got married and stayed married* did so many women start working in the 70's?

Feryl said...

Another feedback loop is how drug abuse among whites/blacks leads to their displacement in the labor market by lower using Asians/Hispanics, the same groups that also run the drug trade. Will be interesting to see if growing cannabis tolerance (possibly even anti-discrimination protections) is able to stall or reverse this trend.

And extroverted whites and blacks aren't allowed to "express themselves" (in word and deed) as economic and cultural elites demand compliant workers and consumers. Of course if elites actually behaved themselves they wouldn't hear so much grumbling from America's historical population. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; elites complained that native born workers in the 1930's-1960's were "allowed" to get away with being too uppity (resulting in higher wages, benefit programs, and unionization), yet really it's only been over the last 30 years that native born workers have really begun to complain about how they're being screwed over. The elites have no one to blame but themselves for the shitty attitude of native born workers, but ultimately they figure that they can ignore the natives by importing compliant immigrants who don't dare speak up.

And yes, the tacit understanding that several generations of Central Americans and Asians will eventually displace blacks from many workplaces and neighborhoods is what is driving some of this. Though native born whites are hardly given much esteem either, not when they believe in balancing work with having fun and socializing. They really do want Chinese ant colonies replicated across the land. In some ways I think Europe is in a better position than America/Canada/Australia, because diversity as repd by the Middle East and Africa is an unquestionable disaster that nobody in their right mind buys into, whereas in North America and Australia it's common to pat Asians and Central Americans on their head for being good little worker bees. I think Asian countries have such low levels of immigration because elites never feel a cheap and easy labor itch to scratch. The Asian natives are already programmed to accept being treated like cogs.

216 said...

Feryl,

Single/widowed women had historically high labor force participation rates. Married women began working full time due to stagflation in the 1970s. Most of the upper middle class today could not maintain its status without dual incomes. It has been retconned to be a bold feminist statement. Gloria Steinem was funded by the Rockefeller/Ford/Carnegie foundations and the CIA.

Female labor force participation is down from its 2000s peak, neoliberal journolists say this is because the US lacks the mandatory paid leave of the rest of the industrialized world. But even generous Norway and Sweden have abysmal fertility rates just like the US. Increasing fertility rates is the only plausible reason for mandating paid parental leave.

Japan has only recently pushed married women back into the workforce. Combined with the predominance of heavy industry and exports, they remained stuck in a 1970s time warp. If not for the earthquake, there were actually plans to double the number of nuclear plants. It doesn't matter as much now, given the supply of fracked gas, but utility rates were one of the complaints that drove US manufacturing overseas. At the same time, somehow the EU retained a higher incidence of manufacturing with higher regulation, taxation and energy costs. The US is making a big mistake by leaving the development of Gen IV nuclear to India, China and Russia.


Agree about the entitlement attitudes of management. Much of the Midwest went two decades or more in either stagnation or decline. Corporate types complained about taxes and unions, but then turned around and bashed us for not lavishing the education system and becoming more attractive to invaders. We also don't get a lot of federal dollars via Pentagon Pork. Wright-Patterson might be the largest base in the Midwest, arguably kept Dayton from disappearing. Our history would have been much different if the Big 3 had remained leading defense contractors.

Feryl said...

Single/widowed women had historically high labor force participation rates. Married women began working full time due to stagflation in the 1970s. Most of the upper middle class today could not maintain its status without dual incomes. It has been retconned to be a bold feminist statement. Gloria Steinem was funded by the Rockefeller/Ford/Carnegie foundations and the CIA."

Yes, clueless elites gussying up economic trends as being related to voluntary choice rather than fiscal concerns is quite common.

About Steinem et al, Camille Palia has always maintained that the counter culture's biggest failing was allowing itself to be satisfied over gay/black/women's rights by the mid-70's, while abandoning traditional Leftist concern for conservative male working class natives. In all likelihood, people like Steinem either sold out out of pure greed, or perhaps concern that their well-being would be threatened if they preached anti-capital ideology. Another explanation is that so many elite Silents and Boomers were so comfortable and well-off that they had a vested interest in squelching anti-capitalist sentiment. Adopting pet causes related to blacks, gays, women, new age stuff, etc. ultimately didn't threaten the overall Western order. Granted, well into the 70's you still had some people who preached caution about the limits to growth and so forth. But by the late 70's it was generally accepted by most Americans/Westerners that it was still a-ok to live in the suburbs, drive a car, go to the movies (the later 70's were a time of explosive growth in movie attendance), and eventually when the time was right have a family (which happened for most Boomers after the early 80's recession ended). Sadly, in contrast to the modest stablility favored by most Americans in the 1930's-early 60's, by the 80's it was clear that the new "American dream" (as seen by the Boomers) was to be one of climbing over other people to be the big winner. One could have their ethical quibbles with the mid-Century American dream, but at least people had a conscience back then and restrained themselves. Whereas the post-Carter American Dream would be marked by greed and irresponsibility.

