Wednesday, November 07, 2018

93% of Democrats think it's important that fewer whites be elected

Some reactions to the blue splash:

- I'm quite pleased with the congressional predictions we made. Richard and I put the House at Ds 225, Rs 210. There are a handful as of yet undeclared but it looks like the final result is going to be Ds 229, Rs 206. In the Senate, we nailed every incumbent party hold and got all three of our predicted flips correct but failed to predict two additional flips, one in Florida (understandable) and one in Indiana (inexplicable). The latter isn't a missed free throw, it's a missed layup.

- The Kemp, DeSantis, and King contests were three of the night's four most important. Cheers to and for all of them.

Kris Kobach's defeat stings more than any other could, though. I spent several hours canvassing for him and know well several people who did far, far more than I did.

As has been recounted here before, I first met Kris when I was in college as he debated the late Richard Nadler over the topic of immigration at a dinner club hosted by journalist Jack Cashill in 2005 (or maybe 2006). Since then I've watched him fight almost single-handedly to make National Question issues like in-state tuition and sanctuary cities top political concerns in Kansas. As expected, he's regularly been stabbed in the back by corporatist cucks and in the front by criminal organizations like the ACLU, but he refuses to be deterred. The man is indefatigable.

How did his defeat happen? Laura Kelly effectively portrayed Kobach as the second coming of the deeply unpopular Sam Brownback. Kobach could have easily refuted this by pointing out that he had defeated Brownback's lieutenant governor and then replacement, Jeff Colyer, in the primaries and that Kobach and Brownback could hardly be any further apart on immigration than they are. Instead, he opted to try and win on the state's nearly 2-to-1 Republican party affiliation advantage by not saying a bad word about anyone with an (R) next to his name. It wasn't enough.

Then there is Johnson County, home to the Kansas City metro area's most affluent towns and suburbs. Over one-quarter of the state's votes came from the county, and Kelly won it by a devastating 55%-38%. Outside of Johnson the two virtually tied, 50.2%-49.8%. In Brownback's 4-point 2014 reelection win, the former governor took Johnson, 49%-48%.


Kobach underperformed Brownback by 3 points in every county combined except for Johnson. In Johnson, however, Kobach underperformed Brownback by a staggering 18 points. Had Kobach been able to mirror Brownback's 2014 performance in the county, he'd have won the election.

Johnson has a lot of transplants from other states and also, in no small part thanks to Kevin Yoder, lots of H-1B serfs working for tech companies such as Sprint, Garmin, and Cerner who have a large presence here. It's a county whose population has grown much faster than the rest of the state's over the last couple of decades. So have its median incomes and housing prices, the latter more rapidly than the former. It's becoming the kind of place Paul Ryan dreams about, and as a consequence it is becoming a place that Republicans increasingly cannot win. Conservative nationalist Kobach and Chamber of Commerce puppet Yoder both lost the county on Tuesday.

I'm not sure what's next for Kobach, but his story is not finished. If Trump appoints Kobach as Jeff Sessions' successor, the AG gets a major upgrade. If Trump appoints anyone other than Kobach as successor, it gets a serious downgrade. When Trump campaigned for Kobach last month, he joked about bringing Kris into the White House if he lost the governor's race. Time to make good on that!

- Next door, Missouri had three initiatives up for vote--one on raising the state's minimum wage, one on "ethics reform", and one on increasing the gasoline tax. The first two passed, the third failed.

That's what democracy inevitably leads to--people voting in favor of things that benefit them without requiring any sacrifice on their part, voting in favor of virtue-signaling that similarly doesn't require them to do anything, and voting against anything that requires them to incur real costs to themselves.

- The Russia Hoax has run its course. Some 54% of respondents say it is politically motivated while just 41% think it is justified. The partisan split is predictable. That means independents realize it is fake. It's unlikely Democrats will squander electoral goodwill by continuing to pursue it.

- Civic Nationalists remain a majority of GOP voters, but alt-right ideas continue to percolate through the electorate, with more than one-third of Republicans now realizing that the society their ancestors built systematically discriminates against them in favor of non-whites. Only one-in-ten Republicans buy into the 'white privilege' nonsense.


- In addition to overwhelmingly agreeing with Kinky Kamala about the nature of the country, a staggering 95% of Democrats say it is either "important" or "very important" to elect more women to public office and a similar 93% that it is either "important" or "very important" to elect more racial and ethnic minorities to public office.

Stated in another way, some 95% of Democrats say it is important or really important to elect fewer men and 93% say it is important or really important to elect fewer whites. But don't worry, Joe Biden is sure to get the 2020 Democrat nomination. Harris doesn't stand a chance!

- I will respond to the great thread in the previous post soon, specifically to Passer by who is not getting a beer from me on account of the outcome (but who will certainly enjoy a beer on me if he, or any other regular reader, drops me a line when passing through the KC area).

145 comments:

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I don't think being an immigration hardliner really helps to be honest. But if it makes you feel better, I don't think it hurts either. Look at Brian Kemp, he won by slightly under two points. If he was running against the candidates the dems have run in the past (Michele Nunn, Jason Carter, Roy Barnes) there's a good chance he would have lost.

Andrew Smith said...

Do you think this had anything to do with Clair McCaskill losing? Doesn’t seem like a platform that will rally the Democrat base. Reaching across the aisle and attempting to please both sides typically leads to losing your base and not gaining a thing from the other side.

(I promise this is a safe link btw)

https://youtu.be/_ItGyDKilgQ

Feryl said...

The bullcrap about chicks/non-whites is something to behold. In the past (e.g., before 2012), everyone was fed up with corruption and greed, certainly liberals were. But then this bizarre moral panic/victim hysteria about "white privilege" popped up out of "nowhere" (nowhere being the fetid swamps of PC academia, which in the 90's and 2000's were regularly laughed at and shooed away). And now, for an embarrassingly large portion of the population it's just fine to be on a sinking ship as long as it's being piloted by the right people.

Sports writer Micheal Wilbon (of all people) says that around 2012 what he calls "San Francisco" values were being heavily memed everywhere, and it's not clear how this happened exactly.....Or who started it. And it just seems to be getting worse, as all moral panics and witch hunts do. Eventually it will collapse under the weight of it's hubris and growing public ridicule, which generally happens about 10 years after the onset of the panic. For example, the hysteria regarding children in danger began in the very late 70's (w/ Anita Bryant notoriously starting an organization called "Save the Children" in 1978), then peaked in the later 1980's (kids on milk cartons, Satanic abuse conspiracy theories, media attention on child kidnappings, and "recovered" memories of child abuse gaining public acceptance). But then, in the early-mid 90's, there was a significant backlash towards this moral panic, with comedy culture popularizing the sardonically inane usage of the phrase "for the children", due to how overworn that cliche was getting. On the Simpsons, Ned Flanders was a gentle parody of 1980's Religious Right culture and paranoia, which in the 90's nobody took that much offense to; we'd already acted defensive and humorless enough in the late 80's.

But there were other panics brewing; politicians and media figures began to complain that movies, TV shows, and video games especially were too violent ("murder simulators") in the 1990's. Crimes were linked to specific video games (e.g., the Columbine shooters were fans of Doom), sometimes mistakenly. Beavis and Butthead had to stop making references to pyro-mania because teens were said to be imitating the show. Moralists in the early 2000's became aware that Grand Theft Auto allowed the players, at their moral nadir, to pay hookers, have sex with them, then beat them to get the money back. Curiously, though, this panic has totally faded; no video game franchise since the mid-2000's has surfaced as a moral target.

We will have to wait until the early-mid 2020's for this bullcrap about white and male oppressors to go away.

Passer by said...

"The bullcrap about chicks/non-whites is something to behold. In the past (e.g., before 2012), everyone was fed up with corruption and greed, certainly liberals were. But then this bizarre moral panic/victim hysteria about "white privilege" popped up out of "nowhere" (nowhere being the fetid swamps of PC academia, which in the 90's and 2000's were regularly laughed at and shooed away). And now, for an embarrassingly large portion of the population it's just fine to be on a sinking ship as long as it's being piloted by the right people."

"it's not clear how this happened exactly.....Or who started it."

It's not bizarre, its very logical. The SJW thing is mostly a US thing and it naturally comes with the higher number of jews there. Jews are "victims" in the West so they strive to create a victim worship/victim mongering society. In such an inverted society, where victims rule, they would be on top of the food chain as the biggest "victims" (OMG Muh Holocaust!). Jews create a coalition of minorities in order to take down the dominant group in the target host country. Women, non-whites, LGBTs, various "marginalised" groups, etc are used. It's not that they care too much about them, but they are simply needed to get the job done.

Identity politics is a jewish creation, replacing the traditional leftism (which was also a jewish creation, but it is no longer effective or needed, because of the "bigoted" white working class and the jewish capture of the elites).

In the past, jews created communism in order to use the working class vs the dominant gentile elites. Now that this experiment failed in the Soviet Union, and that many jews became the elites themselves, a new "communism" is being invented - identity politics (that accepts capitalism and banksterism). Suckers don't understand that the whole "left" thing is abandoning the working class and is just a smokescreen for jewish ethnic warfare.

I'm not even sure that a "left" would exist without jews, at least that's the opinion of K. Mcdonald.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

@Feryl - this is why I (ironically of course) think weed needs to be mandatory. All these retarded moral panics would (at least in theory) go away.

MichiganWave said...

Audacious, Great analysis. Isn't an additional point that a big % of 2016 Trump voters simply couldn't be bothered to vote? Too cynical, too ambivalent, etc. Maybe Kobach needed to use more attack ads, make the election more monumental. Look at these numbers-
2016, KS - Trump vote: 671,018; Johnson vote: 55,406; Hillary: 427,005
2018, KS - Kobach: 443,386; 3rd Party: 91,293; Kelly: 489,337

So, Kelly got the Hillary vote plus some of the Johnson vote, and some extras from energy due to a tight race. Doubtful that many of the missing 227,636 Trump voters went for Kelly. They likely weren't engaged, didn't see what was at stake. I get that he had to carry the Brownback baggage - that was likely make many potential voters cynical

Sid said...

Some thoughts...

1. I'm glad the GOP has a beefier Senate majority, which means it will be easier to replace RBG and maybe also Breyer with another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh.

That said, it's hard to feel anything but glum about the House, no matter how anticipated the outcome. A massive immigration overhaul is all but impossible for the next couple of years. (Not that it ever had much of a shot with Paul Ryan as Speaker.)

2. I'm also disappointed about Kobach losing the race, though of course I'm no expert on Kansas politics and hope he will have more opportunities in the future.

3. The big problem we have is that the demographic tide is ever moving against us. When I look back on the last two years, I don't know if much of anything was done to reverse those trends. In fact, the situation has worsened. It makes each election cycle that much harder. (Will Florida remain a swing state in 2020? Texas and Georgia are fast approaching being swing states themselves.)

4. The loss of the House also reveals a lot about the national mood. The climate is much different than it was two years ago. It's gotten far more challenging for dissident rightists to get their point out. Twitter regularly eliminates its most interesting dissident rightists, to the point now where people are so afraid of being edgy that scrolling through Twitter is becoming a snooze. Whenever I feel ready to move over to Gab, though, the site is down because of server/financial assaults. Alas.

Similarly, I saw a lot of "#IVoted(forDemocrats)!" virtue signalling on Facebook and Twitter. One of the bulwarks the Republicans had in the midterms was that the Democratic base was less motivated to show up for them, but now social media is purposefully moving in a direction to get low-IQ, low-conscientious Democrats to the voting booth.

5. Non-whites hate white people more than the reverse. I think that remains the one overarching explanation for the midterms.

SJWism hasn't really progressed all that much further into lunacy under Trump, but its anti-white animus remains intact and largely unchallenged. They can say just about any blood libel against whites and get a pat on the head, whereas citing FBI statistics or making a joke is enough to do us in.

Similarly, whites just aren't as motivated to hate other races as non-whites are urged to hate whites. I mean, look at commenters on this blog: we're careful to distinguish between religious Jews and Israelis with the insufferable blue-checkmark ones. Meanwhile, Paul Krugman is bashing Wyoming for having too many white voters!

I am not suggesting we become as hateful as they are, but alas, we have a major challenge here.

6. As more of a side point: the MSM has been going anti-Trump nonstop over his whole presidency. Where things are getting better, he's not getting credit.

This is meaningless to people like us, because we understand the MSM is now just an arm of the DNC. But for mid-information voters, it must surely have an effect.

But it's not all black pills from me:

1. Nancy Pelosi is surely now at some level of dementia. Trump can easily blast her over the next couple of years.

Furthermore, Democrats will be held far more accountable for their insane and bigotted views by the median voter than when they lacked political power.

Pelosi also won't be amenable to working with Trump on areas where they could conceivably find common ground, such as on trade and infrastructure. She will run the House like a circus show. All of these things will give Trump opportunities to hit harder and more successfully.

2. Similarly, we will need to think of ways to adapt and thrive in the shifting social media climate. New ideas and approaches can be discovered.

The problems I outlined aren't insuperable, but there isn't much time left when it comes to immigration.

Matt Forney said...

I’m pretty satisfied given that my predictions were broadly correct (GOP gains in the Senate, House would be narrowly controlled by whoever won, modest Dem gains in state races), even though I got some of the details wrong.

Some important details to consider:

1. Trumpian populism/nationalism is now the dominant force in the Republican Party. The previously Democratic Midwest/Rust Belt states—the ones most receptive to Trump’s agenda—were where the GOP was strongest last night:

Ohio: cleaned up. Held the governorship, legislature, and all House seats, and only lost to Sherrod Brown by six points (he was elected in the 2006 Democratic wave by thirteen points).

Indiana: won bigly against Joe Donnelly.

Iowa: lost two House seats, but held the governorship and legislature.

Wisconsin: lost the governorship, but by a whisker, and only after the Dems poured an insane amount of money into the race. Held the legislature and all their House seats (great DSA hope Randy Bryce lost by a wide margin).

Michigan: lost the governorship and two House seats but held the legislature, and lost to Debbie Stabenow by only five points (she won by 20 points in 2012 and 15 points in 2006).

Minnesota: lost two House seats but gained two more, held onto the state Senate.

Pennsylvania: held the state legislature despite big Dem statewide wins.

Missouri: YUGE win against Claire McCaskill.

New York: the state as a whole is a lost cause, but the GOP did well in upstate (which is part of the Rust Belt), only losing two of their upstate seats (all but one of their upstate seats went blue during the Dem wave elections of 2006-2009).

Illinois: same as New York; held onto working-class downstate seats in the face of a blue tidal wave statewide.

The GOP also did well in Florida, which shocked me, and they held the line in Georgia and Texas. Their losses were mainly concentrated in Sun Belt and blue state suburbs, owing to both demographic displacement and the fact that suburbicuck voters are pro-immigrant, pro-free trade, and love to virtue-signal against “racism” (see: Kansas). The suburban strivers in Arizona and Texas view themselves as petty feudal lords and are against any policy agenda that makes it harder for them to stiff their illegal alien gardeners.

It’s clear that the GOP needs to go full steam on the Trump agenda. This election flushed a lot of cucks out of the system and made it obvious that nationalism is what the base wants. The Tea Party libertarians need to go; they are electoral poison (see: Scott Walker, Dave Brat etc. going down to defeat). A nationalist GOP will win bigly in 2020, particularly since the Dems will probably run a Kamala Harris- or Cory Booker-type with bland centrist politics.

The GOP also needs to cut its losses in the West and focus on turning the Rust Belt red. The Western states have always been pro-free trade/pro-immigrant, going back to the 19th century, and they’re not going to change their minds now, especially with La Raza rising in demographic power. Nevada and Colorado are not purple states anymore; they’re blue states. 2016 proved that a populist platform will win over the Midwest while maintaining enough support in Western red states to keep them in the GOP column, and since you need only one more vote than the other guy to win a state, it doesn’t matter if Trump’s margins are slightly lower in Texas or Arizona.

2. The House Democrats are going to explode into civil war. The neoliberal/Clinton/Obama wing and the DSA/Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez wing are already at loggerheads. The latter will want to move forward on their whackadoodle Abolish ICE gimmedat agenda and the former will want to putter around on Russiagate and foreign interventionism. The fact that the Dem majority is so narrow means that Pelosi will have a real hard time keeping her caucus under control. Trump can (and should) use this to his advantage by playing both sides against each other.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

To be honest, I don't see a whole lot that is blackpilling about Tuesday, Kobach's loss aside, which now that Sessions is stepping down, maybe he can find a way to land a senior position within Trump's cabinet.

A lot of the seats that got flipped were cucks. The same cucks who ran on appealing Obamacare for the last several years and when they had a chance to do so were caught with their pants around their ankles. The same cucks who called immigration a moral imperative. The same cucks who ran on stale 1994 Contract With America talking points, steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that immigration is now the top priority, not tax cuts. We basically had a Do Nothing congress, even with a Senate majority and a Republican in the White House: a clear mandate if we ever saw one. Yet there they were, doing as little as possible because they didn't want to acknowledge that rural and working class whites now have a bigger say in things rather than think tanks funded by (((donors))).

I guess what I'm saying is that even if the House remained in GOP control, the odds weren't all that great that they would do more than what they did or more accurately didn't do in 2017 and 2018. They seemed more excited about another round of tax cuts than an infrastructure bill or real immigration reform. The likely successor to Paul Ryan is a guy who got spooked into deleting his tweets after Pittsburgh. The GOP has a long ways to go into being a platform to enact measures. The final weeks of the midterms were pretty eye opening and sobering in terms of what we could expect from the next round of the GOP: not as soft and cucky as Paul Ryan but Steve King would still have been his own island out in Iowa.

Besides, I'm pretty skeptical that these newly minted Democrat congressmen are going to last long anyway. Many of them ran to the center or even the right in order to win and when their constituents see that they vote almost 100% of the time with Pelosi, then it's hard for them to claim that they're going to be best pals with Trump like many of them ran on, especially guys like Conor Lamb.

Sorry for the long post but after taking a day to process it, Tuesday wasn't good but it wasn't bad either.

snorlax said...

Random Dude -

Dave Brat's loss was also pretty blackpilling.

Feryl said...

Brat had favorable stances on trade and immigration, oddly enough considering that in most other respects he's neither economically liberal enough nor culturally conservative enough to be a favorite of either young voters or older GOP voters.

I wouldn't consider Brat to be a cuck libertarian type, but he made himself too difficult to ideologically pin down. If that's because you're ignoring the worst traits of both parties, then good. If it's because you're too idiosyncratic to win much support or interest, then bad.

Cantor was a bland CoC type, who was easy to reject.

216 said...

It remains to be seen whether or not the Dems maintain their turnout intensity in 2020, the elections in '19 are three Governor elections in Southern states. A Dem sweep is unlikely, but not improbable. All three Dem nominees are likely to be moderate/conservative white males.

Declining turnout has been a problem for the establishment across the west, but they can still manipulate it higher if needed. Non-voters are passive supporters of the system, rather than a "silent majority" against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_regional_elections,_2015

FN receives 27% of the vote in the first round (MLP received only 21% in the first round in 2017). Massive establishment fearmongering of "Vichy" drove an additional 2 million voters to the polls. Without which the FN would have won at least 3 elections for regional Governor.

Feryl said...

"The same cucks who ran on stale 1994 Contract With America talking points, steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that immigration is now the top priority, not tax cuts. We basically had a Do Nothing congress, even with a Senate majority and a Republican in the White House: a clear mandate if we ever saw one. Yet there they were, doing as little as possible because they didn't want to acknowledge that rural and working class whites now have a bigger say in things rather than think tanks funded by (((donors)))."

The problem here is that mid-higher income voters born before 1970, who live outside of trendy areas or live in them but don't aspire to current SJW values, have already gotten what they wanted since the early 1990's, and most GOP'ers don't care about any other group of voters. Since this demo. is far out of step with what the Millennial right wants, while still being intent on thwarting economic liberalism and the current spike in annoying political correctness, the current GOP donor class and the lion's share of TrueCon voters have nothing to sell besides the greatest hits of the 90's.

Fortunately, as Trump's 2016 platform proved, it's possible to win much greater support from independents, moderates, Millennials, and working class voters by promising and hopefully delivering something besides tax cuts for the rich. But that's not enough to thwart what affluent Boomer TrueCons and Xtian cucks continue to insist is the only acceptable path forward for the party. It's the damn "principle" crap that Millennials have been making fun of for years at this point, picking up where Gen X-ers left off in the 80's and 90's.

216 said...

In 2017, Macron received 20 million votes, only 2 million more than Hollande received in 2012. Le Pen received 10 million votes, 6 million less than Sarkozy in 2012. 4 million voters cast "invalid" ballots, and 25% didn't vote at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2017#Results

Strangely, the FN voters didn't turn out at all for the elections for parliament a month later (13%). Extrapolating (a lot), a GOP loss in 2020 could mean a Dem landslide in the 2022 midterms.

---

Governor Bevin in KY is perhaps for Feryl the worst possible candidate, other than not being a Boomer.

Feryl said...