A rising generation of people who fell legitimately disrespected, along with older generations who are tired of corruption, gives the current climate more of a 1920's feel than it does a 1960's feel. Our current dumbfuck elites are stuck in the 80's and 90's, periods of rapidly rising greed and individualism, which portended a future populist backlash. "Going back" to the cultural conditions of the 1960's would require us to live through another 1940's and 1950's (periods of widely shared prosperity and domestic civility)

216 said...

Feryl,

Material affluence is a big marker of pre and post WW2. In pre-war industries wages were low, conditions were dangerous, and there were company towns. Rural farmers were perennially broke and indebted. These conditions nearly vanished by the 1970s, instead you had UAW workers sabotaging the production line at GM out of spite. The same UAW workers had just handed Nixon a landslide re-election, the GOP almost had the Senate that year as well (Sun Belt gains, Rural Union states narrow loss).

Fast forward to today, the number of people working in manufacturing is still lower than it was before the recession. (Germany is the only OECD country to record a net increase since 2000). The big growth is healthcare, education and low wage retail/foodservice. Except healthcare, all are Dem-leaning workforces, and healthcare will quickly become very leftist if a Medicare for all passes on the federal level. The GOP is foolish to not devolve healthcare back to the states, allowing each state to have varying levels from the Swiss Model, the Canadian Model and the UK Disaster.

The rough narrative of Trumpism is that immigration cuts will increase wages, and decrease competition for scarce public services. In 2010 this was a great message, and the Kochs rightly feared it, successfully co-opting. In the UK public opinion has reversed since Brexit to be among the most Pozzed in Europe. (Rooted in the absence of the refugee flood that hit the continent, UK is not in Schengen).

This narrative doesn't work that well today, the double digit IQ swing voter can more easily understand a doubling of the minimum wage, and sees it as fundamentally unfair to deny access to the "nation of immigrants". Tuition free college also sells well, as the median voter is skeptical of bringing back millions of factory jobs, despite liking the idea. The border wall also appears unpopular simply because of its cost, the public was revealed to be 50-50 on it when asked if it was a good idea in theory.

If gas continues to increase, this historically favors pro-drilling GOP policies. Complex international geopolitics is not something the average voter understands. If Tesla collapses, while unfortunate, it would revive the old Obama-era criticism of state-supported greentech.

---
Interesting to see that "fascism" receives 7%. Some of these responses were probably pranksters, but an impressive result for a political system that is unanimously condemned by the cultural elite.

http://www.gopusa.com/millennials-would-rather-live-in-socialist-or-communist-nation-than-under-capitalism/

DissidentRight said...

Feryl,

Leaving aside feminazi propaganda, what was the impetus behind all these women going to work?

I don't know. Honestly it doesn't make any sense to me except in light of feminazi propaganda…

216,

The rough narrative of Trumpism is that immigration cuts will increase wages, and decrease competition for scarce public services. In 2010 this was a great message, and the Kochs rightly feared it, successfully co-opting. In the UK public opinion has reversed since Brexit to be among the most Pozzed in Europe. (Rooted in the absence of the refugee flood that hit the continent, UK is not in Schengen).

This narrative doesn't work that well today, the double digit IQ swing voter can more easily understand a doubling of the minimum wage, and sees it as fundamentally unfair to deny access to the "nation of immigrants".


I think a significant majority of white Americans are looking for any kind of excuse to oppose immigration that doesn't make them seem racist.

Corvinus said...

Anony...

"Actually I agree completely with the above,but that doesn't refute my original argument."

Except your original argument is based on a false premise. The Alt Right and SJWism are NOT religions, they are political ideologies.

The Alt Right IS a set of [political] beliefs. Actually a set of overlapping [ideologies]. Which share many premises in common. People may be devout followers to these beliefs, but the Alt Right, or liberalism, or libertarianism, or even "SJWism", are NOT religions. Never have been, never will be.

"We reject Proposition Nations."

You can reject whatever you want, but most Americans, including whites, think differently.

"Belief systems on the other hand are by necessity, propositional."

A belief is introduced as the cognitive act or state in which a proposition is taken to be true, and the psychological theory of belief is reviewed under the headings: belief as a propositional attitude, belief as subjective probability, belief as inference, and belief as association.

"Nations are a people bound by ancestry, language, customs, traditions and history."

Right, this description fits America to a T.

"Members of a Nation can hold different belief systems,but sharing a belief system doesn't make a group of people a Nation."

Except the American belief system is a set core of ideas and principles that groups of people in our nation abide by. It's more than just "sharing".

"Do you have any sources that would back up this claim? I am interested here to bear witness to the reasoning and logic employed."

"Christians have fought Christians,Moslems have fought Moslems, Buddhist have fought Buddhist, all in defense of ,or on behalf of an Ethnic Group."

Religion has indeed united socioeconomic groups and competing ethnic groups. There is thing called human pride that gets in the way that overpowers their commitment to the Word of God and Goodwill to All Men. That is why God will Judge.

AE...

"it was to note that someone whose level of intimacy with violence is no closer than a book written millennia ago is someone who wouldn't know the first thing to do if war actually broke out."

Exactly why the armchair warriors who wait with bated breath for the next Civil War will be staying at home rather than being on the front lines, just like yourself, dear.