"It's not bizarre, its very logical. The SJW thing is mostly a US thing and it naturally comes with the higher number of jews there. "

Knock it off. Obama professed to be against gay marriage in the 2000's. SJWism is a moral panic, as can be discerned by how rapidly it blew up in the 2010's. Were Jews responsible for society's hysteria over child abuse and exploitation in the 1980's (something that the Alt-Right tried, and failed, to revive during Trump's campaign)? Give me a break.

Moral panics are defined as the sudden onset of paranoia and virtue signalling over a previously minor or niche issue. The 1960's had no moral panic about the safety of children, while the 2000's had no moral panic over the rights of women and non-whites being trampled on. Jews don't set the parameters of these things, if they did then the Religious Right would not have taken off in the 80's like it did.

Western Europe shows similar trends of child panic in the 80's (driven by conservatives), and panic over "white nationalism" in the 2000's (driven by liberals).

Corvinus said...

Passerby…

“Identity politics is a jewish creation…”

The reality is that ideology through identity remains a powerful force in American politics, and that this force is an amalgamation of different raciall, ethnic, and religious groups.

“replacing the traditional leftism (which was also a jewish creation)…

No, it was a development during the French Revolution, inspired by the Philosophes.

“but it is no longer effective or needed, because of the "bigoted" white working class and the jewish capture of the elites).”

Some elements of the working class is bigoted, but that has been historically the case. And as far as the “elites” are concerned, the Alt Right is not immune. That is, the Vox Days, Richard Spencers, John Derbyshires of the world also espouse a similar “holier than thou” attitude and desire to impose their ways of life by virtue signaling, kowtowing, and/or good old fashioned force.

Sid,

“1. I'm glad the GOP has a beefier Senate majority, which means it will be easier to replace RBG and maybe also Breyer with another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh.”

It makes little difference if the majority here is 52-48 or 54-46 or 56-44, the GOP controlled Senate would still be able to push forward the desired Supreme Court Justice nominee.

“The big problem we have is that the demographic tide is ever moving against us.”

Most white Americans do not see it in that way, and thus the Alt Right and Alt Lite become frustrated. And it has little to do with being “brainwashed” or being “ashamed”, it has everything to do with them making their own decisions about race and culture. Besides, this “demographic tide” in our nation’s history has moved against certain groups of people. The nativists (WASPs) in particular lamented about the influx of the Irish, Poles, Italians, and Slavs. It made little difference that they were white and European, it made all the difference that they were deemed on the low end of the ethnic totem pole and that their customs would change for the worse the character of the “founding stock”. Of course, their ancestors today make the same arguments that the nativists of yore are making, conveniently forgetting how their great, great, great grandparents proved wrong the nativists with their ability to assimilate. Remember, assimilation is NOT an exclusive European or white trait, it is an ability of the human race to blend in.

“Non-whites hate white people more than the reverse. I think that remains the one overarching explanation for the midterms.”

Overstated. Certainly there are some non-whites that hate white people. But that hate is about what those white people think or do. Just like when SJW’s say that white people need to “check their privilege”, that sentiment is meant to generate a reaction. The fact is that normies realize the machinations of both the hard core left and right, and aren’t buying it. Like, for example, when Steve Sailer makes mention of some NYT female author and her incessant virtue signaling, and his audience gets all up in arms. What would be the reaction by normies—Who/Whom?

“This is meaningless to people like us, because we understand the MSM is now just an arm of the DNC.”

Undoubtedly there is support for the DNC, as those in the media industry identify with liberalism. But Fox News also serves as the official propaganda arm of the GOP and Trump. That is why there must be some way to break up corporate media on both the left and the right, because they tend to filter things through a particular lens that makes it challenging for normies to find truth. Of course, the “Fake News” meme only makes matters worse, as it dumbs down the overall populace.

Corvinus said...

Matt Forney…

“Trumpian populism/nationalism is now the dominant force in the Republican Party.”

Only by necessity. The GOP leadership tends to run scared, and wants desperately to stay in power. So they let him run roughshod.

“Indiana: won bigly against Joe Donnelly.”

Historically, Indiana leans conservative. So there is no surprise here.

“Iowa: lost two House seats, but held the governorship and legislature.”

Historically, Iowa is conservative. So there is no surprise here.

“Wisconsin: lost the governorship, but by a whisker, and only after the Dems poured an insane amount of money into the race. “

There are two reasons why Walker lost—the FoxComm deal which is turning out to be a boondoggle for residents in the counties of Racine and Kenosha (he didn’t even tout this accomplishment in the last three months of his campaign, and deflected questions about it!) -and- northern Wisconsin counties flipped because of a lack of school funding and other educational matters that simply were not addressed by him as promised. The money helped, but it was these two issues that led to his defeat.

“It’s clear that the GOP needs to go full steam on the Trump agenda. This election flushed a lot of cucks out of the system and made it obvious that nationalism is what the base wants.”

Cucks is really overused, and it has lost its sting. Now there were dozens of GOP legislators that simply chose not to run, either because they were tired of the daily political grind especially being associated with Trump or simply had other aspirations. In a number of areas that had been considered safe havens for the GOP, their candidates lost who promoted Trump’s agenda lost. And it’s really about 30% of the base that desires this hard-core nationalism, which Trump is only touting not because he truly believes in it, but because he is a marketer. The rest of the base are not fans of Democrats, and just go along for the ride. I mean, look at the evangelicals. They despise Trump’s history of immorality, but they are willing to put blinders on because he promises conservative Supreme Court justices. So in this regard it remains ideological.

“A nationalist GOP will win bigly in 2020, particularly since the Dems will probably run a Kamala Harris- or Cory Booker-type with bland centrist politics.”

Could win, you mean. See, all bets are off here. Harris or Booker could be the nominee, but it is really wide open. And someone like Beto O’Rourke may also emerge as the frontrunner.

“The House Democrats are going to explode into civil war.”



It could be severely divided, I will concede that point. It will be interesting in the next sixth months what will be their direction. Will Pelosi remain Speaker, or will there be an uprising, with her being replaced?

You know, I thought by now you would have heeded the call to run for political office by now. You have these grandiose plans and your manospherist credentials are impeccable. You could make more effective change by being elected to the state legislature or to Congress. You really should be seriously exploring it. The Alt Right needs people like you in those positions of leadership, rather than just bragging through your blog about your principles.

Duke Norfolk said...

I’d say there’s probably still a lot of work to be done waking up white working class union workers to the reality that the Dem party does not represent their interests and is now the anti-white party that wants them marginalized, at best.

Here’s my anecdote in that area. I was talking to my nephew (in-law; wife’s sister’s son) about the election results. He’s 31 yo, a cop in a St. Louis suburban area, but lives in a rural area next door to his parents. He’s not awakened on all issues yet, but he does support Trump and votes R. He talked about his dad (who I don’t particularly get along with; not hostile, mind you, just superficially civil on both sides), who’s a retired, 58 yo, former union pipefitter. Votes how the union tells him and is totally clueless about the realities of the world today. He voted for McCaskill.

His mom is stuck on health care, particularly pre-existing conditions. Wouldn’t vote for Hawley against McCaskill. She has no clue. Not a deep thinker, let’s just say. These people are very typical middle America working class Boomers.

They are not anti-racist leftists by any means. Rather racist against blacks, actually, having experienced them before the families (Parents’ generation) white-flighted to suburban and then rural area. But I don’t think they have any real awareness of how the left has been working to displace whites. Even if they’re aware of more and more Mexicans coming in, they still aren’t aware of the level of threat we’re under. Little to no internet activity, certainly nothing that would red pill them in any important way.

I’m going to work on red-pilling my nephew some more, as he’s just a MAGA-pede at this point. Maybe he’ll be able to get thru to his parents over time. Luckily their votes were swamped by others here. The good news is that he says that even though the cop union (FOP) tells them to vote Dem, almost all, if not all, of the cops he works with know better and vote R. So that’s something.

216 said...

Corvinus,

"But Fox News also serves as the official propaganda arm of the GOP and Trump. That is why there must be some way to break up corporate media on both the left and the right, because they tend to filter things through a particular lens that makes it challenging for normies to find truth"

Even for someone as smug as yourself, you really should know better here.

Cable news is a niche market with the largest show rarely exceeding an audience of 3 million. Fox News is not an "echo chamber" of epistemic closure, it's a ghetto meant to keep the Right content and not demanding that the mainstream media "look like America". Murdoch has never created a "Fox Nightly News" to compete with the legacy 3 networks, which combined outdraw the highest Fox News show several times over. Nor has he created a "Fox News International" as he was strictly forbidden by the UK Government from operating Sky in a similar fashion.

snorlax said...

AE -

Can you ban Corvinus? At least on Sailer's I'm able to put him on ignore but here it's very annoying to have to scroll past all the walls of text to get to the worthwhile parts of the comment thread.

Passer by said...

@Feryl

"Knock it off. Obama professed to be against gay marriage in the 2000's. SJWism is a moral panic, as can be discerned by how rapidly it blew up in the 2010's. Were Jews

responsible for society's hysteria over child abuse and exploitation in the 1980's (something that the Alt-Right tried, and failed, to revive during Trump's campaign)? Give me a break.

Moral panics are defined as the sudden onset of paranoia and virtue signalling over a previously minor or niche issue. The 1960's had no moral panic about the safety of children, while the 2000's had no moral panic over the rights of women and non-whites being trampled on. Jews don't set the parameters of these things, if they did then the Religious Right would not have taken off in the 80's like it did.

Western Europe shows similar trends of child panic in the 80's (driven by conservatives), and panic over "white nationalism" in the 2000's (driven by liberals)."

Obama was against gay marriage probably because US society was not ready for it. SJWism and identity politics are gradual - they gradually increase as society shifts towards more and more liberalism, the way a frog is boiled alive.

There could be moral panics, but there could be also engineered things, and imo the SJW thing is an (((engineered))) thing.

Why is it that the women's issues became suddenly important, you ask? Simple. Because of Trump and "grab them by the pussy". There was no need to emphasize women's issues during the Obama administration, but things changed after the more male dominated republicans won in 2016. So an emphasis was put on sexual assault issues as a way of attacking Trump.

As for Western Europe, it usually follows the US, many people in Europe say that what starts in the US sooner or later comes to Europe too. I would say that the fall of the Soviet Union is causing a gradual shift from traditional Leftism towards identity politics. Still, i think that the identity politics thing is mostly a US thing and is mostly coming from the US, gradually infecting Europe too. Until recently, the continental Euro left was more about economic issues but now it is moving away towards more identity politics - see the rise of the Greens in Germany, that is basically a SJW party.

@Corvinus

Without Marxism which was invented by a jew i'm not sure you are going to have the left as a viable force in world politics. Certainly it would be a very different world.

Jig Bohnson said...

AE,

You should do a data dive on the California Senate race, using geographic results and exit polls. I think there is a lot there you would enjoy, on the themes you keep coming back to.

Specifically, I saw from glancing at the county-level results that corporatist, rich, white Feinstein absolutely killed it among white liberals (e.g. Marin) in spite of their SJW preening. Whereas unabashed socialist De Leon completely killed it among Hispanics (e.g. Riverside) in spite of their (relatively) more "conservative" views. These results looked to me to be a quintessential case of people voting their tribe rather than their (stated) views.




216 said...

Jig,

Interesting swings in CA. Cox (white) did stronger in NorCal, and worse in SoCal. Cox is from Southern California, and Gavin was the SF mayor. I'm assuming once all the ballots are tallied that the final margin will be worse than what we are seeing now.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2018&fips=6&f=0&off=5&elect=0&def=swg&datatype=county

Cox did better in the redneck/hispanic central valley, and even got 40% in the Imperial County brown ethnostate. The nominee in 2014 was Indian, but I doubt he got a loyalty boost from fellow Asians. Kashkari was born in Akron, a city slightly to the South of Cleveland, OH.

snorlax said...

Passer by -

There was no need to emphasize women's issues during the Obama administration

Uhhh, remember the "War on Women?"

Without Marxism which was invented by a jew i'm not sure you are going to have the left as a viable force in world politics.

Marx certainly did the most (besides Lenin) to popularize it, but socialism/far-leftism was invented by )))Frenchmen(((. And very similar ideas had been percolating for a while, such as the )))Diggers((( of the English Civil War. Or in Shakespeare:

JACK CADE. Valiant I am.

SMITH [aside]. A must needs; for beggary is valiant.

JACK CADE. I am able to endure much.

DICK [aside]. No question of that; for I have seen him whipp'd three market-days together.

JACK CADE. I fear neither sword nor fire.

SMITH [aside]. He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.

DICK [aside]. But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i' th' hand for stealing of sheep.

JACK CADE. Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be,-

ALL. God save your majesty!

JACK CADE. I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


Likewise, Jews were/are very prominent in creating and popularizing the most extreme forms of SJWism, but that ideology dates back to the American and British )))abolitionists((( and )))first-wave feminists(((.

The cancer was already there, and Jewish far-leftists have played the role of the medieval physician who prescribes bloodletting and tincture of mercury.

216 said...

Minneosta Governor

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2018&fips=27&f=0&off=5&elect=0&def=swg&datatype=county

A modest rural swing in the southern part of Minnesota where Walz is from. A big swing in favor of the GOP in the rural working class parts of the state. Some of these counties have sizable numbers of reservation Indians.

Outright treasonous behavior by white voters in the Twin Cities suburbs.

Philippe le Bel said...

-La pire nouvelle est la victoire de ce référendum floridien sur le droit de vote pour les ex-prisonniers.

Je ne vois pas comment les républicains peuvent gagner FL maintenant. Il n'y a pas de voie de victoire en 2020 sans FL.


J'étais abasourdi de lire que Voxday, l'un de mes blogueurs préférés, a appelé à une maison républicaine à 8h36 le soir de l'élection, Parce qu'il est intelligent et américain. Moi, en regardant cela depuis Paris, j’ai regardé les résultats par comté sur les cartes du NYT (excellents) et j’ai rapidement constaté que dans TOUS les comtés, la performance était supérieure de 6 à 10 pts.
Pour être honnête, je fais aussi une erreur, j'ai été convaincu que Telster perdrait MT et Kobach gagnerait KS. Je ne connaissais pas la taille de ce comté de Johnson (d'ailleurs, les noms de vos comtés sont ennuyeux, chers amis américains ^^: toujours les mêmes noms partout (Lake, Allen, Greene, Logan, Jefferson, Johnson, Fayette ...) (bon, vous devriez garder les comtés Fayette lol)

-Je ne veux jamais entendre parler Bill Mitchell, Larry Schweikart, HA Goodman et d'autres, ils me donnent un faux espoir. OK, j'ai gardé des doutes (je ne me souviens pas si j'ai parlé ici mes inquiétudes sur les sondages, qui selon moi sont souvent globalement exactes pour l’ensemble de l’histoire), j’ai gardé des doutes, mais j’ai fini par croire que je vivrais une autre délicieuse nuit de larmes libérales. Je voulais mes nuits de larmes libérales!

... Et ensuite, est devenu proposition de la Floride. Plus de larmes libérales la nuit, jusqu'à ... je ne sais pas. Un miracle ?

@ VOK3: oui, Français;)

@MATT FORNEY: très intéressant, vous me redonnez espoir (mais FL est toujours perdu ...)

216 said...

Philippe,

Are you from Quebec or France? If you are Belgian, be aware that it's a non-country to us.

Why exactly did FN voters not show up in the elections for the French Congress after the Presidential election last year? Did they think there was fraud? Why is France unable to have both elections on the same day?

snorlax said...

216 -

Not French (except by partial ancestry) but I assume the reason is because MLP (and the polls, which were way off) raised her supporters' expectations very high; they were expecting her to win or at least break 40, not get crushed 2-1. The pain of that result must have massively reduced their motivation to vote. Two other reasons are that MLP is quite a bit more popular than her party is, and because MLP voters may have tactically voted for center-right candidates in constituencies where FN had no chance of winning (which is to say nearly all of them).

Gabriel M said...

@ Passerby

There's a reason Kevin MacDonald studiously avoids mentioning Karl Marx and instead writes hundreds of pages on anthropologists you've never heard of. I'll help you out.

Corvinus said...

Snorlax...

You are a Becky.

216…

“Even for someone as smug as yourself, you really should know better here. 

“Cable news is a niche market with the largest show rarely exceeding an audience of 3 million.”

That is on television. On streaming devices, the audience increases dramatically. Moreover, if cable news is this “niche market”, then why is President Trump harping about its political and social impact?

“Fox News is not an "echo chamber" of epistemic closure, it's a ghetto meant to keep the Right content and not demanding that the mainstream media "look like America”.”

You seriously cannot be buying what you are selling. Cable News, whether skewed left or right, tends to be an “echo chamber”. They have their token opposition pieces to make it appear “fair and balanced”, but their news directors especially work toward marketing their brand and skewing their stories in a particular manner. As a result, normies have to separate the wheat from the chaff. The “ghetto” is Vox on the left and Vox Day on the right.

“Murdoch has never created a "Fox Nightly News" to compete with the legacy 3 networks, which combined outdraw the highest Fox News show several times over. Nor has he created a "Fox News International" as he was strictly forbidden by the UK Government from operating Sky in a similar fashion.”

There was no need on his part to have a counterweight to the three major networks national telecasts, since he built the network through bankable stars to draw in a niche audience. He sought to do news “his way”, which would be a definitive and unique alternative.

Passer by…

“The 1960's had no moral panic about the safety of children…”

Come again? Moral panics tend to be about an underlying fear around something fundamental on which the society depends, for example, educational institutions. The hedonism on display in high school and college campuses, compliments of hippies, during this decade led conservatives to go on the rampage when it came to limiting the influence of popular culture. Remember the hype with the Smothers Brothers? Their vile messages had such tremendous negative impact on youngsters that CBS forced it off the air at the behest of parents, advertisers, and conservative politicians.

“Why is it that the women's issues became suddenly important, you ask? Simple. Because of Trump and "grab them by the pussy". “

Come again? Women’s issues have been important since the 1920’s. There was no “suddenness”, just a reawakening or reemergence of such issues like equal pay and sexual harassment in the workplace, And during the Obama Administration, these issues were constantly on their radar. Furthermore, Trump has a well-known reputation for “pumping and dumping” in Heartistian terms.

“Without Marxism which was invented by a jew i'm not sure you are going to have the left as a viable force in world politics. Certainly it would be a very different world.”

The Enlightenment and the Great Awakening, along with Progressive reformers, were powerful influences, besides Marx, in making “leftism” a potent force.

aNanyMouse said...

@ Duke Norfolk
“But I don’t think they have any real awareness of how the left has been working to displace whites.”
This is utterly crucial, and it was my awareness of this displacement strategy (of whites and males) that moved me to sites like this.

Normies need to learn about (feminists like) Suzanna Danuta Walters and Victoria Brown in the WaPo (screeds vs. men), then about Sarah "extinction" Jeong at the NYT.
The best segway into talk about race, in the current “Kav” environment, is to first talk about feminists, esp. those who hate men AND whites, and who espouse Intersectionality dogma.

@ Passer
“The SJW thing is mostly a US thing.”
No, it's at least as much a Swedish thing, despite Sweden’s lack of Jews.
For decades, SJWs have loved to tout Sweden as their model society.
It was the cucking of Scandinavian men that really boosted SJWism in the whole West.

That the Nobel Prize, by far the world's most famous award, is given by Swedes, probably greatly helped their SJWs' prestige.

216 said...

Corvinus,

The most popular people on Fox News were Bill Oreilly and Megyn Kelly, both of whom were self-styled centrists. It was Fox that attempted to use the GOP primary debates to destroy Trump, which backfired and instead destroyed Megyn Kelly.

Trump has 55 million followers on twitter. The Fox News twitter account has only 18 million followers, and the network rarely gets over 3 million viewers in the average weekday primetime. It is FOX, like Twitter, that needs Trump, not the other way around. Fox News is not a right-wing echo chamber, OANN is, but only a small percentage of people even get that channel in their cable package (AFIAK, I don't). I've never met a person in meatspace that watches it.

FNC is a ghetto, keeping the Right mollified about the fact that journalist are 90% left of center. Murdoch is not a friend of the Right, he's a slumlord.

216 said...

Hey look, election fraud

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-ne-florida-governor-recount-close-20181108-story.html

aNanyMouse said...

So many talk about Jews, but nobody talks about the Swedish (esp. Nobel) Elephant in the Room. WTF?

snorlax said...


Gabriel -

He also, while praising Noam Chomsky, laughably describes him as an "atypical" (or something along those lines) Jew.

Noam Chomsky is the most typical Jew who ever Jewed.

Like, if he were named "Mike Miller" and you described him to me, I would instantly know he's a Jew. Even if he were named "Christian Adrian Calvin MacKenzie," he'd be a halfsie (((every single time))).

I'm trying to think of someone who could be described as the gentile Noam Chomsky, and the best I can come up with is Bertrand Russell.
</passive-aggressive-concern-trolling-for-jews>

Philippe le Bel said...

@216 : true French from France

the reasons why FN underperfoms on house elections are

-1 on the debate, she appears as totally stupid and uncompetant to be president; She ashamed everyone voting for her (I will never more vote FN, personnaly). Plus, she never talk about immigration, and ridiculized herself when she wanted to talk about econmy.
Plus, between the two rounds, she tried to seduce the SJW's electorate of Melenchon, and not the RINO electorate of Fillon. Of course, she failed big league. Her politics of "de-devilization" make are submit more and more to the leftist rule (exact opposit to Trump's way).

(should I say also her cabinet was -and still is- at 75% gay ?...)

2- : we are very legitimists in France. When the president is elected, those who voted for him vote for his party, but those who vote against him vote in a fewer proportion. That's why vote is massive for president and very weak for legislative. We have a bastard constitution, nor presidential nor parlementarian.


3-the most desperate thing in France is the vacuity of the opposition to Macron. We have the neobolchevik Mélenchon, the RINO Mitt Romney style Wauquiez (btw I love the gangnam style parody of him^^) and the lean-RINO Marine Le Pen. No Orban, Salvini or Kaczynski on horizon. Right-wing parties aware about the great replacment (***) have % level similare to libertarian or constitution party (for saying there is no hope here. Personnaly, I just wait the nationalist wave finally come on our shores...)


*** for the next european parliament election, I will vote for the SIEL, the party of Renaud Camus, the man wich create the expression "great replacment", even if he's a J. sucker -and btw, had been persecuted by them in 2000... We will have, well, 0.5 % ? ONE PERCENT ? Wow... What a country... :/

Anonymous said...

Snorlax -

The most typical Jew who ever Jewed may be Noam Chomsky, but there are many who would give him a run for his ((( money ))).


Liberty Mike

Corvinus said...

216...

"The most popular people on Fox News were Bill Oreilly and Megyn Kelly, both of whom were self-styled centrists."

Far right conservatives enjoy painting them as "centrists", but the fact is they are significantly more conservative than the average American voter on a wide range of issues.

"It was Fox that attempted to use the GOP primary debates to destroy Trump, which backfired and instead destroyed Megyn Kelly."

Kelly wasn't "destroyed"--she parlayed her career to a lucrative, but short-lived gig at NBC. And O'Reily left in disgrace after getting handsy. He does have that same devotion as Trump.

"Trump has 55 million followers on twitter."

He's the President, and he is bombastic! That is other than surprising.

"The Fox News twitter account has only 18 million followers..."

Just because this number pales in comparison to Trump does not mean that Fox News lacks far reaching influence on conservative Americans.

"and the network rarely gets over 3 million viewers in the average weekday primetime."

With millions of Americans streaming their shows live or downloading them for later viewing.

"It is FOX, like Twitter, that needs Trump, not the other way around."

Actually, Trump needs the media, especially Fox, whom he calls a conservative friend. He attacks it on a regular basis to pander to his base. That is the showman in him.

"Fox News is not a right-wing echo chamber..."

Dude, Fox News is a conservative echo chamber. Deal with it.

"FNC is a ghetto, keeping the Right mollified about the fact that journalist are 90% left of center. Murdoch is not a friend of the Right, he's a slumlord."

I thought there is no punching to the right. Did you miss the memo?

216 said...

Philippe,

I thought Florian got the boot, and his new party went nowhere?

Is the UPR party a joke?

The data from wiki shows that most Dupont-Aignan voters didn't vote for Le Pen, even though he was endorsing her in the second round, where he would be appointed PM. Who exactly is voting for this party, and where is their tribal loyalty?

vok3 said...

@Philippe

J'ai de la famille en France. Et j'ai un t-shirt de fdesouche.com!

Vox's prediction was wildly overconfident and typically Voxian in that it left no room for contrary data to exert any influence over his thinking. Much like his Roy Moore prediction. Or his "Scott Adams is wrong" statement, mere hours before Sayoc was arrested. As a red-meat political commentator and hardline ideologue he's not bad; but if you try scoring his predictions over an extended period of time you'll find they're unreliable.

As for 2020 and later, it's not that disastrous. One way or another the health care cost issue in the USA has not been addressed and continues to not be addressed even though Trump specifically stated during his election campaign he was going to address it and then deleted all references to it from his campaign website the night of the victory. The basic problem, as Angry Karl Denninger has been going on about for the past 10 years, is that 1) health care in the USA is administered by local monopolies engaging in blatantly anticompetitive practices, 2) these "businesses" charge patients based on their ability to pay, rather than charging the same prices to everyone for the same service, 3) this results in services in the USA costing tens of thousands of dollars where it might cost $100 in Japan or Thailand or some other civilized country (or for that matter the Surgery Center of Oklahoma which accepts cash only, no Medicare or other insurance, and has prices on the order of 1% of what you'd get charged anywhere else), 4) the only way to avoid such crippling bills is to get insurance to pay for it for you, and pay the insurers each year, 5) the net result is that the insurance companies and hospitals are systematically extracting ever-increasing amounts of money from the American middle class each year, 6) this behavior is explicitly illegal and has been confirmed as such in two separate Supreme Court cases, 7) the insurance companies and hospitals have simply ignored said cases, continued their behavior, and not one local prosecutor or state attorney general has bothered to bring charges against them (presumably because they're all getting heavily bribed).

The observable effect is that the health care budget in the USA has been increasing by something like 8% per year for the past 30 years. As Angry Karl points out, that's a classic exponential curve, with a doubling time, and any such curve must necessarily outpace any linear increase in productivity and GDP. When the pond has lily pads whose coverage doubles each day, and a quarter of the pond is covered in lily pads, that means you have 2 days left.

(comment too long, continued below)

vok3 said...

(continued)


It is not too hard to extrapolate medical costs in the USA and see that there comes a point in the not-too-distant future where they surpass the total budget - federal, state, and private households all put together - of the entire country. The only way to stop this is to start enforcing the laws against monopolistic and anticompetitive practices, and put all the highly-paid hospital administrators in jail where they belong. Also the bankers, but that's another topic.

Now like I said: Trump explicitly talked about this during the campaign. Explicitly talked about it on his website. And explicitly deleted every single word once he won. I like what he's been doing, but what he's been doing is not what he should have been doing, which is 1) prosecute the monopolists and enforce openly-posted prices for all patients in health care, 2) build the Wall. Those two things would have saved the USA for another 50 years at least. Instead, we're going to reach a point where the economics simply don't work anymore and very possibly a bond market collapse (at which point you'll see a REAL governmental crisis), and consequently an Argentine or Venezuela style economic crisis, and from there to continental Yugoslavia is a very easy step.

So for the Democrats maybe winning Florida in 2020 is both not a terribly important problem in the grand scheme of things, and, tactically, possibly very useful as they may end up holding the bag when everything goes up in flames.

Trump can still avoid it. He just needs to do those two things. I don't think he's going to.

216 said...

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/11/majority-of-germans-feel-strangers-in-their-own-country-since-the-influx-of-muslim-migrants-study/#.W-SXJc9Wjuw.twitter

Another study, will try to find the original study in german later, that confirms the AFD has a 25% ceiling right now. The "45% hate Muslims", could be questionable, the question may have said "Islamists" or "Salafists". I doubt that 45% are in agreement with Helmut Kohl that the Turks must leave.

Philippe le Bel said...

@216 : Philippot is an hardcore gay, very liberal on society things (don't know the good word, sorry).

UPR IS a joke. More hardcore civic nationalist : you can't find. He said french are more closer to Congolese than from Lituanian. Because they speak french.


@VOK3 : private social security seems to be a total disaster. I hope you push for federal social security, but I know what GOP voters think about it. However, it works well in mainy european countries (well, untill the wave of migrants ruin the thing)

snorlax said...

Philippe -

Regarding US vs European healthcare, see my comment and the one I'm replying to at Sailer's.

Lance E said...

>I'm not even sure that a "left" would exist without jews, at least that's the opinion of K. Mcdonald.

This is the kind of fanatical stupidity inevitably spewed by those who receive 100% of their philosophy and political theory from a single barely-coherent crank.

It's the "right-wing" equivalent of the Harry Potter lens. READ MOAR BOOKS. Learn a little bit of pre-1965 history, or better yet pre-1865. Not for our sake, but for your own sanity.

snorlax said...

Philippe (cont.) -

very liberal on society things (don't know the good word, sorry).

The phrase Americans would use is "social issues" (as opposed to "economic issues") although that could also mean issues like guns and immigration. To make it clear you only mean secularism-related stuff like gay marriage, abortion, school prayer and so forth you could say "moral issues," "cultural issues" or "culture war issues."

private social security

This is a somewhat confusing phrase to use in the US context, because the government old-age pension program in the US is called "Social Security."

In the US we would use the word "entitlements" to refer to benefits that all citizens are eligible for, such as Social Security and Medicare (single-payer healthcare over-65s), and we would say "welfare" or the more technical "means-tested programs" to refer to programs only available to people below a certain income, such as TANF (cash benefits), Medicaid (another single-payer healthcare program), Section 8 (subsidized housing), SNAP ("food stamps"), EITC (negative income tax), etc etc.

Feryl said...

"It is not too hard to extrapolate medical costs in the USA and see that there comes a point in the not-too-distant future where they surpass the total budget - federal, state, and private households all put together - of the entire country. The only way to stop this is to start enforcing the laws against monopolistic and anticompetitive practices, and put all the highly-paid hospital administrators in jail where they belong. Also the bankers, but that's another topic."

The Me Generation always claims that too much government intervention caused the gas lines of the early 1970's and the economic sclerosis of the later 70's and very early 80's. They were self-taught enemies of government action in all senses back then, The 1970's were used to discredit the regulatory regime/expansive government style that FDR built in the 1930's and was considered rational and necessary into the 1960's. Most people in the Me Gen were too busy counting their money in the nearly constant "boom" period that lasted from 1983-2007, to bother admitting that we'd traded the imperfect, but generally economically sound and equality maintaining of the 1930's-1970's, for the economic fundamental destroying program of weak unions, slashed federal taxes, de-regulation of the financial sector, high immigration levels, and off-shoring.

"The observable effect is that the health care budget in the USA has been increasing by something like 8% per year for the past 30 years. As Angry Karl points out, that's a classic exponential curve, with a doubling time, and any such curve must necessarily outpace any linear increase in productivity and GDP. When the pond has lily pads whose coverage doubles each day, and a quarter of the pond is covered in lily pads, that means you have 2 days left."

But that's the magic of the free market, you communist! If you don't like it, move elsewhere. Or just work harder, 'cuz the reason people born in the 1930's and 40's have done so well is because they worked hard. It has nothing whatsoever to do with with the GI Generation creating a system that last from about 1940-1980 which protected consumers and workers from poor business practices and massive waves of immigration. Oh, and it's not like Silents and Boomers destroyed that system in the 80's and 90's because they felt that it imposed too much on corporate profits, heroic business owners and wealthy professionals.

Feryl said...

"Come again? Moral panics tend to be about an underlying fear around something fundamental on which the society depends, for example, educational institutions. The hedonism on display in high school and college campuses, compliments of hippies, during this decade led conservatives to go on the rampage when it came to limiting the influence of popular culture. Remember the hype with the Smothers Brothers? Their vile messages had such tremendous negative impact on youngsters that CBS forced it off the air at the behest of parents, advertisers, and conservative politicians. "

Are you kidding? People's lives in the 1960's were not being ruined by bogus allegations of child abuse. People who were children in the 1960's generally remember their (Silent Gen) parents being distant, not over-protective. The suppression of liberal culture in the late 1960's can be traced to GI Generation leaders (then in their 40's-60's) being fearful of the cultural revolution brewing; remember that bombings and assassinations were commonplace in the late 60's, and street crime and sexual deviancy were quickly rising.

When the political temperature went down in the 70's, and Silent Gen leaders began to assume more power, that's when media censorship disappeared, and protection of children was at a nadir. In the 80's, Silents and Boomers felt ashamed of what they'd done to some degree, and they tried to compensate for it by hyping the frequency of crimes against children and saying that their were Satanic worshipers doing dastardly stuff everywhere. Since it was a moral panic, witch hunting and virtue signalling occurred, which inevitably damaged innocent people, and led "child abuse" and "occult" experts to become discredited and ridiculed in the 1990's.

216 said...

Feryl,

"It has nothing whatsoever to do with with the GI Generation creating a system that last from about 1940-1980 which protected consumers and workers from poor business practices and massive waves of immigration"

Part of that system was the economic devestation of WW2, which the US was unscathed by, followed by the yoking of Western Europe to the US via Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan; purchased at the price of decolonization. It also helped that two big labor pools, China and India, closed themselves off. Oil was cheap, until 1973. The world would have been a different place if the UK/France had been able to keep the colonies as preferential trading partners, when instead they were flooded with goods from Japan/Korea/Taiwan.

The impact of New Deal-inspired policies outside of the West has been less notable. The Keynesians were unable to come up with alternatives to monetarism that would end the scourge of stagflation. They are still struggling to explain why Convergence Theory has not been proven in the real world, capital flight to tax havens is one reason, but also is an ignorance of biological realities.

There's also the theory, that without communism as an alternative, capital is no longer in fear of revolution and thus able to get away with reducing the labor share. Capital has also eagerly been party to the degenerate trends in Western culture, and many leftist eagerly sign on to companies showing "wokeness".

Feryl said...

"Obama was against gay marriage probably because US society was not ready for it. SJWism and identity politics are gradual - they gradually increase as society shifts towards more and more liberalism, the way a frog is boiled alive. "

Fag marriage was a culture war issue hotly debated by elite Silents and Boomers, but treated as a ho-hum thing by Gen X-ers and Millennials in the 2000's. Obama (correctly) realized that a smallish minority of elite liberals were loudly overshadowing the views of most middle class and working class people at that time. And since SJW hysteria hadn't taken off, Obama could matter of factly follow the views of normies and no one cared.

You're meme about incrementalism doesn't necessarily reflect spikes, and sudden drops, in what's considered to be "provocative" and acceptable for the time. For example, defending the rights of criminals was considered common decency in the 1950's and 60's, but the Boomer generated wave in crime of the 1970's and 80's led to the mainstream idea that criminals were always to be hated. Attitudes toward criminals are perhaps the single biggest indicator that society has not (HAS NOT) moved uniformly and gradually toward liberalism over the last 60 years with little to no pauses. That the US has successfully argued for the ability to assassinate it's own citizens would come as a shock to those in the era of the 1960's Warren Court (the most liberal court ever).

Don't be fooled by the retarded Me Generation. Society not being sufficiently conservative in the eyes of modern Republicans is not to be confused with society actually being really liberal. Trump and Limbaugh won't stop whining about Mexicans breaking the laws by trespassing, yet don't have a goddam thing to say about greedy business owners. It's vindictive and reactionary to constantly dump on society's losers (as we've seen happen since the 80's, with low class laborers, drug users, the homeless, the mentally ill, and criminals all being regularly targeted for abuse and neglect, while the moneyed class skates free).

In the (relatively) liberal 1950's, Eisenhower quietly and efficiently deported tons of Mexicans, instead of whining about the Dumbocrats getting in his way, or publicly saying derogatory and vindictive things about migrant workers who'd been lured to the US by the promise of getting work from US business owners.

Again, it's the Boomers who have no empathy or sense of who the real villains are, as they prefer the egoism and elitism of moral judgement and punishment, and taking the side of elites over proles, over doing the sensible and productive thing.

Feryl said...

"Part of that system was the economic devestation of WW2, which the US was unscathed by, followed by the yoking of Western Europe to the US via Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan; purchased at the price of decolonization. It also helped that two big labor pools, China and India, closed themselves off. Oil was cheap, until 1973. The world would have been a different place if the UK/France had been able to keep the colonies as preferential trading partners, when instead they were flooded with goods from Japan/Korea/Taiwan.

The impact of New Deal-inspired policies outside of the West has been less notable. The Keynesians were unable to come up with alternatives to monetarism that would end the scourge of stagflation. They are still struggling to explain why Convergence Theory has not been proven in the real world, capital flight to tax havens is one reason, but also is an ignorance of biological realities."

We can do as the Me Generation did, and use the 1970's to completely discredit the concept of the government expending great resources on policies designed to produce equality and progressive economic stability (as opposed to the last 40 years of allowing elites to own more and more assets and money with less and less fear that it will be grabbed).

Or we can live in reality, in which lower class and many middle class people are up to their eyeballs in debt, outrageous bills, competition from immigrants, and subjected to bullying and humiliation by their superiors (one noteworthy article, published in the 2000's by The Wall Street Journal, explained how the use of fear was a sound tactic in managing the workplace).

Millennials can only dream of having the opportunities and security that Boomers had in the 1970's.

But hey, if a fair number of Millennials have Stockholm Syndrome from the Right and actually think that the last 40 years have been "liberal", than why should I bother telling anyone about how workers and criminals used to be treated with respect. Not when Boomers have brainwashed people into thinking that unions and government regulators are running rampant and taking away our "freedom".

Philippe le Bel said...

I'm not sure this stuff about "boomers/X/Y/Z" are accurate. Isn't it a simple journaist wich created those categories by himself alone ?

On 2016 and 2018 elections, the most massive trumpian vote came from 65+ aged people=the boomers.

Passer by said...

@Corvinus
@snorlax
@Gabriel

Guys, this is the view of Kevin Macdonald, and according to him jews are the main motivating force behind Leftism in the 20th century.

"Individuals who strongly identified as Jews have been the main motivating force behind several highly influential intellectual movements that have simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and political left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism."

@snorlax

"Uhhh, remember the "War on Women?"

Yes, but this was with lower intensity compared to the US and international women's protests against Trump.

@Corvinus
"Come again? Women’s issues have been important since the 1920’s. There was no “suddenness”, just a reawakening or reemergence of such issues like equal pay and sexual harassment in the workplace, And during the Obama Administration, these issues were constantly on their radar"

And the reawakening was caused by Trump. Specifically on the sexual assault issue, the Left sees this as a way of attacking Trump and this is why there is greater emphasis on this issue today. Now, if it was migrants/muslims raping women like in Europe, or if it was Bill Clinton, the media and the establishment would make everything possible to cover up these issues and not to create an atmosphere of "war on women". In other words it is all engineered - depending on situation. If the enemy has a problem with sexual misconduct, we emphasize those issues. If our pals (migrants/muslims) cause a rape problem, or drive women off the streets, we cover up those issues.

@Gabriel

There are some jews who are not religious, but they will still push for ideologies that are targeting gentile nationalism or culture, since their "small minority" identity still affects them, and thus they always try to create things that will decrease the possibiliy of gentile ethnocentricity.

@Feryl

"You're meme about incrementalism doesn't necessarily reflect spikes, and sudden drops, in what's considered to be "provocative" and acceptable for the time."

There could be fluctuations, but still the gradual trend in the West is towards more liberalism, not less. This is why in the past gay marriage was not accepted, and now it is in many places. In general, today's western society is far, far more liberal than that from the 50s.

@aNanyMouse

"The SJW thing is mostly a US thing.”
No, it's at least as much a Swedish thing, despite Sweden’s lack of Jews.
For decades, SJWs have loved to tout Sweden as their model society.
It was the cucking of Scandinavian men that really boosted SJWism in the whole West.

That the Nobel Prize, by far the world's most famous award, is given by Swedes, probably greatly helped their SJWs' prestige."

I partially agree for Sweden, but:
1. The influential jewish Bonnier family owns a large amount of swedish media.
2. The mass immigration part of swedish SJWism is probably coming from desire to copy the US, as mass immigration and multiculturalism are a recent phenomenon for Sweden.

Sid said...

Corvinus,

“It makes little difference if the majority here is 52-48 or 54-46 or 56-44, the GOP controlled Senate would still be able to push forward the desired Supreme Court Justice nominee."

Disagreed. There is always the risk of defections. A 54 Senate majority or so means we can afford for Romney to defect in six months when we're looking at RBG's replacement.

"Most white Americans do not see it in that way, and thus the Alt Right and Alt Lite become frustrated. And it has little to do with being “brainwashed” or being “ashamed”, it has everything to do with them making their own decisions about race and culture."

Right, but they're in a harmful complacency. All of the evidence suggests that a white-plurality or minority America will not be in WHYPIPO'S interests.


"Besides, this “demographic tide” in our nation’s history has moved against certain groups of people. The nativists (WASPs) in particular lamented about the influx of the Irish, Poles, Italians, and Slavs. It made little difference that they were white and European, it made all the difference that they were deemed on the low end of the ethnic totem pole and that their customs would change for the worse the character of the “founding stock”. Of course, their ancestors today make the same arguments that the nativists of yore are making, conveniently forgetting how their great, great, great grandparents proved wrong the nativists with their ability to assimilate."

First, those ethnic groups didn't full assimilate into the English, Germanic, Scots-Irish culture. The culture and our politics changed to accommodate them.

You can tell me the change was good. I might even agree. But I don't have much of any optimism for the USA becoming ever less European.

"Remember, assimilation is NOT an exclusive European or white trait, it is an ability of the human race to blend in."

That is one huge assumption. Even after four hundred years, blacks have not assimilated into white American culture.

The differences between European nationalities are small compared to those of various non-Europeans.

"Certainly there are some non-whites that hate white people. But that hate is about what those white people think or do."

Sarah Jeong and Don Lemon have faced no censure from their bosses for their anti-white comments. None.

And no, they aren't high-profile exceptions. It's permitted in most forums to bash white men and even women now with a severity that would get anyone fired for saying the same things about different races.

"Undoubtedly there is support for the DNC, as those in the media industry identify with liberalism. But Fox News also serves as the official propaganda arm of the GOP and Trump."

The DNC emails confirmed that the MSM actively coordinates with the DNC, taking talking points from them and letting the DNC edit their stories.

Maybe Fox News does that with the GOP, but they're one channel. It's fine for people to bash them but three fingers are pointing back.

"Of course, the “Fake News” meme only makes matters worse, as it dumbs down the overall populace."

Which is a term the MSM devised to bash us, before Trump appropriated the term.

Gabriel M said...

@Passerby

There are some jews who are not religious, but they will still push for ideologies that are targeting gentile nationalism or culture, since their "small minority" identity still affects them, and thus they always try to create things that will decrease the possibiliy of gentile ethnocentricity.

That is very true and, more than that, it is an observation of crucial importance, more so than I suspect you realise. However, it not only has nothing to do with what I wrote, it has nothing to do with what you wrote.

Let's look at your summary quotation from MadDonald:

"Individuals who strongly identified as Jews have been the main motivating force behind several highly influential intellectual movements that have simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and political left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism.

Now, based on Marx' published writings, is this an accurate description of Marx? Plainly it is not even remotely accurate. Indeed, plainly it is the precise opposite of the truth. Accordingly, MacDonald strenuously avoids writing l about Karl Marx, leaving us with an extraordinarily odd history of left-wing politics with a massive hole in the middle.

And yet, weirdly enough, you, when ostensibly defending MacDonald's hypothesis instinctively reached out for Karl Marx as a the ace in the hole that proves your point.

Moving on

The influential jewish Bonnier family owns a large amount of swedish media.

FFS. Is there some sort of Spazbara HQ where they hand out these memes? Use f**king Google.

216 said...

https://twitter.com/matteosalvinimi/status/1060830678445670400

This is the kind of rhetoric and imagery that Trump needs to be doing on immigration. Always use the word "trafficking", and preferably use "migrant" instead of "immigrant". The prefixing of "illegal" is too ingrained to be replaced, and the left already has the euphemism of "undocumented". Perhaps "irregular migration" can be the equivalent of "clandestini" which has less rhetorical baggage than "illegal alien".

All nationalist pols need to be punching hard at businessmen that employ illegals, it puts the left on the spot and ends the "pull factor".

It's probably asking to much, but we'd also do well to copy Salvini wrt to concerns about the stability of Central America. Bolton's warmongering against Nicaragua and Venezuela is entirely unproductive.

Corvinus said...

Feryl…

“Are you kidding? People's lives in the 1960's were not being ruined by bogus allegations of child abuse.”

You completely veered off topic. I made no mention of the 1960’s and, specifically, child abuse. I discussed CHILD SAFETY as a general topic. There was a moral panic regarding liberal indoctrination of children and teenagers by way of popular culture. Now that we got that out of the way, as far as child abuse and the 1960’s, this phenomenon was coming into the forefront. I am quite certain there were accusations made at this time, and reputations harmed, but consider that child protection began with a narrow focus on physical cruelty and gradually broadened during the 1950’s and 1960’s to include physical neglect, abandonment, and child welfare. The causes of injuries in children began with diagnoses of parental carelessness, moved to parental irresponsibility, and finally settled on misconduct and deliberate injury. Assuredly, as these cases became more prominent during the 1960’s, there would be charges made. It is just that the media did not widely report such incidents across our nation—it remained a local matter. In any event, if such charges were found to be bogus, the alleged perp would have suffered from their reputation being harmed.

“People who were children in the 1960's generally remember their (Silent Gen) parents being distant, not over-protective.”

That may be an overgeneralization on your part. Do you have any sociological data that supports your contention?

“When the political temperature went down in the 70's, and Silent Gen leaders began to assume more power, that's when media censorship disappeared, and protection of children was at a nadir.”

No, the protection of children began in earnest in the 1920’s as a the result of Progressive’s work in the juvenile justice system, by way of the “House of Refuge Movement”. Reformists sought to stem industrial social pathologies by removing youth endangered by corrupt urban environments, with preventative measures taken to inhibit delinquency. Along the way, these reformers helped to introduce legislation that sought to criminalize caretake’s abuse of children, considering there were few cases of legal prosecution of child abuse and neglect.

Corvinus said...

Passer By…

“And the reawakening was caused by Trump.”

Caused by Clinton, Trump, and a cast of hundreds. Put it this way, would you have your nubile, supple daughter date any one of those degenerates, given their history for being handsy?

“Specifically on the sexual assault issue, the Left sees this as a way of attacking Trump and this is why there is greater emphasis on this issue today.”

You mean men and women who view rape and sexual assault as a way of holding Trump accountable for his own actions. This issue has had in the past been emphasized, but now it’s hyped up and trumpeted (heh) in part because of the hypocrisy of evangelicals and the unwillingness of Republicans/conservatives to “punch to the right” on this matter. Trump is their “house n——“, and he done good!

“In other words it is all engineered - depending on situation.”

Without a doubt, there have been rape hoaxes and sexual assault accusations that turned out to be ginned up or outright lies. And those women should be thrown in jail. But as far as this situation being for the most part “engineered”, that would be Fake News.

“If our pals (migrants/muslims) cause a rape problem, or drive women off the streets, we cover up those issues.”

Indeed, there is hypocrisy by those on the left on this matter. Likewise, when any major rape event involved by Muslims is brought to the attention of the public, it is automatically labeled by the Alt Right as all Muslim men who will pillage and plunder young white flesh, and thus they who are American citizens are undoubtedly a pervasive threat to the Western world. That is other than accurate.

Corvinus said...

Sid,

“Disagreed. There is always the risk of defections. A 54 Senate majority or so means we can afford for Romney to defect in six months when we're looking at RBG's replacement.”



Even with those defections, the GOP will get their guy or gal on the Supreme Court.

“Right, but they're in a harmful complacency.”



According to Who/Whom?

“First, those ethnic groups didn't full assimilate into the English, Germanic, Scots-Irish culture.”

Again, according to Who/Whom? Culture changes. Culture evolves. Now, assuming that is the case that the Irish, Poles, Italians, and Slavs did not completely blend in to the majority culture, then that would mean these groups are indeed “lesser European” on the intersectional totem pole. That is, nativists (WASPS) were dead on in their assessment that these groups used chicanery and force to have their customs become part of our “legacy heritage”. Yet, the ancestors of these groups today claim that they had eventually, and seamlessly, blended in. Holy dichotomies, Batman!

“That is one huge assumption.”

So what research results lend support to the notion that that one racial or ethnic group is more capable or skilled of assimilating than another racial or ethnic group?

“Even after four hundred years, blacks have not assimilated into white American culture.”

Debatable.

“The differences between European nationalities are small compared to those of various non-Europeans.”



Not according to nativists. As you just stated, several ethnic groups “didn't full assimilate into the English, Germanic, Scots-Irish culture”. So, we are suppose to give them a pass merely because they are white and European, even though their foreign ways of life forever tainted and soiled the Anglo-Saxon traditions that served as the foundation for America?

“Sarah Jeong and Don Lemon have faced no censure from their bosses for their anti-white comments. None.”



They are attack dogs. They are useful idiots. They will make provocative statements. And Milo and Alex Jones are their counterparts. The media and the Alt Right employs them with equal ferociousness. Do normies even taken them seriously on a regular basis?

Think about Milo and Jack Donovan. Alt Right, but homosexuals. I thought in order to save Western Civilization that Christian principles had to be strictly observed. So where do they fit in the overall scheme of things? Would you protect them from being thrown from a helicopter come the impending Civil War after they've been used up by the Alt Right?

“The DNC emails confirmed that the MSM actively coordinates with the DNC, taking talking points from them and letting the DNC edit their stories.”

Undoubtedly, among some journalists and think tanks. No different than conservative publications who work hand in hand with Republicans.

“Maybe Fox News does that with the GOP, but they're one channel. It's fine for people to bash them but three fingers are pointing back.”



It’s not a “maybe”, it’s a definitive “yes”. Ask Sean Hannity.

“Which is a term the MSM devised to bash us, before Trump appropriated the term.”

The unvarnished truth is that term that ultimately makes those on the right and on the left intellectually sterile.

216 said...

Corvinus,

“Sarah Jeong and Don Lemon have faced no censure from their bosses for their anti-white comments. None.”



They are attack dogs. They are useful idiots. They will make provocative statements. And Milo and Alex Jones are their counterparts. The media and the Alt Right employs them with equal ferociousness. Do normies even taken them seriously on a regular basis?

---

Who was deplatformed, and who was not?

Even you cannot be this obtuse.

The Right doesn't get a fair shake in the media, and that ostensibly violates the claim that we have "free and fair elections".

Purge PBS and NPR and fill the now open jobs with right-wing hacks. Then we can to talk about balance.

Sid said...

Corvinus,

“Even with those defections, the GOP will get their guy or gal on the Supreme Court."

It was absolutely on the ropes with Kavanaugh. I'm relieved we'll have more of a buffer and a cushion.

wrt to the assimilation of 19th century European immigrants... The differences between their cultures and the Anglo-Scotch-German one was small compared to those of non-Europeans.

They were Christian, their IQ potential was similar, and except maybe for some Sicilians, they were phenotypically close to the founding stock.

In contrast, Africans might be Christian, but that's about it. Asians have the IQ potential to hang with whites, but have remained a distinct population. The great majority of Muslims aren't compatible with Western culture in any meaningful way.

You said it is debatable whether blacks have assimilated or not. It's not debatable here. They have not reached parity with whites across a multitude of important social outcomes, and likely never will without significant genetic engineering.

Later on, you wrote about being a good Christian, gay alt-righters, the upcoming civil war... All things completely off topic. You then insinuated that I wouldn't mind gays getting Pinochet-style helicopter rides. This made me roll my eyes. This is also a prime example of why commenters on this blog generally don't consider you to be an intellectually honest commenter who debates topics in good faith.

aNanyMouse said...

@ AE:
"... mass immigration and multiculturalism are a recent phenomenon for Sweden
Hardly.
According to the wiki entry on "Immigration to Sweden", state-sponsored multiculturalism was *unanimously* passed by the Palme-dominated parliament in 1975.
Palme was internationally renowned, for his championing of numerous third world "liberation movements" (incl. Castro), before their successor "multiculturalist" movement got known for that name.

@ Sid:
I doubt that feeding trolls does much good.

aNanyMouse said...

Typo alert:
"multiculturalism are a recent phenomenon for Sweden."

There was rather little buzz in the US about "multiculturalism", until the early 1980s, and more so after Palme's 1986 "martyrdom".
Only in 1987 did there start to be a notable backlash, with the emergence of Bloom's book Closing of the American Mind.

216 said...

Ananymouse,

Multikult as a term is Canadian in origin. In a sense, the US has no cultural policy whatsoever. Many countries have a "Minister of Culture". Culture is a theoretical reserved power to the states, as there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a state to have English as an official language. Louisiana has French as an official language alongside English.

In practice, states delegated cultural power to the university system, which then proceeded to enshrine multikult into something resembling the force of law.

Palme got what he deserved, Mossad? South Africa? Both?

Corvinus said...

"Who was deplatformed, and who was not? Even you cannot be this obtuse."

Regardless of the abject stupidity and holier than thou attitude by the social media giants to purge Alt Right leaders and their subsidiaries, the fact remains that the Jeong's and the Milo's of the world serve their masters well. They are outliers whom the opposition casts as being mainstream. Remember, it remains THEIR platform and THEIR property. They can do what they want, right? Believe it or not, I am in favor of the federal government hammering these companies, as well as other corporations, with anti-monopoly laws. But as Vox Day says--create your own platforms.

"The Right doesn't get a fair shake in the media, and that ostensibly violates the claim that we have "free and fair elections".

Non sequitur alert.

"Purge PBS and NPR and fill the now open jobs with right-wing hacks. Then we can to talk about balance."

You have conservative radio, Alex Jones, Brietbart, Mark Citadel, and the Dark Web on your side. Oh, and Vox Day and his Vile Faceless Minions and the Evil Legion of Evil. There is balance. People on your side seek those sources.

Now, did it ever occur that maybe, just perhaps, that white Americans in general just simply are not buying everything the Alt Right is selling? That they are making their own decisions about race and culture, and that they are not being indoctrinated y the media or under the spell of cultural marxism? Sure, immigration is a key issue, and I actually support limiting it and using current laws in place to prosecute offenders. But what about race realism? white nationalism? Must white people en masse and unequivocally support these two philosophies?

Corvinus said...

"It was absolutely on the ropes with Kavanaugh. I'm relieved we'll have more of a buffer and a cushion."

His own past assuredly had something to do with it. Was he truly the best candidate? There were other noteworthy conservative jurists. What is the real reason why Trump nominated him?

"wrt to the assimilation of 19th century European immigrants... The differences between their cultures and the Anglo-Scotch-German one was small compared to those of non-Europeans."

To nativists, the differences within European cultures loomed large. The Irish, the Italians, the Poles...ALL of these groups brought to the table their alien, inferior lifestyles. And WASP institutions inevitably paid the price.

"They were Christian..."

The Italians were generally Roman Catholic. And there were Poles who embraced Judaism. Foul religions in the nose of the staunchly Protestant heritage Americans.

"their IQ potential was similar..."

Really? What data do we have from the late 1800's that compared the IQ's of Western/Northern Europeans and Eastern/Southern Europeans? Consider that Alabama congressman John L. Burnett, chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, reintroduced the literacy component of the immigration bill multiple times before it eventually passed in 1917. He also was a member of the Dillingham Commission, which concluded immigrants from southern and eastern Europe posed a serious threat to American society in large part due to their illiteracy. “To admit the unchangeable differentiation of race in its modern scientific meaning is to admit inevitably the existence of superiority in one race and of inferiority in another,” Madison Grant wrote. “The Anglo-Saxon branch of the Nordic race is again showing itself to be that upon which the nation must chiefly depend for leadership, for courage, for loyalty, for unity and harmony of action.”

"and except maybe for some Sicilians, they were phenotypically close to the founding stock."

According to nativists, there were marked physical differences between the ethnic groups of Europe, which though intermarriage, would significantly dilute the superior intellect and strength of character of the Anglo-Saxon.

"The great majority of Muslims aren't compatible with Western culture in any meaningful way."

Yet, we have a couple million Muslim-Americans who have fit in quite well with our culture and society.

"You said it is debatable whether blacks have assimilated or not. It's not debatable here. They have not reached parity with whites across a multitude of important social outcomes, and likely never will without significant genetic engineering."

Nature vs. nurture. AIn't it a bitch.

"Later on, you wrote about being a good Christian, gay alt-righters, the upcoming civil war... All things completely off topic."

No, these things are completely relevant in the context provided. Does not a gay Alt-Righter conflict with the tenets of Christianity? Are there not Alt Right philosophers who believe that the rebirth of white civilization must rest on that particular foundation? Where do they fit in this realm?

"You then insinuated that I wouldn't mind gays getting Pinochet-style helicopter rides."

No, I asked would you come to their defense. YOU made the strawman. Here is exactly what I said--Would you protect them from being thrown from a helicopter come the impending Civil War after they've been used up by the Alt Right? I have no idea if you would approve or disapprove of such an action.

Corvinus said...

My 11:20 am response is to 216 and my 11:44 am response is to Sid.

Feryl said...

"They were Christian, their IQ potential was similar, and except maybe for some Sicilians, they were phenotypically close to the founding stock."

Something that often shows up in the HBD-sphere is the findings of studies, using surnames and immigration data, which show that German/Dutch regions of the Midwest tend to have much more prosperity and social cohesion than the British (esp. Scots-Irish) regions. With apparent differences being discernible from neighboring counties, at times. The Nordic Upper Midwest continues to have fury at the modern GOP, which over-plays belligerent foreign policy and individualist economics to appeal to the Scots-Irish of the South and interior West. It's likely that in the Midwest, the puritan Brits and the Dutch eventually heavily mixed with the German and Scandinavian newcomers. Whereas the Scots-Irish, wherever they are found, are much more clannish and have successfully repelled every ethnic group that's been near them. Minnesota and Iowa are probably the two least Celtic states in America, and as such, they tend to perform extremely well on matters of high functioning civilization, when you adjust for education level (the Northeast has a lot of highly educated and high performing people of all ethnicities to help off-set the damage inflicted by Celtic Ellis Islanders, furthermore the worse performing Irish typically went to the Midwest and esp. far West).

The mid-1920's immigration ban was heavily motivated by concerns about ethnic crime syndicates and terrorist incidents. Meanwhile, before the military industrial complex helped lift the South out of it's pre-WW2 poverty, Northerners didn't dare go anywhere near the South, as the region was culturally forbidding and economically backward. The Western US has also generally been a notoriously cranky, anti-social region, with the only real exception being Utah, which is heavily puritan British and Nordic in it's genetics and in it's upbeat and productive culture.

Sid said...

Corvinus,

Would you come to rescue of alien civilizations in Andromeda? Would you save Atlantis if you were given a time machine? Would you guide to safety the dolphin who saved Arion from whalers?

aNanyMouse,

Agreed! That's enough of that.

216 said...

Corvinus,

Any group that engages in ethnic bloc voting cannot be described as assimilated. Non-whites should be morally shamed if they say the GOP is "too white", if the color-blind society is to function properly. Postnational Review types don't do that, so I no longer have time for their arguments.

Why do you associate us with Vox Day? None of us ever seem to talk about sci-fi comic books here.

The term "alt-right" can be retired, as it has returned to being the exclusive use of R. Spencer. It no longer has the diffuse meaning that it acquired from 2014-16 when it overlapped with the Gamergate movement.

Likewise, PUA can probably be retired as a term and replaced with TRP.

Feryl said...

Corvinus: heritage white Americans had already been through conflicts between New England puritans, the Dutch/Germans/Brit. Midlanders of the Mid-Atlantic, and the Cavaliers/Scots-Irish of the South. Which were a continuation of European conflicts between different white tribes.

In the 1920's, we were only a few decades removed from the rampant hostility that lingered after the Civil War. It's likely that elites felt as if bringing yet more European tribes here was only going to up the chances of more ethnic conflict in the US. What ultimately followed the 1924 immigration ban was that Nordics and Slavs blended into the Midwest, the South stayed basically off-limits to outsiders until 1946, and the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England eventually had much of their culture transformed by Jews, Irish-Catholics, and (to a lesser degree) Italians, as can be discerned by the fact that the Northeast is the one region of America where whites generally don't identify as just being "white", instead preferring to signal their Ellis Island heritage first (with pre-Ellis Islanders IDing themselves as WASPs, or French or Dutch, or whatever).

216 said...

More maps

New York, Governor.

Andrew Cuomo should not be recognized as the legitimate Governor, given his previous record of treason against the Constitution.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2018&fips=36&f=0&off=5&elect=0&def=swg&datatype=county

Strong swing in favor of the GOP in the rural upstate represented by the useless neocon Elise Stefanik. Huge swing in favor of the Dems in Westchester, 2014 GOP nominee was County Executive there. Rockland County (Jews) went 43% for the GOP, same as Ulster County which is much less Jewish. 6 point swing in favor the GOP in Staten Island from 2014, but not enough to flip the county. Severe underperformance from Trump's 60%.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2018&fips=36&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&def=swg&datatype=county

No real comment necessary about this monstrosity. Note the two pink dots.

216 said...

CT, Governor

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/town.php?year=2018&fips=9&f=0&off=5&elect=0&datatype=town

Swing in favor the GOP in working class yankee Eastern CT. Treasonous behavior by the wealthy voters in Fairfield County.

For the lulz, this is Candace Owens' home state. Almost like she made no difference whatsoever, as her hometown went 2-1 Dem.

In historical perspective, the GOP won the Governor in 2010, but it was stolen via fraud.

Feryl said...

"To nativists, the differences within European cultures loomed large. The Irish, the Italians, the Poles...ALL of these groups brought to the table their alien, inferior lifestyles. And WASP institutions inevitably paid the price."

First of all, you must be trolling when you use "WASP" indiscriminately, because that essentially an (arguably derogatory) way of describing puritan Brits, who were one group among several others in the British Isles. The other groups who came to America included the taciturn but hard working Brit Midlanders, the aristocratic and elitist Cavaliers (who were the biggest proponents of slavery), and the Protestant but combative Celts from the Scottish border region and Ulster region of Ireland. Puritans dominated New England (capital: Boston), and had a substantial presence in the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest, where they tended to co-exist fairly well with Midlanders, The Dutch, and French and Germans(capitals: New York and Pennsylvania). Cavaliers dominated the coastal and plantation heavy regions of the South (capital: Richmond). Celts ("the Scots-Irish") dominated Appalachia and the interior upland South (no real capital, as they preferred fighting, hunting, screwing, and settling the wild mountains and the frontier, instead of farming or industry.

216 said...

Texas, Governor

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2018&fips=48&f=0&off=5&elect=0&def=swg&datatype=county

Tejanos in South Texas are not part of the brown wave, the lesbian Latina Dem candidate backfired. White moderates displaying the same treason. It needs to be pounded into their thick skulls that having no state income tax is impossible unless you vote GOP, and restore a favorable demographic balance.

Senate, Canadian vs Oirish

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2018&fips=48&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&def=swg&datatype=county

The Canadian did in many rural counties, where no one lives. He was blown the fuck out in Dallas metro, Austin metro, Houston metro, El Paso metro, and San Antonio metro.

Inferring from the map, blacks were not enthused in Texas. That exit poll showing that Cruz got 16% of black men might be accurate. Dems made major mistake in not having a major black candidate. There was a black candidate for a lower office, but I'm presuming this was an after thought.

The Dems in Virginia last year nominated a black candidate for Lt. Gov named Justin Fairfax, a convenient surname shared with the largest county. In '13 he nearly won the primary for Attorney General, running a campaign with little fundraising. Presumption was that he did well based on his surname/race. A black candidate for Lt. Gov in Texas might have put Oirish Bob over the top.

216 said...

Look, moral shaming directed at a POC group

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/11/08/memo-black-men-stop-voting-republican/v9kJPzVMQcdr0szp78gumJ/story.html

But wait, its from a black female leftist!

What we would give for a piece from Rich Lowry urging whites to be "team players" and vote GOP.

aNanyMouse said...

@ 216:
I've no beef with what you say on multikult, or Palme.
My main point is, that the multikult Cult was started by him (and Trudeau), then spreading to the US.

Lance E said...

>Yet, we have a couple million Muslim-Americans who have fit in quite well with our culture and society.

Wealthy, secular Muslims who "assimilated" into Progressivism like the wealthy, secular Jews, with the notable exception that they uniformly support unlimited immigration from the Islamic world.

They didn't assimilate into American culture, they assimilated into globalism.

216 said...

Lance E,

No Western country has created a Tatar/Hui group of "patriotic Muslims". It seems rather humorous to imagine a "red-state" Muslim community that adopted redneck-style colloquial language and 'murican idealism along with an overrepresentation in military service.

Feryl said...

"Swing in favor the GOP in working class yankee Eastern CT. Treasonous behavior by the wealthy voters in Fairfield County.

It may have shown up here, but I definitely remember Agnostic saying that the change in tax policy WRT mortgages really hurt Trump's standing among yuppies."

"The House flips by Dems had zero to do with ethnic demographics, contra the ethnic paranoid view -- there's no army of destitute non-white / immigrant voters in these wealthy suburbs. Instead, Dems made the case that the GOP was not as good of a patron to the suburban yuppie transplant shit-eaters as the Dems could be, and convinced enough of a sliver of them to change.

The main appeal came from the GOP's tax cut, which jacked up taxes for affluent blue staters, by removing the mortgage deduction. For people who live in expensive housing markets, that was a killer.

At the time, mouth-breathing GOP partisans said, "Oh poor babies -- suck it, blue states!" Yeah well now your worthless party lost trifecta control because of that."

Now we can understand why voters in moderate-expensive areas in the Northeast, and secondarily, the Midwest and West, turned on Trump. Also, lower class people (and people not sensitive to social status) take what they can get WRT housing, whereas among the affluent and aspiring elite, it's not uncommon to knowingly blow a shit load of money just so you can live in a fashionable area.

Also, add the fact that the Northeastern US (info-tech, high-ed, the media) is vastly removed from the Reaganite Right's ancestral home of the South and West (mining, agriculture, the military, and the energy industry). Much of the Midwest is in political no man's land, aside from duh, the farm belt, which nonetheless is less beneficial to the region's inhabitants than the Pentagon is to the South (The military actually has decent career opportunities, whereas post-1980 farms and slaughterhouses are dominated by agribusiness that employs a lot of immigrants). The industrial north just can't find a sponsor, on a truly powerful level. Oil, Agriculture, Info-Tech, Academia, and the military all have many elite patrons. It's manufacturing (which is a tremendous field for less educated Americans) that's been hammered the hardest since the 80's. The military ain't too bad, either, except for the whole running up your budget and killing people stuff. But since the South is defined by the military, and the South helped the GOP dominate over the last 50 years, "our" elites have shown much greater enthusiasm for the Pentagon than they have for Detroit. Also, the manufacturing industry is notorious for employer-labor relations that give the GOP a cold sweat, whereas in the military those who complain are drummed out.

Jig Bohnson said...

@ 216:

Excellent point. The Lipka Tatars and Hui are two examples from non-western societies showing that it is possible given the right circumstances. Another example is the Circassians in Israel, and to a lesser extent the Bedouin.

It would be great if a Western country could figure out how to do it. So far though, nothing. I remember a stat that as of a few years ago there were more Muslim UK citizens fighting for ISIS in Syria than there were in the UK armed forces in any capacity.

216 said...

Exit poll backs up my unscientific map analysis, re Texas

https://twitter.com/DonnyFerguson/status/1060601368002605057

Greg Abbot, Mr. 56%

HBS said...

thekrustykurmudgeon,

I see it the other way. Abrams brought out the black vote. If however, her platform had been closer to Nunn or Carter, she would have won. I don't think, as we're seeing right now, that Abrams be going away any time soon. (My take is that Georgia will have Democrat Governor or Senator by 2026.) Gillum in Florida on the other hand, might not be seen at the top of the ballot for another decade as he benefited from the "centrist" Democrats splitting amongst three candidates. If he had faced only Gwen Graham in the D primary, he would have lost by a large margin.


216, Feryl


The Democrats 2018 Coalition can be best summed up as a Revolt of the Elites or The Coalition of the Rootless.

That Gov. Abbott in Texas did better amongst Hispanics vis a vis Cruz vs Beto despite running against a Hispanic illustrates the point Feryl has made about the lack of charm and charisma amongst Mestizos or more specifically populations with significant east Asiatic influence. Beto was helped out more so by the media, but part of his better performance was the Irish charm.

Lance E said...

216: Believe it or not, there are Republican-voting groups of Muslims in red states. But one must understand that:
- Their families have been here a VERY long time (more than 5 generations)
- They are rather pale - lots of admixture
- They are almost all fully secular.

There's practically no resemblance between the minuscule fraction of Muslims-in-name-only who basically get along and the vast Muslim underclass that America and Europe have been importing. None of these "old stock" Muslims are Pakistani, Somalian, etc. I believe most can quite literally be traced back to the Ottoman Empire.

So you're not wrong in substance. It's totally disingenuous for people like our local troll and 110% of liberals to claim that we have proof of "Muslims" assimilating, because they simply aren't the same people.

It would be rather like claiming we can import a horde of Ethiopian Jews because the Ashkenazis did okay. Or importing several million Nigerians because hey, "Christianity" is pretty popular there now.

snorlax said...

OT: California shooter was a leftist hoping the shooting would lead to gun control: https://www.foxnews.com/us/thousand-oaks-bar-shooter-posted-to-social-media-while-inside-borderline-bar-grill

Undoubtedly targeted the country music night hoping to kill Republicans.

Corvinus said...

Sid,

"Would you come to rescue of alien civilizations in Andromeda? Would you save Atlantis if you were given a time machine? Would you guide to safety the dolphin who saved Arion from whalers?"

With your gooblygook questions here, it would appear YOU are other than an intellectually honest commenter who debates topics in good faith.


216...

"Any group that engages in ethnic bloc voting cannot be described as assimilated."

Non sequitur alert. On the other hand, does your statement take into account ethnic European groups who vote for Republicans? who support Alt Right candidates?

"Non-whites should be morally shamed if they say the GOP is "too white"..."

OK, non-whites are morally shamed. Does that make it better?

"Why do you associate us with Vox Day? None of us ever seem to talk about sci-fi comic books here."

Because Vox Day is a leader of the Alt Right. He is (generally) on your side.

"The term "alt-right" can be retired, as it has returned to being the exclusive use of R. Spencer."

That is just silly. He is Alt Lite, according to Day.

"Likewise, PUA can probably be retired as a term and replaced with TRP."

Well, you can retire that term, but people will still use it.


Feryl...

"Corvinus: heritage white Americans had already been through conflicts between New England puritans, the Dutch/Germans/Brit. Midlanders of the Mid-Atlantic, and the Cavaliers/Scots-Irish of the South."

The reality is that ALL are Heritage Americans. They are the WASPs. There is no trolling here on my part. These groups were decidedly opposed to the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans.

"Which were a continuation of European conflicts between different white tribes."

Europeans are not "tribes". They are ethnic groups.

Ja D said...

Excellent commentary thanks.

Audacious Epigone said...

krusty,

In the primaries it does. In the general, probably not. Being an open borders corporate shill doesn't work for Rs anymore, either. Progress.

Andrew,

It was a dumb strategy. People who care about immigration know that ad was full of shit from beginning to end. The exit poll for Missouri strongly suggests that, if we want to point to a single reason she lost, it was the Kavanaugh vote. Voters who said they cared about it voted against her. Those who said they didn't care about it voted for her. In other words, to the extent that it motivated anyone, it was to vote against rather than for her for having done it.

Feryl,

One fun 'coincidence' in all of this is that by the time everyone, even normies who don't pay attention to anything, realize the ship is really sinking, it will be commandeered by cat ladies, trannies, Amerindians, and Africans in America. All the white crew members will have all been kicked out of their posts.

MichiganWave,

Yeah, great point. Trump spent a lot of time in Indiana and Florida. He did one rally in Kansas, but it was mostly Junior who was dispatched to gin up Trumpian support for Kobach. There wasn't an exit poll conducted in Kansas, so it's speculation, but very plausible speculation I think. Maybe two or three more rallies in other parts of the state would've made the difference.

Sid,

If Trump is able to connect the dots on your point 1. and your point 2., Kobach's defeat could be the greatest thing to have happened in the entire country on Tuesday! I'll settle for AG or DHS secretary, too, but we might as well dream big.

whites just aren't as motivated to hate other races as non-whites are urged to hate whites. I mean, look at commenters on this blog: we're careful to distinguish between religious Jews and Israelis with the insufferable blue-checkmark ones. Meanwhile, Paul Krugman is bashing Wyoming for having too many white voters!

Nailed it. Only Scots-Irish whites in the South have any hate in their hearts. German and Scandinavian residents of the cuck corridor seem hopeless. I knocked on a lot of their doors the last few weeks and the reactions were not encouraging.

Trump seems to intuit Pelosi's dementia. He wants her as his primary political oppositional figure.

Matt Forney,

Well put. Kobach is the only gaping hole in the GOP-turning-Trumpian as a winning strategy goes, but you're correct with the virtue-signalling. Not only are cuck corridor Kansans primed for that kind of stuff, there were a lot of media outlets sniffing around the Kobach campaign looking for thought criminals like myself. This is from the Topeka newspaper, for example. The writer calls this blog an "identitarian entity", ha!

It will be interesting to see if Pressley and Ocasio-Cortez will traipse in as rookie members of the House and start demanding committee seats ahead of the remaining white dinosaurs in the Democrat party who managed to get themselves reelected. I certainly hope they do.

Random Dude,

Agree. Kobach's loss hit me right between the eyes, but that was the only really bad news on the day. Barletta was too bad but expected. Brat's loss sucked, too, though it was totally unexpected, either. A lot of deadwood that needed to be burned away was burned away, though (like my district's cuckressman, Kevin Yoder).

I suspect we are already in a recession, and if not yet, will indisputably be in one by 2020. Now that it's a split congress, Dems will have to take some of the fall for that.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

John Derbyshire is one of the most gracious people I've ever met, a gentleman in every way. Holier than thou? Where do you get that sense from?

The American Indians made the same arguments against European settlement--the reality is they just needed to accept that this is how these things go and blend in, something they've done tremendously well!

You need to stop calling Iowa "conservative". It's not. Its whites are modestly less conservative than whites in America as a whole are. The state has gone for the Democrat nominee in six out of the last eight presidential elections.

Duke Norfolk,

Spoiled for choice if you're able to turn him onto something online. My default recommendation is to send him a few Jared Taylor videos. They're easily digested, presented without malice, and clearly presented.

Or hell, try talking to him about Darren Wilson. That might resonate.

snorlax,

Barring excessively censor-triggering language or threats of violence, I won't. I am, by nature, close to a free speech absolutist.

Unless it gets to the point that you stop commenting. Then I may have to shelve principle to keep you around!

Jig,

In the queue. I really wish I had more pre-existing knowledge about California, but you're right, there are so many themes we visit and revisit here that are present there that it'd be inexcusable not to take a dive.

snorlax,

So many talk about Jews, but nobody talks about the Swedish (esp. Nobel) Elephant in the Room. WTF?

Ha!

Philippe,

According to the exit polls, Rs actually did best with 45-64 yos this time around, better than with the 65+ crowd. Not by much though so it could just be statistical noise.

Corvinus,

“Sarah Jeong and Don Lemon have faced no censure from their bosses for their anti-white comments. None.”



They are attack dogs. They are useful idiots. They will make provocative statements. And Milo and Alex Jones are their counterparts. The media and the Alt Right employs them with equal ferociousness. Do normies even taken them seriously on a regular basis?


Listen to yourself--the first two work for the NYT and CNN, respectively. Not only could Milo or Alex Jones never get a spot at either of those or any other major media outlets--despite the fact that they'd draw more readers/viewers than Jeong or Lemon--they can't even maintain accounts on Twitter. You are making our argument for us.

Ja D,

Agreed, this thread is fantastic.

snorlax said...

AE -

I'm a believer in pretty light moderation too—I wouldn't ban Tiny Duck, for instance, but Corvinus is just a complete waste of time and space. His hobby is to go to blogs such as this one and waste your time by pretending to be nearly convinced but not quite there, then to "debate" you endlessly until you give up in frustration having wasted hours and hours you'll never get back.

It's obviously your call, but think of him as like a spambot, except spambots occasionally have amusing typos or plotlines ("I couldn't believe that today my boss showed me the best Viagra and sextoys online").

Speaking of amusing comments, it's AnanyWeiRdCapitaLization who should be credited for that one, not I. :)

Philippe le Bel said...

@Audacieux épigone : I am easily convinced than DEM used, use and will use (well, untill PDJT decide to DO SOMETHING ONE FUCKING DAY) electoral fraud (fake ballots, dead electors, browns illegal voters, etc.)


Also, you said DJT would have win 2016 without FL. You were right, I was wrong, but the path is more difficult. DJT should let down the wreckage of Neocons/countryclub GOP policies. An "australia like" medical protection for american people, infrastructures, winimum wage and so on. He should also BREAK antifa to the bones. Using anti-trust EO against FAAG; end sanctuaries states/cities and impose free speech on private social medias (wich are not only platforms).
Zuckenberg/Bezos and other "Gavin Belson like" should ben the knee, Stannis style :)

To make short, more "national-social" than "conservative tea party"

(btw, I think PDJT using the N-word NATIONALIST was a considerable progress for overton window)


(against, sorry to everyone here... Since 3 years of reading and make comments on american sites, my english is still like Ralph Wiggum :( )

Passer by said...

@aNanyMouse
"Hardly.
According to the wiki entry on "Immigration to Sweden", state-sponsored multiculturalism was *unanimously* passed by the Palme-dominated parliament in 1975.
Palme was internationally renowned, for his championing of numerous third world "liberation movements" (incl. Castro), before their successor "multiculturalist" movement got known for that name."

The mass immigration thing is still far newer for Sweden than for the US. I know people saying that Sweden was very white, quiet, clean, orderly, and looked great in the early 90s, exactly when minorities were rioting in LA.

@Corvinus

"Caused by Clinton, Trump, and a cast of hundreds. Put it this way, would you have your nubile, supple daughter date any one of those degenerates, given their history for being handsy?"

It wasn't caused by Clinton, because there was no big women's movement against Clinton during his presidency. Women's issues got artificially reactivated by the Dem machine which owns feminist groups currently because Trump is a republican president. When you have current republican president with sexual misconduct issues sex assault "suddenly" becomes very important. When you have Dem president in power with sexual misconduct issues, everything is calm in feminist waters.

"You mean men and women who view rape and sexual assault as a way of holding Trump accountable for his own actions. This issue has had in the past been emphasized, but now it’s hyped up and trumpeted (heh) in part because of the hypocrisy of evangelicals and the unwillingness of Republicans/conservatives to “punch to the right” on this matter. Trump is their “house n——“, and he done good!"

No, it is partisan issue, not a sex assault issue. Clinton had a very comfortable presidency feminist wise even though he had various sex problems. And it was comfortable because feminist groups a part of the Dem machine.

“In other words it is all engineered - depending on situation.”

"Without a doubt, there have been rape hoaxes and sexual assault accusations that turned out to be ginned up or outright lies. And those women should be thrown in jail. But as far as this situation being for the most part “engineered”, that would be Fake News."

By engineered i meant that sex assault issues are heavily emphasized society wise by the Dem machine (media, feminist groups) when there is a Republican president with such issues and are kept under control when there is a Democratic president with such issues. Or when there are left wing pals (muslims) doing such things.

“If our pals (migrants/muslims) cause a rape problem, or drive women off the streets, we cover up those issues.”

"Indeed, there is hypocrisy by those on the left on this matter. Likewise, when any major rape event involved by Muslims is brought to the attention of the public, it is automatically labeled by the Alt Right as all Muslim men who will pillage and plunder young white flesh, and thus they who are American citizens are undoubtedly a pervasive threat to the Western world. That is other than accurate."

Muslims and MENA/African migrants/Blacks are a bigger threat sex assault wise because stats show that they have higher rape rates.

Passer by said...

@Gabriel
"FFS. Is there some sort of Spazbara HQ where they hand out these memes? Use f**king Google."

I used Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_family - The Bonnier family is a Swedish family of Jewish origin


"That is very true and, more than that, it is an observation of crucial importance, more so than I suspect you realise. However, it not only has nothing to do with what I wrote, it has nothing to do with what you wrote.

Let's look at your summary quotation from MadDonald:

"Individuals who strongly identified as Jews have been the main motivating force behind several highly influential intellectual movements that have simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and political left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism.

Now, based on Marx' published writings, is this an accurate description of Marx? Plainly it is not even remotely accurate. Indeed, plainly it is the precise opposite of the truth. Accordingly, MacDonald strenuously avoids writing l about Karl Marx, leaving us with an extraordinarily odd history of left-wing politics with a massive hole in the middle.

And yet, weirdly enough, you, when ostensibly defending MacDonald's hypothesis instinctively reached out for Karl Marx as a the ace in the hole that proves your point. "


=================================

I think there are both.
1. Jews that will push for ideologies against gentile ethnocentricity because this will also help preserve jewish ethnocentricity.
and also
2. "There are some jews who are not religious, but they will still push for ideologies that are targeting gentile nationalism or culture, since their "small minority" identity still affects them, and thus they always try to create things that will decrease the possibiliy of gentile ethnocentricity."

Leftism can be caused by both type of jews.


The end result in both cases is bad for european peoples.
In both cases, jews are a problem for european peoples and so i hope that you (as a group) can go to live in Israel and stop trying to harm us.

Corvinus said...

Snorlax...

Again, you are a Becky. My "hobby" is to debate, with levity and insight. You simply just don't like the things I say. So, you got triggered, and now are begging our intrepid host to "ban" me. Seriously?

AE...

"Barring excessively censor-triggering language or threats of violence, I won't. I am, by nature, close to a free speech absolutist."

Exactly. Some on the Left should take a page from your playbook on this matter.

"Unless it gets to the point that you stop commenting. Then I may have to shelve principle to keep you around!"

If that be the case, then you would have no principles at all, similar to the evangelicals who are appalled at Trumps' womanizing, yet continue to support him.

"Not only could Milo or Alex Jones never get a spot at either of those or any other major media outlets--despite the fact that they'd draw more readers/viewers than Jeong or Lemon"

First, they have built up their own brand and following, and their supporters will ensure Milo's and Alex's success in whatever format each Alt Right leader comes up with. Second, YOU are the one making the argument for me as far as their ability to reach out to conservatives and get out their message. They are situated just fine. As Vox says, "Build your own platforms".

"John Derbyshire is one of the most gracious people I've ever met, a gentleman in every way. Holier than thou? Where do you get that sense from?"

He may be one of the nicest men on Earth, but he undoubtedly has an attitude of moral superiority, similar to Jeong and Lemon, that their position ought to be embraced. He is absolutely sanctimonious.

"You need to stop calling Iowa "conservative". It's not. Its whites are modestly less conservative than whites in America as a whole are. The state has gone for the Democrat nominee in six out of the last eight presidential elections."

No, Iowa is conservative. That is their history. Which is fine. Good for them.

"Nailed it. Only Scots-Irish whites in the South have any hate in their hearts."

LOL. No, any white from any background, just like any black or Hispanic or Asian, can have hate in their hearts. Hate is not reserved to a particular race or ethnic group.

"German and Scandinavian residents of the cuck corridor seem hopeless. I knocked on a lot of their doors the last few weeks and the reactions were not encouraging."

And what would you expect? Your disdain for them was apparently written on your face. And the use of "cuck" has truly lost its meaning and effectiveness.

"One fun 'coincidence' in all of this is that by the time everyone, even normies who don't pay attention to anything, realize the ship is really sinking..."

Normies do pay attention, far more than you realize. And the ship is taking in water, not sinking.

Feryl said...

"Muslims and MENA/African migrants/Blacks are a bigger threat sex assault wise because stats show that they have higher rape rates."

When they are in their traditional habitats/cultures, dark skinned people are a lot less perverted. To the extent that they are violent, it's typically focused on enemy tribes. The problem with blacks in urbanized/Westernized environments is that the traditional pressures to conform to better behavior are stripped away, as they only focus on their egos and gratification instead of impressing tribal leaders. We saw what happened to blacks in the 60's and 70's when desegregation allowed black leaders to escape other blacks, at a time when impressionable young people were being told that it was cool to not listen to older generations or respect authority.

Lighter skinned ethnic groups are much better at having natural empathy, so it's not as necessary for them to face intense pressure to conform to pro-social behavior. It's what Steve Sailer said about blacks in the wake of hurricane Katrina; the removal of authority and forceful leadership which cares about good behavior, causes dark skinned people to descend into random savagery, thus proving why blacks are in need of "stricter moral guidance", as Steve memorably put it. This is also behind the white or yellow (or brown!) man's burden ideology that happens when lighter skinned people from further North climes encounter and live among darker Southerners.

And yes, lowish IQ Muslims in white countries are very poorly socialized and resentful of whites, and they also sense that modern whites are weak and deserving of attacks. But in America and Canada, we've had much better quality of Muslim immigration than Europe, plus American society is much more individualistic than Europe. So Muslims in America don't have the same level of alienated misfit tendencies that you see in Europe, where most regions have been dominated by the same phenotype/tribe/culture for thousands of years.

Feryl said...

"You need to stop calling Iowa "conservative". It's not. Its whites are modestly less conservative than whites in America as a whole are. The state has gone for the Democrat nominee in six out of the last eight presidential elections."

Iowa is culturally conservative but tends toward the Left on economic and civic issues, because of the Nords. In Europe and America, Nordic people are the least hedonistic white people, which is precisely why they are true believers in socialism. It's the opposite pattern of wild Celts demanding that people be left alone, and resenting any authority structure beyond one's immediate family or tribal chieftains.

Jayman and others (yourself included) in our sphere continuously acknowledge the chasm between the puritans/doves/communitarians of the Northeast and Midwest, and the hedonistic and individualistic South and esp. the West. Trump greatly improved on Romney's performance in the Northeast and Midwest, due to his promises to began regulating that which went unregulated for too long. Crony globalist capitalists in healthcare, manufacturing, etc., immigration levels, war-mongering, prescription pain killers, and so on. People in the South were less enthused, and people Out West were the most alienated from Trump (aside from reactionary immigrant haters in the Southwest).

Sadly, Trump has bent the knee to the belligerent South and the anti-social West, even going as far as to not openly regret the mortgage deduction fiasco that most heavily penalizes our cultural and intellectual elites of the Northeast. The Northeast and the most Nordic parts of the Midwest registered their disapproval in the mid-terms, what with virtually all of the GOP candidates not even bothering to verbally attack NAFTA and so forth. The Reaganite mindset promotes elite favored anarchy and profiteering, rather than sensible regulation of economic and civic norms that reduce elite wealth but ensure a fair shake for those on the bottom and in the middle.

We expected Trump to deliver more good jobs and rein in corrupt elties. We didn't get that, and the Reaganite zombie parade that the GOP insists on summoning, again and again, is too clueless to even try and run on Trump's platform, let alone deliver the goods. And Trump's platform wasn't just based on saying mean things, or promising to turn America into some kind of ethno-state. It was based on restoring communal values to America, getting us away from the naked corruption and selfishness of the last 40 years.

216 said...

Passer by,

One of the "paradoxes" of feminism is that the narrower the gender pay gap gets, the more hostile women become. The 1990s were a "stall" in terms of gender "progress", and female employment/population ratio peaked in 1999.

http://d1o2xrel38nv1n.cloudfront.net/files/2013/03/Gender-wage-gap-drop.png

https://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_detail/employment-population-ratio-women.png

Clinton was elected on a wave of "third wave feminism" as a backlash to the Clarence Thomas hearings. The Clinton scandals would have been much more damaging if Gingrich, Livingston, Hyde, Burton, etc. had kept it in their pants. The 90s would have been much different if the Hastert sex scandal had also been revealed.

AFIAK, there has never been a society that was able to engineer "gender parity" or a society that ensured that women "earned" more resources than men. Women of course, have always "consumed" more resources, which feminists have never complained about. At least on a certain level, some men react to increasing gender parity by dropping out.

I've said before that we don't gain anything by noting that the invaders are committing more rapes, it substitutes a factual argument for an emotive argument. The stereotype of the far-right is that they are social misfit men that have trouble attracting a mate, and this stereotype existed long before the term "incel" was invented. While we like to mock the "m'lady" attitude of male feminists, the far-right is tagged with the same attitude by average women.

Feminists have a particular hatred of "victim blaming", for presumed insensitivity to victims of sexual crimes. But in our environment, saying "she was a slut and asked for it" creates a "divide by zero" for the left. Men aren't under any specific obligation to protect women in the "feminist system" rather than the "chivalric system", that role falls to the state. We are not the state, nor are we in any position to usurp the state's authority. In Outer Hajnalia, this may be somewhat different.

Saying, "the victims got what they deserved because they didn't vote for the nationalist party" is callous. It also happens to be true. There is no easy way to explain it, and I feel disgust even writing it. This is the same problem encountered when explaining that 9/11 is a "blowback" for the US support of Israel/Arab monarchies. The distilled element is that the "US deserved it", which is what tripped up Ron Paul with Boomercons. But the US isn't going to break with Israel over a single terror attack, and even nearly two decades of war haven't budged the needle. Such is the same with feminists, who will accept higher crime, taxation and a police state as the price of their values. At a subliminal level, people do believe "we deserved it", and perhaps we can awaken that sense of shame and turn it into repentance.

Feryl said...


"Corvinus: heritage white Americans had already been through conflicts between New England puritans, the Dutch/Germans/Brit. Midlanders of the Mid-Atlantic, and the Cavaliers/Scots-Irish of the South."

The reality is that ALL are Heritage Americans. They are the WASPs. There is no trolling here on my part. These groups were decidedly opposed to the influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans."

No, Brit Protestant groups are not interchangeable. Why have different regions of America been at odds with each other, in the first place? In America's early history, they were continuing the spats that already existed between different British tribes back in Europe. The English Cavaliers absolutely hated the busy body Puritans, and the Cavaliers were perhaps the most responsible for driving us to Civil War by insisting that they Yankees had no right to tell them not to use cheap or free labor. Meanwhile, the Appalachian Scots-Irish, who generally didn't own vast plantations, were between the two camps in their views.

"Europeans are not "tribes". They are ethnic groups."

Semantics. The label doesn't matter, the point is that there was quite a bit of genetic and cultural diversity in Britain. Not as much as Africa, perhaps, but certainly more than what you find in Sweden or Japan. And saying that America's size or geography caused friction is a red herring, since the groups who settled the different parts of America were consciously aware that from the beginning they did not see eye to eye with the other groups. Thus, from the get-go, there was already ethnic and cultural diversity among the whites who settled America, further amplified by the geographic, cultural, and political barriers in America. I suppose it's convenient for people like Ann Coulter to forget that THE CIVIL WAR WAS CAUSED BY CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AMONG BRITISH WHITES, when you can just whine about Catholics and Jews. And for the record, introducing Catholics and Jews was not a wonderful idea, since after all, as I've detailed, the differences among British white groups caused enough drama as it was.

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/american-nations-genetics-nature-c.png

216 said...

Feryl,

Nordic "least hedonistic"

http://blogs.dw.com/womentalkonline/files/hars.png

---

Part of the problem the GOP, and right-wing parties in other countries, face is that they are a predominantly rural party. In terms of an "urban agenda", the GOP doesn't bother to say anything other than "business-friendly" and "tough on crime". There is no one like Doug Ford of Ontario in the US proposing major infrastructure projects. Our favored "housing policy" is to not have one, as we'd be satisfied if HUD was abolished. What is Carson even doing there?


Just as the party needs to move left on fiscal policy and the environment, it also needs away of ensuring affordable family formation in the cities, and a way to stop the anti-white racism coming out of academia and the culture industry which would make the cities friendlier to right-wing people.

Feryl said...

Clinton was elected on a wave of "third wave feminism" as a backlash to the Clarence Thomas hearings. The Clinton scandals would have been much more damaging if Gingrich, Livingston, Hyde, Burton, etc. had kept it in their pants. The 90s would have been much different if the Hastert sex scandal had also been revealed.

Nah, both parties tolerate perverted homosexual operatives because they are too useful (and very easy to bribe, because many gays live in the closet and/or engage in embarrassing behavior that they wish to cover up).

Notoriously, The WaPo ran a headline on the congressional male page scandal in the very late 80's, as someone had blown (sorry) the cover on gay operatives and players procuring under age males from the ranks of congressional pages. But for obvious reasons, the matter was largely dropped by the MSM, and few people received any real punishment over the scandal. Within a few years, it was understood that the scandal was over-hyped and not worth much interest. Nowadays few people remember that it ever happened.

There's a strong tendency for gay elites to hush-up the level of corrupt and perverted behavior within their ranks (Hastert himself was treated for a gut infection that was making the rounds of the Northeastern gay circuit in the 90's), out of fear that society will start to strictly monitor them again. Also, behavior that is aberrant among straight people is widespread among gays, so there's a tendency for prominent gays to avoid candor about what goes on. Whereas straight people are much more likely to "drop the hammer" on deviants.

There's stunningly little interest in investigating gay sex trafficking or rings, likely because of how many prominent gays have tasted the forbidden fruit. True, some did get busted during the height of promiscuity in the 70's and 80's, but amongst the political/law enforcement/legal/medical establishment, there are many insecure but powerful gays who have thwarted investigations (Proffesor Tom philpot, who studied pedophilia and trafficking in the 70's and 80's, frequently received threatening phone calls, had his house and car vandalized, and at one point "they" even shot at him!

216 said...

Feryl,

What do you make of the map showing an overlap with UKIP support in 2014 with the Puritans of centuries prior?

http://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/11/14/ukip-is-strongest-in-englands-puritan-heartlands-but-it-is-growing-among-catholics-how-will-the-church-respond/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11539388/Mapped-where-is-Ukips-support-strongest-Where-there-are-no-immigrants.html

Feryl said...

Part of the problem the GOP, and right-wing parties in other countries, face is that they are a predominantly rural party. In terms of an "urban agenda", the GOP doesn't bother to say anything other than "business-friendly" and "tough on crime". There is no one like Doug Ford of Ontario in the US proposing major infrastructure projects. Our favored "housing policy" is to not have one, as we'd be satisfied if HUD was abolished. What is Carson even doing there?

The Reaganite attitude towards urban areas is that they are nests of bums and criminals, which from time to time will be gentrified so that affluent people can use the areas for bragging rights, and property owners can make more money via selling and lending properties out for a lot of money. On Steve's blog, someone once said that it's fun to watch the Dirty Harry movies from the 70's, because of how many working and middle class people could afford to live and play in San Francisco. Reaganism has led to teeming masses of big "losers" (who find that much is out of reach due to high immigration levels and housing/property bubbles), and a relatively small class of prideful and comfortable big winners. So that nowadays, "expensive" San Francisco has lots of bums, druggies, and obnoxious panhandlers, while a fair number of areas are inhabited by elite yuppies.

aNanyMouse said...

@ Passer:
"The mass immigration thing is still far newer for Sweden than for the US."

Quite true, but not related to the main point, of my refutation of the statement "The SJW thing is mostly a US thing.”
Swedish Palme-ist SJWism made mass immigration there inevitable, esp. after his "martyrdom".
US idolatry of Swedish SJWism, plus post-65 mass immigration, has spurred US SJWism.
(The 1965 immigration Act passed here, despite the almost total lack of SJWism then.)

aNanyMouse said...

Palme and Trudeau didn't become int'l "heroes" until many years after the 1965 Act.

216 said...

Ananymouse,

The '65 Act passed as a "civil rights" measure, and as a way to gain favor in the Third World battlegrounds of the Cold War. There was an old Soviet joke "and you are lynching negroes".

Western Europe was opened up to mass immigration starting around the same time, as ways of ensuring that Southern Europeans/Turks could work in Northern Europe, to prevent their working classes from radicalizing into communism.

We are told nowadays that having a diaspora of Country X in the West ensures that Country X will be favorable to the Western bloc. A reductionist bit of logic.

SJWism, or more accurately "critical theory" or "Cultural Marxism", is really a leftist fig leaf designed to cover power politics of the liberal system in a patina of wokeness. There's a reason why many link the rise of "WokeCapital", Black Lives Matter, fourth-wave feminism andtransgenderism as a reaction to the threat posed by the Occupy Movement.

pithom said...

"and one in Indiana (inexplicable)"

I would think Florida was much more inexplicable. Donnelly lost because he totally soiled his moderate image by voting against Kavanaugh. Braun was also a good (and Harvard-educated, like DeSantis and Kobach) candidate.

Corvinus said...

Passer By...

“It wasn't caused by Clinton, because there was no big women's movement against Clinton during his presidency.”

The women’s movement remained a potent force during his administration. Indeed, there emerged a divide among them when it was revealed he was a perpetual skirt chaser in the mid-1990's.

“Women's issues got artificially reactivated by the Dem machine which owns feminist groups currently because Trump is a republican president. When you have current republican president with sexual misconduct issues sex assault "suddenly" becomes very important. When you have Dem president in power with sexual misconduct issues, everything is calm in feminist waters.”

Let’s get this right, shall we? Women’s issues have been in our mainstream news for the past 30 years. There was no “artificial reactivation”. Trump was notorious for his womanizing. As a result, liberal and conservative women came out to oppose his presidency. When you have a male politician in office, and there are accusations of sexual misconduct, his political party will come to the rescue, and the opposing political party will cry foul. BOTH Democrats and Republicans exhibit this behavior when their “boy” is in trouble and there is public outrage.

“No, it is partisan issue, not a sex assault issue. Clinton had a very comfortable presidency feminist wise even though he had various sex problems. And it was comfortable because feminist groups a part of the Dem machine.”

It is both partisan and a sexual assault issue. There were a number of feminists who came after Clinton hard, while there were other feminists who, hypocritically, tried to temper that anger. It is similar to Trump, where women who voted for him and who just happen to be evangelical or religious find excuses for his “grabbing them by the pussy” mentality.

So, would you allow your supple, nubile daughter to date him?

Corvinus said...

Feryl...

“The problem with blacks in urbanized/Westernized environments is that the traditional pressures to conform to better behavior are stripped away, as they only focus on their egos and gratification instead of impressing tribal leaders.”

Well, using your logic, their behavior was no different than male Europeans who settled in the New World. They had curbed their raping instincts in their home country due to social pressure, but once they arrived there, their base urges overpowered them. It’s their natural inclination.

“Lighter skinned ethnic groups are much better at having natural empathy, so it's not as necessary for them to face intense pressure to conform to pro-social behavior.”

Empathy is a HUMAN characteristic, friend.

“Nordic people are the least hedonistic white people, which is precisely why they are true believers in socialism.”

Actually, Nordic people, in particular Scandnavians, have lax rules of sexual morality. In this regard, their hedonism is legendary. Danish chicks are out of control in the bedroom. They always want it.

“No, Brit Protestant groups are not interchangeable.”

The reality is these groups you listed all believed that non-Brit Protestant groups were direct threats to the society THEY built. In their collective cross hairs were Southern and Eastern Europeans. How dare they enter our shores! The Brit Protestant groups ALL came together against the scourge and parasitism of lesser European groups, specifically the Irish, Poles, Italians, and Slavs.

“Semantics. The label doesn't matter, the point is that there was quite a bit of genetic and cultural diversity in Britain.”

Of course the label mattered! Southern and Eastern Europeans were ill-equipped to handle the great responsibility known as Anglo-Saxon representative government. They really should have gone back!

“I suppose it's convenient for people like Ann Coulter to forget that THE CIVIL WAR WAS CAUSED BY CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AMONG BRITISH WHITES...”

The Civil War was caused by a host of factors, one of them being cultural differences among Americans from the North and South.


216...

“Clinton was elected on a wave of "third wave feminism" as a backlash to the Clarence Thomas hearings.”

One of several factors for his election.

”Feminists have a particular hatred of "victim blaming", for presumed insensitivity to victims of sexual crimes...But in our environment, saying "she was a slut and asked for it" creates a "divide by zero" for the left.”

If you say so.

“Men aren't under any specific obligation to protect women in the "feminist system" rather than the "chivalric system", that role falls to the state.”

No. It is the duty of our society to ensure that women are not raped, that men who do commit rape are prosecuted, and that women who falsify rape charges are put in jail as a consequence. There is no “feminist system” or “chivalric system”.

216 said...

More Maps

Montana, Senate

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2018&fips=30&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&def=swg&datatype=county

Presumed swing of upper-middle white voters against the GOP? White liberals fleeing coastal diversity repeating the same stupidity in their new state?

Trump won two of the four reservation counties in 2016, Rosendale lost all four as is usual.

Anonymous said...

109 comments? Geeze AE.

Audacious Epigone said...

snorlax,

Duly noted. Simply ignoring contradictory data is a little annoying. That Iowa has voted D in six of the last eight presidential elections makes the assertion that Iowa is a conservative state a little precarious. Its whites are pretty leftist, in fact, and it's mostly white--one of the few states where whites went for Obama.

Philippe,

They taste like burning.

Yes, Trump calling himself a nationalist is great. A lot of people who saw that were waiting for the media hammer to drop--"Trump is white, right? And he's nationalist, right? We have a white nationalist in the White House!"

216,

One seemingly inexplicable populist issue that really could move the needle a little for the GOP among young SWPLs is opposition to race preferences. Yet they never push in that direction. Occasionally they are pulled, but they never push. The problem has gotten a lot worse in the last couple of decades. It's no longer just people competing with NAMs for menial jobs who have to worry about it--more and more professionals do, too.

pithom

Ha, cut me some slack, man! You think missing a race with a current margin of 0.2% is inexplicable?

Anon,

Quantity and quality!

Gabriel M said...

I used Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_family - The Bonnier family is a Swedish family of Jewish origin


Right, so your claim is that Sweden's extreme leftism is a result of a substantial portion of their media being owned by people who are 1/8-1/64 Jewish, whose Jewish identity is so strong that the number 2 shareholder is a bishop? And this insane race mysticism is supposed to be a serious argument.

There are some jews who are not religious, but they will still push for ideologies that are targeting gentile nationalism or culture

First of all, targeting gentile nationalism is not a theme of Marx and Marxists have generally taken a pragmatic attitude to nationalism, supporting or opposing opportunistically as the need arose. Secondly, the point is not Marx (baptized and raised a Christian) was 'not religious' it is that hated Jews, the Jewish people, and Judaism so much that he wrote a whole pamphlet about how much he hated them just so there wouldn't be any ambiguity about it. If one wants to argue that Marxism is 'Jewish' based on Marx's ancestry, one could make an equally good case that the alt-right is a Jewish movement designed to make whites look like moronic psychos based on the writings of 'Jews' like Mike Enoch or Weev.

Leftism can be caused by both type of jews.

Let us grant that. (In reality, the first type of Jews upon whom your argument was originally based do not really exist, there are no more than a dozen intellectuals who fit the MacDonald hypothesis to any real degree). Certain types of Jews can cause Leftism. Fine. Your original claim, however, was that Identity politics is a jewish creation, replacing the traditional leftism (which was also a jewish creation, and that a "left" would exist without jews

So far you have offered in support of this extraordinary claim (i) the published works of K MacDonald, which you plainly don't understand and almost certainly haven't read and which you have repeatedly contradicted, (ii) Karl Marx (iii) The Bonnier family. You response to trivially obvious queries (why is there Leftism in countries with no or few Jews? why does Leftism historically precede Jewish involvement? why is there no positive correlation between Jewish influence and Leftism?) has been random adhoccery.

In short, you have the sheer gall to blame an entire race of people for all the problems with your country based on no more evidence than what you have cobbled together from a few blogs. The gap between the gravity of the charges you make and your level of knowledge defies sympathetic explanation. More than that, by blaming your problems on 1/128th Jews and demanding they 'go to Israel' you calling for the displacements of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people based on a bunch of ramblings that even together doesn't add up to a theory. Assuming you are not actually mentally ill, you have sunk yourself below the level of common rationality.

And that it why I have bothered spending twenty minutes responding to you. Dissident Right: you have problems with how American Jews act? Great, so do we, but exactly how long are you going to pretend that this kind of ignorant, malicious psychosis actually constitutes reasonable debate and, if you the answer is 'forever', is it really any wonder that you are so woefully ineffective at converting normal, intelligent, conscientious people to your way of thought?

Passer by said...

@aNanyMouse

Quite true, but not related to the main point, of my refutation of the statement "The SJW thing is mostly a US thing.”
Swedish Palme-ist SJWism made mass immigration there inevitable, esp. after his "martyrdom".
US idolatry of Swedish SJWism, plus post-65 mass immigration, has spurred US SJWism.
(The 1965 immigration Act passed here, despite the almost total lack of SJWism then.)

What was the source for the immigration part of Palme's SJWism, though? He could have been looking at the example of the US. In Europe, many elites look at the US as some sort of example. So Sweden embracing immigration due to the US example is quite possible. Also the continuous immigration mania in the US was certainly not spurred by Sweden. As far as the 60s are concerned, this is exactly a time of proto-SJWism both in the US and in Europe, it was a time of rise of liberalism, feminism, minority issues, etc in both. I doubt that many americans knew about the situation in Sweden in the 60s, so for example second wave feminism in the US was mostly locally driven in the 60s.

@Corvinus

The women’s movement remained a potent force during his administration. Indeed, there emerged a divide among them when it was revealed he was a perpetual skirt chaser in the mid-1990's.

There was nothing comparable to what is going on today sex assault wise. Far, far weaker. And i do not see a divide among feminists over Trump.

"Let’s get this right, shall we? Women’s issues have been in our mainstream news for the past 30 years. There was no “artificial reactivation”. Trump was notorious for his womanizing."

I think there was artificial reactivation of the sexual assault issue by the Dem machine (media, feminist orgs) because he is a republican president. As i said, nothing comparable to Clinton's times, not that much resistance against him by the feminists then.

"When you have a male politician in office, and there are accusations of sexual misconduct, his political party will come to the rescue, and the opposing political party will cry foul. BOTH Democrats and Republicans exhibit this behavior when their “boy” is in trouble and there is public outrage."

Exactly. But the Dems defacto own almost all US feminist organisations (they are pro-Democrat orgs), which means that they are able to use women's issues for partisan attacks when convenient, or keep a lid on such issues when inconvenient, due to them owing most feminist orgs and the label. Even if republicans attack Clinton on women's issues, this won't be successful if they do not have the support by feminist orgs and they won't succed in turning this into "women's issue". In the same way, Democrats will be able to succesfully cover up Clinton's, blacks or mulims's sex assault issues due to their control of feminist orgs, who dominate women's orgs. So there won't be "women's movement" against Clinton or muslims, but there will be "women's movement" against Trump because Dems control the "official" women's orgs, who are the dominant women's organisations and are also part of the "official" international womens orgs.

Passer by said...

@Corvinus

"It is both partisan and a sexual assault issue. There were a number of feminists who came after Clinton hard, while there were other feminists who, hypocritically, tried to temper that anger. It is similar to Trump, where women who voted for him and who just happen to be evangelical or religious find excuses for his “grabbing them by the pussy” mentality.
So, would you allow your supple, nubile daughter to date him? "

In the 90s, there was nothing big against Clinton coming from the feminist movement. Nothing big. Weak activity. It is not similar to the republican women, because they do not generally see themselves as a separate "women's movement" and are more supportive of traditional values/family values, etc. Not to mention they are far smaller than dems womens orgs. The women's movement TM, Feminism TM are the "official" women's movements in the US and are Dem owned and Media recognized as the "real" women's movements. They are also part of the international "official" women's movements as well. Simply dems own the women's label.


Will i allow my daughter to date him if i had one? First of all, women decide for themselves, but if the Dems saw Hillary Clinton, who married Bill Clinton, as an icon and a champion of the Dem Party, then why not have her as a wife of a republican US president? Maybe she will one day become the icon and the champion of the republican party too.

Passer by said...

@Gabriel M

"Right, so your claim is that Sweden's extreme leftism is a result of a substantial portion of their media being owned by people who are 1/8-1/64 Jewish, whose Jewish identity is so strong that the number 2 shareholder is a bishop? And this insane race mysticism is supposed to be a serious argument."

I did not claim that all of it was caused by jews, (maybe being paranoid is a jewish thing, everybody is out to get you, you know) but i believe that jews have their role in Sweden too. I also think that there is something rotted in Sweden, although this became visible only after WW@ and up to the 60s they were having eugenic programs. Btw the Bonnier family has jewish identity.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/01/13/foreword-to-the-west-and-its-enemies/

"First of all, targeting gentile nationalism is not a theme of Marx and Marxists have generally taken a pragmatic attitude to nationalism, supporting or opposing opportunistically as the need arose."

The goal of marxist society is also to get rid of nationalism in the end.

"Secondly, the point is not Marx (baptized and raised a Christian) was 'not religious' it is that hated Jews, the Jewish people, and Judaism so much that he wrote a whole pamphlet about how much he hated them just so there wouldn't be any ambiguity about it. If one wants to argue that Marxism is 'Jewish' based on Marx's ancestry, one could make an equally good case that the alt-right is a Jewish movement designed to make whites look like moronic psychos based on the writings of 'Jews' like Mike Enoch or Weev."

Imo jewish ancestry distorts the behavior of jews, in a way that "even if i do not see myself as a jew they can still see me as a jew and come to get me so its better to support and work on movements that are antinationalist". This is what will explain the huge J involvment in anti-nationalist movements, especially non-religious jews.

Passer by said...

@Gabriel M

"Let us grant that. (In reality, the first type of Jews upon whom your argument was originally based do not really exist, there are no more than a dozen intellectuals who fit the MacDonald hypothesis to any real degree). Certain types of Jews can cause Leftism. Fine. Your original claim, however, was that Identity politics is a jewish creation, replacing the traditional leftism (which was also a jewish creation, and that a "left" would exist without jews

So far you have offered in support of this extraordinary claim (i) the published works of K MacDonald, which you plainly don't understand and almost certainly haven't read and which you have repeatedly contradicted, (ii) Karl Marx (iii) The Bonnier family. You response to trivially obvious queries (why is there Leftism in countries with no or few Jews? why does Leftism historically precede Jewish involvement? why is there no positive correlation between Jewish influence and Leftism?) has been random adhoccery. "

I did not contradict Mcdonald's views.
Imo there is Mcdonald's argument and then there is my argument (about the non-religious jews) and i'm adding to his arguments. Yes, i belive that jews are mostly behind identity politics (as intelectual leaders) and they are the biggest factor behind leftism in the 20th century. If you want to see more arguments you are free the check the Occidental Observer, they have plenty of them.

"why is there Leftism in countries with no or few Jews"

Jews are the most of the intelectuals and the creators of the various modern leftist constructs, and gentiles are the drones. In the USSR, jews were very helpful in creating the communist take over, then the USSR served as a proxy to spread it around. In the US, local conditions did not allow for communism, but ultimately allowed for identity politics instead, which is very good in jewish eyes again.

"Why is there no positive correlation between Jewish influence and Leftism?) has been random adhoccery."


Most of you are leftist when in gentile countries, for example 80 % voted Democrat in the US and you know what you did in the USSR. The key point of jewish behavior is that it will support leftism or whatever ideology that also includes destroying gentile ethnocentricity, as that's the key. The most important part. Everything else follows that priority. So you may have rich jews that will nevertheless be very supportive of immigration, LGBT issues, identity politics, multiculturalism, etc.

I don't wish you bad, but i put my people first, so i think that the best thing would be if jews are payed to gradually move to their country, there they can start behaving like normal people again, instead of constantly trying to subvert the majority due to their Holocaust psychosis/ pogrom psychosis / minority issues.

snorlax said...

216 -

This is the same problem encountered when explaining that 9/11 is a "blowback" for the US support of Israel/Arab monarchies. The distilled element is that the "US deserved it", which is what tripped up Ron Paul with Boomercons.

Ron Paul is wrong, boomercons are right. I say this as a fervent believer in the "blowback" argument from roughly 2003-14 who was a near-religious backer of Ron Paul in both his Presidential campaigns.

In the past several years, there have been a number of mass casualty Islamic terror attacks or attempted attacks in Belgium. What geopolitical grievance do Muslims have against Belgium, a country with virtually no involvement in the Middle East except for the exorbitant sums they give the Palestinians in foreign aid, and which always votes against Israel at the UN? What grievance do they have against Sweden?

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, hundreds of thousands of Chechens (a relatively Westernized, and certainly the whitest and highest-IQ Muslim group) protested. Against the attack? No, against Charlie Hebdo for publishing pictures of Muhammad.

Muslims are provoked to murderous rage by minor theological differences with other Muslims. Indeed, the vast majority of Islamic terrorism occurs in Muslim countries: Sunni vs. Shia, Shia vs. Sunni, religious vs. secular/moderate Muslims or religious/ethnic minorities.

The only causal correlate to Islamic terrorism is Muslims. The way to avoid Islamic terrorism is not to let them in to your country.

If the causal correlate were to geopolitical grievances, Israel and for that matter the Gulf monarchies would suffer the most Islamic terrorism. But in fact they suffer relatively little as compared to the US or Western Europe. (The last attack with 10+ victims in Israel was IIRC in 2003). This is because they don't allow foreign Muslims into their countries,* and their existing Muslim populations are subject to a locked-down police state.

Sayyid Qutb, the founder of the modern Jihadist movement, and the major intellectual influence on Osama bin Laden in particular, spent two years living in the US 1948-50. Despite the friendly hospitality he received, he was driven to murderous rage by the experience, as he explained in his article The America I Have Seen (read it). His grievance? We're too rich, too good-looking and have too much sex. This, I'll remind you, is in the late 1940s.

Muslims have been in continuous conflict with the West for 1400 years. Except in exceptional cases, they are both culturally and phenotypically incompatible with our civilization.

*As Steve Sailer likes to point out, neither Israel nor the Gulf monarchies are interested in accepting any Syrian refugees.

Gabriel M said...

@Passerby

First two substantive points:

The goal of marxist society is also to get rid of nationalism in the end.

This is an astonishingly ignorant statement. When Marx published the Communist Manifesto, Italy and Germany were not yet countries, the Habsburg empire was suppressing nationalist movements throughout central Europe and only closest thing to a true nation state was France, especially in its republican periods of which Marx was broadly supportive. Nationalism was a liberal-left movement whose principal opponents were Catholic traditionalists, it was supported by the bourgeoisie against aristocracies and by Great Britain in order to undermine its continental rivals.

Despite being a rival left-wing group, Marxists were far more sympathetic to nationalists than to other bitter rivals such as anarchists an often worked together. The First Marxist international split up precisely because the majority of Marxist parties supported their various countries in WW1 (despite Lenin actually being right that WW1 was a stupid war about nothing brought about by incompetent elites). Marxists have worked hand in glove with nationalist movements around the world from Vietnam, to *Palestine* and pretty much invented many nationalism, for example in Ukraine. Even today when Marxism is a moribund shadow of its former self, it co-exists perfectly well with extreme nationalism in North Korea and nationalists and marxists work together in e.g. Venezuela.

Whether or not Marxism ultimately leaves any room for national identity in its utopian future is not at all clear. Certainly Marx never says anything to suggest that we would all become one big brown blob and he was, for what its worth, a race-realist in the normal 19th century sense. What is clear is that while consistently attacking basic elements of the social order everywhere and anywhere, such as private property, monetary exchange, social differentiation by class, and religion, Marxists very often promoted nationalism by incident or by design.

To claim that Marxism is essentially defined by its anti-nationalism is totally divorced from reality. To go one step further and hypothesize that the primary cause of Marxism is Marx's personal anxiety about being identified as Jewish is .. nuts. It is not something a reasonable person acquainted with the most basic facts about world history could possibly claim.

Next

Btw the Bonnier family has jewish identity.

MacDonald [why do you keep spelling his name incorrectly?] is justly famous for this kind of quote mining. You can never attend a synagogue in your life, have no role in any Jewish community, observe no Jewish practices, marry a gentile, live your life in every conceivable way as a gentile, but if KMac or one of his minions can ferret out a quote saying 'as a Jew I support [insert random Leftist cliche here] then it means the sole motivating force in your entire life is your Jewish need to destroy gentile nationalism. Even if you are 1/64th Jewish. Even if you are a bishop.

Parenthetically, the Swedish media is famously the most anti-Israel outside of the Muslims world, but KMac has that covered because all a Jew (or a 1/64th Jew) has to do is say 'as a Jew I [insert anti-Israel cliche here] that proves that he is really pursuing an extremely complex strategy to destroy gentile civilization and so anti-zionism is actually just a part of the Jewish group-evolutionary strategy, expect when he does it.

Gabriel M said...

Next

Jews are the most of the intelectuals and the creators of the various modern leftist constructs, and gentiles are the drones.

Let's leave it there. Any sane person can see the complete insanity of comments like this and any political movement that cultivates delinquents of this type will fail and deserves to fail. I'll just quote some Auster now:

Well, alongside the Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism, I think there is a parallel psychology at work among the anti-Semites: the Non-Nonwhite Theory of Nonwhite Invasion. According to this logic, we don’t have to do anything about the non-Western engulfment of the Western world. All we have to do is demonize and marginalize and exclude or kill the Jews, and that will make the problem of Third-Worldization somehow go away by itself.

and

It is essential to distinguish between anti-Semitic attacks on Jews and legitimate, rational criticisms of Jews. For example, to say that many Jews fear some fictional white evangelical anti-Semitism more than they fear Islamic anti-Semitism, and to say that this belief is both wrong in itself and harmful to society, as Stephen Steinlight has argued, and I expanded on the argument, is a legitimate criticism. It does not demonize Jews as Jews. It says that there is a false belief which is common among Jews and put into action by Jewish organizations, and that is wrong and should be stopped. If such criticism were made, if people said, “This is false, this is offensive, you should stop this,” then many Jews, being rational, would realize that it’s not socially acceptable, and would stop it. This is the way moral correction works among civilized people. Someone indicates that we’re doing something that is wrong and that we ourselves may not have been aware of, and as a result we change our behavior.

...

Suppose I said to you, “Your life is going badly, and it’s all because of what that one person is doing to you, he is the cause of everything going wrong in your life. The fact that you are now destroying yourself with drugs and alcohol is the fault of that person, who has tricked you into this suicidal behavior in order to destroy you.” Wouldn’t that argument, by itself, indicate its false and malign nature?


That was 2009! Since then have the NPCs who spam every single interesting blog with their Jew theory of everything offered even one single compelling argument? No. Instead, they just wear people down with a constant stream of falsehoods, non-sequitors, tactical retreat, then rinse and repeat. The most obvious positive effect of this is that it makes the dissident Right toxic to anyone who is Jewish, part Jewish, has a Jewish relative or part-Jewish relative, or is friends with a Jew or with a part-Jew. That is, cumulatively (and conservatively) about 1/2 of everyone in America with an IQ over 115. So, great going there. But it is worse than that, because actually anyone who is not a paranoid schizophrenic finds it annoying - at least - to be constantly in the company of paranoid schizophrenics, so they either end up quietly pulling out or engage in a process of auto-stupification that allows them to cope.

What do you get out of all of this? A broken, despised political movement, presided over by buffoons pursuing weird vendettas against each other whose only tangible political achievement to date is gunning down some geriatric kikes in a conservative temple.

Passer by said...

@Gabriel M

Marxism may have used nationalism for its own goals, but ultimately these were just "steps" towards the end goal and it was theorised that it will ultimately get rid of nationalism.

The Communist Manifesto -

"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster."

On Sweden, here you can see more about jewish activity in the country.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/14/the-jewish-origins-of-multiculturalism-in-sweden/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/09/23/the-origins-of-swedish-multiculturalism/

On the Bonnier family the point remains that they have jewish identity. I do not know if their family media is anti-zionist. I know that is pro-diversity. But i have seen people complaining that the jewish NYT for example is anti-zionist sometimes.


All of this is a jewish dilemma - they encourage anti-nationalist ideologies to weaken gentile nationalism in gentile countries, but this also backfires on Israel which is nationalist and ethnocentric. So jews have to balance between two behaviors - antinationalism in the West and pro-nationalism in Israel. All of this is caused by their status as a minority in the West and a majority in Israel, which necessitates different strategies and behaviors. It sometimes backfires as the progressive gentile drones sometimes turn against Israel due to not being sufficiently "progressive", but jews are capable of managing that.

As for jews being the biggest force behind modern leоtist movements in the 20th century, yes, thatчs the case. You can see the situation in the USSR, or in Hungary, or in Germany post WW1, where Hitler observed that jews are heavily involved in leftist movements.

When you have jews that are mostly left/liberal (80 percent voted democrat in the US) and also have higher IQ than US gentiles (110-115 vs 100) this guarantees that they will dominate leftism/liberalism in the US.

Look at the words of Peter Beinart at the Forward jewish media -

"For Jews, the lesson of yesterday’s massacre is very simple and very old: Protecting the strangers among us is not charity. It is self-defense. Every time Jews defend the right of American Muslims to follow sharia, we protect our right to follow halacha. Every time Jews reject politicians who demonize Latinos we make it less likely that those politicians will demonize us. “Hate them, not us” is a losing strategy because once empowered, bigots widen their targets. For people who define America as a white Christian nation, Jews will never be white enough.

Robert Bowers accused Jews of “bringing” Muslims and refugees to the United States. To him and all the other white nationalists Trump has emboldened, our answer should be: Damn right. We will demand a humane policy for people seeking refuge in the United States and defend those immigrants — no matter their race or faith — who are already here.
Will do so not only because we were once strangers but because we know that, at some level, like Lot, we always will be. Rather than seeking a separate peace with Trumpism, we will look for allies among the despised and abused. And in that way, we will defend not only Jewish ethics, but Jewish lives."

80 percent of US jews voted Dem, which is an identity politics party, so i would say that this citation represents quite typical US jewish thinking.

As i said, you being a minority means that you will try to subvert the majority. Having a high IQ means that you will probably succeed. This is why it is essential for jews to live in their own country, where, as they are the majority, they will start to behave like normal people. Then, we can have good relations with you.

216 said...

Gabriel,

For all of the distrust to disgust shown to Jews in the Dissident movements, they seem to be overrepresented. IIRC, even the #2 "weev" at the Daily Stormer is Jewish, I can't really understand that at all. For all of the effort expended by some to scare you off, it doesn't seem to be working.

I've noted before that Jews are about the same proportion as LDS, but you rarely see an LDS poster, and I only know of one LDS participant in a Dissident movement. AE linked this to IQ and Income, as most LDS are of average in both. The average American that lives outside of a large city/suburb could conceivably go their entire life without meeting a member of either sect.

The presence of Jews in the Dissident Right is analogous to the position of "white feminists" in intersectionality movements on the left. I hesitate to appropriate the phrase "check your privilege", but it seems to aid cohesion on their side. What is interesting is that the DR movements have little problem with "non-white allies", that BLM has with "white allies". Perhaps it is because we instinctively don't want "allyship", and any hapa that participates accepts they will never hold a leadership position. I consider these attitudes to be counterproductive.

snorlax said...

216 (1/2) -

Very interesting points.

IIRC, even the #2 "weev" at the Daily Stormer is Jewish, I can't really understand that at all.

And Mike Enoch, host of the "Daily Shoah" podcast. And of course Ron Unz.

There were also a number of "mischlinge" (1/2 or 1/4 Jews) who rose to high station in the Nazi Party, Wehrmacht or even SS, among them 2 Field Marshals, 2 Generals, 8 Lieutenant Generals and 5 Major Generals. It appears there were even thousands of full Jews who fought for the Germans, some of whom attained ranks at least as high as Colonel.

Ethnic Jews are also significantly represented among Islamist terrorists. Virtually any ideological or intellectual pursuit, almost no matter how antithetical to Jews or Judaism, will see a substantial (over)representation of Jews. As another example, I haven't checked, but I'd guess with a very high degree of confidence that ethnic Jews are substantially overrepresented among the Catholic clergy.

I've noted before that Jews are about the same proportion as LDS, but you rarely see an LDS poster, and I only know of one LDS participant in a Dissident movement.

Mormons actually do act as an organized collective top-down conspiracy to effectuate the plans of their (open-borders fanatic) Elders.

The presence of Jews in the Dissident Right is analogous to the position of "white feminists" in intersectionality movements on the left. I hesitate to appropriate the phrase "check your privilege", but it seems to aid cohesion on their side.

Women, (with the rare exception, e.g Thatcher) submissive by nature, can be made all the more loyal with threats and abuse. But "submissive" is not the word I'd use to describe most Jews, even the women. So I agree that the same tactics would backfire. (Also, women are submissive to those of perceived high social status; they're conversely disgusted by those of low social status, and all the more so if insulted by the same).

snorlax said...

216 (2/2) -

What is interesting is that the DR movements have little problem with "non-white allies", that BLM has with "white allies". Perhaps it is because we instinctively don't want "allyship", and any hapa that participates accepts they will never hold a leadership position. I consider these attitudes to be counterproductive.

Agreed on all counts. It's unbelievably frustrating for me to watch the self-defeating "dissident right" (again, I hate that term) display such extreme hostility towards potential allies among Jews, women, nonwhites, mainstream conservatives, the "alt-lite," anti-Putin E Euros, gays, even trannies (e.g. Justine Tunney). In case anyone hadn't noticed, we're fighting a losing battle, so we need whatever help we can get. And having "diversity" in our ranks makes it harder for the MSM to caricature us. (This is another case where the overexaggerated disgust response among righties is quite harmful).

Yes, (primarily secular) Jews have played a very significant role in the development, success and radicalization of leftism, and on an ongoing basis. Passer by and KMac exaggerate and mischaracterize this, Gabriel understandably minimizes it to a degree, but whatever the case, we need to treat it as water under the bridge.

Gabriel obviously isn't Marx or Marcuse—he's one of the most hardcore shitlords here—so giving him a bunch of grief accomplishes nothing. Because Jews have been such effective advocates for leftism, we should want them on our side! It both strengthens us with an influx of effective advocates, and deprives the other side of the same.

Moreover, I see no reason this could not in theory occur. The Jews in Europe already have started supporting the right by overwhelming margins, as the left and their Muslim pets have grown ever more hostile and aggressive. Even in America, Jews were trending in a similar direction, voting >30% for Romney (no, not because he was a "neocon;" they only went 21% for the much more invade/inviter McCain). The trend was bound to reverse under Trump—upper-class people of all stripes find him uncouth—but I don't think tweeting thousands of oven memes at Ben Shapiro was much help.

Gabriel M said...

@216

It's probably true that no matter how ostentatiously anti-semitic the XXXX Right (happy, snorlax?) gets, it will still attract some Jew-mischling types with personality disorders. Ashkenazi Jews do genuinely seem to be the mental equivalent of horse bred for speed that keep breaking their legs (the things I could tell you just from personal experience about Hassidic Jews ...). What you're not going to get, though, is another Michael Levin or Michael Hart. Trading that it for Matthew Heimabach seems to be perverse, but even that's not the main point.

When push comes to shove, the core stength of the left is that it has the support of the overwhelming majority of intelligent well-socialised, high-functioning members of society. In blogland you can convince yourself that it's all fat lesbians with bipolar disorder, but the reality is tens of millions of people earning good salaries, running functional lives who vote and donate left because ... well that's the rub, we don't know really, but we have sketches of an answer from Moldbug. The main point is that any political strategy that is not based on converting intelligent high-functioning people is doomed.

Unfortunately, looking around the XXXX Right there is a very palpable dumbening going down. We have lost Auster, Moldbug, Zippy Catholic, Nick Land, pretty much the whole NeoRX set and gained zip. Probably the top XXXX Right intellectuals now are Greg Johnson and Colin Liddle who are worth a read, but are not the same calibre at all. I have a soft spot for Richard Spencer, but it's kind of preposterous that his twitter musings on Nietzsche are considered the work of a serious intellect.

Gabriel M said...

@snorlax
Gabriel obviously isn't Marx or Marcuse—he's one of the most hardcore shitlords here—so giving him a bunch of grief accomplishes nothing.

Well I'm blushing, but to be strictly accurate Passerby didn't give me any grief. I chose to unload on him because it's time for these kind of arguments to just stop. I don't think of myself as a big Jew-apologist, my misanthropy is fairly generalized and I've been called an anti-semite enough times to know I'm doing something right. I also have a genuine interest in actually understanding what the hell happened with Jews over the past 200 years for ethnocentric reasons and because it's pretty darn interesting. However, when people make arguments of the following type:


It's not bizarre, its very logical. The SJW thing is mostly a US thing and it naturally comes with the higher number of jews there. Jews are "victims" in the West so they strive to create a victim worship/victim mongering society. In such an inverted society, where victims rule, they would be on top of the food chain as the biggest "victims" (OMG Muh Holocaust!). Jews create a coalition of minorities in order to take down the dominant group in the target host country. Women, non-whites, LGBTs, various "marginalised" groups, etc are used. It's not that they care too much about them, but they are simply needed to get the job done.

Identity politics is a jewish creation, replacing the traditional leftism (which was also a jewish creation, but it is no longer effective or needed, because of the "bigoted" white working class and the jewish capture of the elites).

In the past, jews created communism in order to use the working class vs the dominant gentile elites. Now that this experiment failed in the Soviet Union, and that many jews became the elites themselves, a new "communism" is being invented - identity politics (that accepts capitalism and banksterism). Suckers don't understand that the whole "left" thing is abandoning the working class and is just a smokescreen for jewish ethnic warfare.


It's time to just say they are just wrong and move on. Read over that argument and then over Passserby's subsequent comments and it is obvious that there is no possibility of rational debate. Trying to triangulate these arguments with reality is a waste of time because the gulf is too wide and the proponents have a limitless willingness to make ad hoc additions to their theory, which they then abandon the second the argument is over. Whatever tiny nugget of truth can be extracted from this garbage is not enough to justify continuing to allow it to dominate discussion. Again, we've been round and round the JQ for over a decade and we haven't actually got anywhere because the loudest voices don't want to get anywhere. Enough.

snorlax said...

Gabriel -

As I've said before, I'd prefer we use the term "conservative." Short, sweet, accurate (more accurate than for most who self-identify that way), and most importantly the MSM can't make it one of their 20 synonyms for "Nazi" like "alt-right," "white nationalist," "neoconfederate," "right-wing militiaman," etc.

Unfortunately, looking around the XXXX Right there is a very palpable dumbening going down. We have lost Auster, Moldbug, Zippy Catholic, Nick Land, pretty much the whole NeoRX set and gained zip.

Zippy's still around, although I never found him nor Land very compelling. Handle comes back intermittently. I fear Moldbug may not be coming back as we knew him—I hate to say it, but in my professional opinion as a software developer, Urbit supports a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Spandrell's still around and more popular than ever, although I'm a bit turned off to him because of the inexplicable high esteem in which he holds depraved pedophile Jim Donald.

Probably the top XXXX Right intellectuals now are Greg Johnson and Colin Liddle who are worth a read, but are not the same calibre at all.

On the CivNat side of things Michael Anton is always worth reading (except when he gets started on Strauss 😴) as are most of the other Claremont people (likewise), and so is Christopher Caldwell. They don't write much (only talks and interviews recently) but Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon are often interesting. I know you don't like him but Steve Sailer remains IMO pretty great, along with our own (brownie points!) AE.

We've been hit particularly hard by brain drain, but it's also afflicting the broader political culture. Take a normie right institution like National Review which has gone from James Burnham and Whittaker Chambers to Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry. Or the left—who is the foremost intellectual on the left? Seriously, I'm drawing a blank here. Maybe Chomsky? Leftists themselves would tell you it's Ta-Nehisi Coates...

216 said...

snorlax,

Zippy died some months ago

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/farewell-zippy-catholic-godspeed

Am I confusing Caldwell with Cantwell?

snorlax said...

216 -

Yes, Caldwell not Cantwell.

snorlax said...

Gabriel -

On a related note to 216 above, I read "Greg Johnson" as "Greg Cochran," the latter of whom is worth following (at https://westhunt.wordpress.com).

snorlax said...

Another highly-recommended blog is Porter at https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com and his Twitter account at https://twitter.com/porter14159

Gabriel M said...

@snorlax

As I've said before, I'd prefer we use the term "conservative." Short, sweet, accurate (more accurate than for most who self-identify that way), and most importantly the MSM can't make it one of their 20 synonyms for "Nazi" like "alt-right," "white nationalist," "neoconfederate," "right-wing militiaman," etc.

Not going to fly. You are a conservative, I'll give you that, and conservatives are definitely one faction of the Superdupermega+ Right, but I just heard Spencer complain that the alt right hasn't done enough to make clear that it is not a conservative movement.

I fear Moldbug may not be coming back as we knew him—I hate to say it, but in my professional opinion as a software developer, Urbit supports a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
I'd like to hear more about this, not being a coder myself - beyond a bit of css - I have been unable to get a clear explanation of WTF urbit is, let alone whether it is a good idea.

Briefly on blogs, I think Spandrell kind of proves my point. He hardly ever posts, but spends a lot of time on Twitter where a lot of the time he comes off as an actual moron. I now have to comment under an (another, quite obvious I think) alias at Cochran after getting banned, but he's kind of phoning it in nowadays too, tbh. Kakistocracy - a bit whiney, no? As to Bannon and the Claremont guys - I think you're in serious danger of getting deradicalised :)

Thinking about it, if I had to recommend two blogs it would be the Generative Anthropology Blog and Evolutionist X.

The Left doesn't need to have serious intellectuals any more they already have all the clever people on their side (complete victory was achieved in the 90s I think based on English universities). The sense I get is that circa 2008 a lot of very intelligent people were getting interested in a lot of very right-wing ideas. I can't believe that's still true. The relative proportion of clever people in the mightymorphingpowerangers right has been obviously decreasing for some time, but it looks to me like the a tipping point has been reached where the absolute number is too. This is absolute death for any political movement.

Corvinus said...

Passer By...

"As i said, nothing comparable to Clinton's times, not that much resistance against him by the feminists then."

Feminist resistance was strong during the Age of Clinton, whether it be his revealed history of being handsy with women, or the accusations leveled against Clarence Thomas, or the ongoing complaints of the "glass ceiling" in Fortune 500 companies, to states attempting to whittle away at Roe vs. Wade, to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, to increasing opposition to the treatment of women in Muslim countries.

"Exactly. But the Dems defacto own almost all US feminist organisations (they are pro-Democrat orgs), which means that they are able to use women's issues for partisan attacks when convenient, or keep a lid on such issues when inconvenient, due to them owing most feminist orgs and the label."

In a similar fashion that conservative or evangelical women use feminist issues for partisan attacks when convenient, or keep a lid on such issues when inconvenient.

"Will i allow my daughter to date him if i had one? First of all, women decide for themselves..."

Which is in direct opposition to Alt Right patriarchy.

"then why not have her as a wife of a republican US president?"

Even if that man has a reputation for being handsy and cheating? Would you sit idly by as your daughter was being used in that fashion?

aNanyMouse said...

Snorlax & Gabriel:
Super discussion about the fluctuations within the DR (Auster, Moldbug, Anton etc.), incl. about the JQ.

"but it looks to me like the a tipping point has been reached where the absolute number is TOO."
Do you mean "two"?

aNanyMouse said...

Or, do you mean that the absolute number has also declined (to now include only Generative Anthropology, and Evolutionist X)?

Passer by said...

@Corvinus

"Feminist resistance was strong during the Age of Clinton, whether it be his revealed history of being handsy with women, or the accusations leveled against Clarence Thomas, or the ongoing complaints of the "glass ceiling" in Fortune 500 companies, to states attempting to whittle away at Roe vs. Wade, to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, to increasing opposition to the treatment of women in Muslim countries."

There wasn't strong feminist resistance against Bill Clinton , as i said, and there wasn't strong western feminist resistance against the female situation in muslim countries or communities. Have you seen a 100 k feminist demonstration against Clinton? No. Have you seen a 100k western feminist demonstration against the treatment of women by muslims? No.

"In a similar fashion that conservative or evangelical women use feminist issues for partisan attacks when convenient, or keep a lid on such issues when inconvenient."

Its not in similar fashion because their groups are far smaller and less influential than feminist and Dem women's groups, who basically own the women's label, are far less internationally and media recognized and supported, and thus can not keep lid on anything, as they do not have the power to do so, society wise. US women's groups are dominated by dem's related groups, thus they could create a mass hysteria in society about women's issues if they want to (Trump), or keep things under control in overall society if they want to (feminist treatment of Clinton when he was a president or the muslim issue).
As Dem/feminist groups dominate overall women's groups they will set the agenda, and what the "women's movement" does. What evangelical women can do is marginal to the societal power of the Democrat linked "women's movement" and their capability to set overall societal mood.

"Which is in direct opposition to Alt Right patriarchy."

I'm not sure that all of them believe that they should force who their daughters marry. Arranged marriage was not a dominant US tradition, even though the US was patriarchal country for a long time. And is not very practical as well as it is hard to control grown ups who have their own life.

http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume7/mar09/courtship.cfm

"Even if that man has a reputation for being handsy and cheating? Would you sit idly by as your daughter was being used in that fashion? "

I'm not interested in forced marriages as i said above. Is she wants him why not? If that will help her to become a republican star and an icon of the party the way Hillary became for the Dems, then i will support such a decision.

Audacious Epigone said...

snorlax,

That's sweet of you to say, but I'm distinctly middle brow. I have neither the capacity nor the desire to angle my brow any higher and obviously don't deserve to be placed in the company of Moldbug or Auster. I don't care to be, either, because while there is a high-brow set that enjoys them, the truth is Heartiste has influenced way more people than both of those guys--plus Greg Johnson and Colin Liddle--combined have. (I won't dismiss Nick Land that way because he has been a sometimes booster of mine for a long time).

Corvinus said...

Passer By...

"and there wasn't strong western feminist resistance against the female situation in muslim countries or communities."

The movement gained strength during this time frame, as more people became "woke". The 1990's served as a transition decade. This event was a driving force.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/07/world/mideast-tensions-saudi-women-take-driver-s-seat-rare-protest-for-right-travel.html

"Have you seen a 100 k feminist demonstration against Clinton? No."

Except there was perpetual coverage of him being handsy and daily protests, media highlights, and op-eds regarding his conduct, as well as the other issues I previously mentioned that were important to feminists. Moreover, the 1990's saw the growth of widespread political activism by evangelical and conservative women against the secularization of society, changing sexual and cultural norms, and the legalization of abortion, with liberal women responding in kind.

"Its not in similar fashion because their groups are far smaller and less influential than feminist and Dem women's groups, who basically own the women's label..."

No. The "women's label" is owned by women, whether it be feminist groups or evangelical groups. The fact is that both groups
play pivotal roles and are influential in our society when it comes to public policy, as well as being protecting their allies that results in hypocritical stances.

"Arranged marriage was not a dominant US tradition, even though the US was patriarchal country for a long time."

I'm not talking about arranged marriages, YOU mentioned it. I am talking about a woman being able to choose her own husband. The Alt Right generally insists that fathers take the lead when it comes to ensuring that their daughters marry the "proper" man. Trump's hands-on approach, as well as female choices, both attack patriarchy.

Again, would you want your daughter to date or even marry a man who repeatedly cheats on her? Yes or no? Why?

"If that will help her to become a republican star and an icon of the party the way Hillary became for the Dems, then i will support such a decision."

So are saying that it does not matter if your daughter is cheated on, so long as she is with a man who is able to secure her place in our society politically, her husband's affairs do not, at the very least, concern you? Is this what you are getting at?


AE...

"the truth is Heartiste has influenced way more people than both of those guys."

The fact of the matter is that most white normies never heard of him, and that he is a degenerate. He is only interested in his next conquest, and cares little for saving Western Civilization by marrying and siring offspring.

Gabriel M said...

@aNanyMouse

I meant 'too'. There was a period when the outer Right was becoming appreciably courser and less intelligent because it was growing fast and this growth was disproportionately coming from muttonheads. The intelligent people were still there, it's just that they were being drowned out. However, at present I think the absolute number of intelligent people is decreasing as people quietly drop out of what is becoming a sewer. I do not mean to say only two intelligent people are left. There are more than 2 on this thread.

@ae

You can be middlebrow and smart and highbrow and dumb. Anyway, degenerate Heartiste is a case in point. It would be literally impossible to participate in his comments threads for more than three months and not come out either dumber or slightly insane. Both dumb people and insane people have their uses in political movements under certain conditions and only when they are under tight control. If you let them set the tone, however, you get, well, what you've got.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Most normies haven't heard of anyone mentioned in the thread except for Richard Spencer, Milo, and Steve Bannon.

Gabriel,

Agree, his comment thread is a shitlord sewer though there are diamonds in there from time to time.

What are your thoughts on ZMan? He has some public intellectuals everyone here would easily recognize who regularly read him.

aNanyMouse said...

@ Gabriel
Thanx much for clarifying the "too" part.

"circa 2008 a lot of very intelligent people were getting interested in a lot of very right-wing ideas."
Do you see any hope that the Kav inquisition ("believe all women!"), or Trump pulling a Big Ugly (as per Sundance) could help reignite this?
Or, are very intelligent people too hard to predict?

Passer by said...

@Corvinus

"The movement gained strength during this time frame, as more people became "woke". The 1990's served as a transition decade. This event was a driving force."

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/07/world/mideast-tensions-saudi-women-take-driver-s-seat-rare-protest-for-right-travel.html

Nope, there wasn't strong western feminist resistance against the female situation in muslim countries or communities, and there is no such strong resistance now. Actually a muslim woman who believes in sharia law is one of the leaders of the Women's March. If you read properly, i wrote "western". I'm talking here about the western and mostly US feminist movement and how it serves the partisan & intersectional (muslim alliance) interests of the Democrat party.

"except there was perpetual coverage of him being handsy and daily protests, media highlights, and op-eds regarding his conduct, as well as the other issues I previously mentioned that were important to feminists. Moreover, the 1990's saw the growth of widespread political activism by evangelical and conservative women against the secularization of society, changing sexual and cultural norms, and the legalization of abortion, with liberal women responding in kind."

Still, as i said, you haven't seen a 100k feminist demonstration against Clinton. I doubt that there was even a 10k feminist demonstration against Clinton. Maybe 1000k? I'm not even sure about that.

"No. The "women's label" is owned by women, whether it be feminist groups or evangelical groups. The fact is that both groups
play pivotal roles and are influential in our society when it comes to public policy, as well as being protecting their allies that results in hypocritical stances."

It is defacto owned by the dem related groups as they are the biggest groups, the most media supported groups, and the most internationally recognized women's groups in the US. They have far more power than evangelical women groups and dominate academia and mass media, they are not simply some "peasants" from rural places, but the high ranking people who dominate academia and mass media women wise, and control how other people think and should behave. This isn't the 50s, many people the US are no longer strict christians and many are quite secular. The power of christian groups, including such women's groups, is on a long term decline.

"I'm not talking about arranged marriages, YOU mentioned it. I am talking about a woman being able to choose her own husband. The Alt Right generally insists that fathers take the lead when it comes to ensuring that their daughters marry the "proper" man. Trump's hands-on approach, as well as female choices, both attack patriarchy."

I'm not sure that almost all of the alt right insists that women can not choose their husbands. I haven't seen something like this. Thats certainly not a US tradition, even in more patriarchal times. There could be some, but almost all of them? I'm not sure about that at all.

"So are saying that it does not matter if your daughter is cheated on, so long as she is with a man who is able to secure her place in our society politically, her husband's affairs do not, at the very least, concern you? Is this what you are getting at?"

It is up to her to decide, some women go after womanizers and i don't think one can control very effectively what grown up people with their own life do. In life, there are always pros and cons, not everything is perfect. If she is going to help white people via her marriage, putting a covert white nationalist in a very important republican position, that could be a price i'm willing to pay.

Gabriel M said...

@aNanyMouse

Any event which makes it hard to accept the official version of reality is a potential opportunity. The Kavanaugh imbroglio probably wasn't that significant since the mainstream right actually held strong, however, these opportunities will keep coming and probably with increasing frequency. (For me, it was the Trayvon Martin affair and I'm sure this is the case for a lot of other people too). There will always be people ripe for radicalization, the important point is that there should be people ready to radicalize them.

On a related noted, a common problem that arises is providing material that is interesting to people who are already radicalized and don't need the basics explained to them, and reaching out to mainstream conservatives and liberals who do need the basics explained to them. For example, this blog is quite good, but I'm pretty sure that large parts of it would look like the ravings of a madman to a normie. If you look at a lot of the successful blogs, such as Moldbug, ZMan they were radicalizing themselves as they went along, thus pulling the audience along with them.

Two general pieces of advice that I would offer are
a) Before you write anything, consider whether it would be have the effect of attracting or repelling an intellectually curious person of above average intelligence whose views are still within the mainstream of popular opinion. If it is likely that it would put them off, consider whether it's really worth writing or whether it might be best being password protected or restricted to subscribers.
b) Gather together your best posts and put them in a prominent place on your blog (again see Zman). It's really senseless if the only thing a new visitor sees is whatever you happened to have written most recently, especially if it's just something you tossed out because you were angry or feuding with someone or whatever.

aNanyMouse said...

@ Gabriel:

Thanx much for your expensive response.
About Kav, the mainstream right did hold strong, on the specific issue of his being qualified for that job, despite Ford's charges.
However, I'm referring to a broader aspect of this dustup, i.e. the extent to which it made better known, the audacious #MeToo! position of "believe all women! (even about 36 year-old charges)".
It's not hard to present this RadFem position, as a ploy to (slowly) imprison *all* men, at will.
Building normies' understanding of the audacity of such a ploy, could be a real boost to the stature of the MGTOW crowd, and thus, to normies' view of the Right's general relevance to problems of everyday life.

I don't plan to start a blog, but I do try (when working on smart normies) to steer them toward the best arguments for our side.
I've seen really good things about the American Greatness site. Do you see that as a good start for smart normies?

Aidan MacLear said...

@Gabriel

Evangelizing normies is not my job and there are plenty of people engaged in that good work. My blog is meant to build better rightists.

In terms of adding people to the right, the ideal person to evangelize is a popular basic conservative or libertarian with an already-large following.

snorlax said...

Gabriel, AE -

Replied to you guys here since this post is about to be knocked off the front page.