Saturday, December 16, 2017

Immigration is the golden snitch

I read the first entries in the Harry Potter series in the span of a couple of weeks in the mid-2000s. My younger brother was enthralled by the books but hadn't seen any of the movies released up to that point. I thought it a nice big brother gesture to watch them with him and wanted to know the score before doing so.

Something I remember with distinct annoyance were the risibly stupid rules of the in-universe game of Quidditch. Six players per side get smashed to hell as they scramble after a big ball--the "quaffle"--that earns a team that scores with it 10 points. Each team also has a seventh player called a "seeker". The seeker exclusively chases a smaller ball--the "golden snitch"--that, once captured, gives his team 150 points and ends the game.

There is no time limit. The match concludes when the small ball is captured, and because it's worth so much, the team that captures the golden snitch virtually always wins. Infogalactic informs us that one game in the series ends with the team capturing the golden snitch losing, but in this exceptional instance it was done intentionally.

So the matches consist of six players on each side getting pounded by flying iron balls for no purpose other than the entertainment of the spectators while the outcome is decided solely by which seeker manages to capture the golden snitch.

I bring this up in the context of Ann Coulter's great column on Roy Moore's loss in Alabama last week:
Everyone who screwed the pooch on this one better realize fast: All that matters is immigration. It’s all that matters to the country, and it’s all that matters for winning elections.

“Anti-establishment” is not a winning issue. Without immigration as the GOP’s lodestar, every election will be a rerun of the Tea Party from 2010 to 2012, when Republicans lost Senate seat after Senate seat, entirely in unforced errors.

We’ll have to watch helplessly as “establishment Republicans” fight “anti-establishment Republicans” over the right to milk a he-goat. Both sides will lose, and Democrats will sweep Congress and destroy our country.

Immigration was never a top issue for Moore, though, when pressed, he gave the right answers. That’s not a good way to prioritize.

Republicans who treat immigration as a backburner issue should be required to run on the issues they consider more important—in California. See how your arguments fare in a state that’s already been transformed by immigration. That’s your new country.

How stupid do you have to be to carry on about taxes, defense spending, ISIS, abortion or the Ten Commandments while intentionally losing on the one issue that will determine the outcome of all these other issues? Too stupid to be of any real help.
Metaphorical moratorium
Taxes? Quaffle. Defense spending? Quaffle. ISIS? Quaffle. Abortion? Quaffle. Ten commandments? Quaffle.

Immigration is the golden snitch. It doesn't matter what happens with the other issues. If we don't capture the National Question, any quaffle points we accumulate will turn out to be nothing more than distractions for fans on our side to cheer about momentarily before we lose the game.

As fans, we must insist on our front office start putting everything into recruiting the best seekers (the single player on the pitch who pursues the golden snitch) and stop wasting so much time and energy on quaffle showmen. Derb essentially concludes as much in this week's broadcast, so take it's importance from him.

44 comments:

Paul Rain said...

Wait, why wouldn't the other six players just smash up the seeker? Stupid books..

Sid said...

"Taxes? Quaffle. Defense spending? Quaffle. ISIS? Quaffle. Abortion? Quaffle. Ten commandments? Quaffle."

Immigration ties into these issues.

Do you want a low tax, low spend federal government? Stop inviting people who are here to get the gibs.

Want strong national defense? Nothing says defense like a big, glorious wall. Also, the easiest way to shorten ISIS' reach is to not invite migrants from failed Middle Eastern and African states.

Want to win the culture war? Don't invite people who will vote for degenerates.

This doesn't just work for right wing issues.

Want higher wages and stronger labor bartering power? Refuse low skill migrants.

Want to pay off your student loans? Don't allow H1Bs to make important corporate jobs nickel and dime affairs.

Want a cleaner environment? Don't let in people who crave sprawl, enjoy torturing animals. Keep the population lower by keeping out migrants.

Immigration is the big issue, but that's not immediately obvious. Once you've tied people's pet issues to immigration, however, the case for immigration restrictionism will look less like atavistic racism to normies, and more like a long needed and overdue remedy to our social ills.

Roy Moore lacked the "master persuader" skills Trump often demonstrates. He was just a tradcon who gave the right answer on immigration. If he were sharper, he would've made it clear to Alabamian social conservatives that, no, their way of life isn't going to hold if they let in a bunch of papists and Mohammedans. Make immigration the primary issue, but explain why immigration connects to what people value.

Granted, there's no way we'll be able to persuade Democratic partisans who want foreign ringers to rig elections, or the Coalition of the Fringes who thrills at white people losing their national patrimony. But everyone needs an enemy, and we should be glad to have them be ours.

Space Ghost said...

Immigration is the one issue that can't be fixed after the fact if you make the wrong decision. Taxes & defense spending can be changed by the legislature, ISIS is a joke, abortion can be changed via constitutional amendment if you get enough people on your side, Ten Commandments is just a dumb thing to spend political points on. But if you let the wrong people into your country, there is literally nothing that can be done to fix it (within the system) because *their kids* will behave like them, and they will be citizens.

Anonymous said...

I would like to echo Space Ghost and it is the reason I am now a one issue voter. I would vote for an immigration restrictionist socialist over a open borders libertarian. We can fix bad economic policy later. I also firmly believe that the reason the Republican establishment as exemplified by the Bushes and NTers hate Trump is mainly due to his stance on immigration and to lesser extent the fact that he opposes (or did oppose) neonconservative foreign policy. It has far less to do with his style, despite what they claim.

Anonymous said...

Demographics is Destiny.

Change the people, change the nation.

Anonymous said...

I voted for Trump on the single issue of immigration. Some of the others would have been ok on other issues like gun rights but immigration was the big one.

Audacious Epigone said...

Paul Rain,

Either they didn't or they weren't allowed to. If the former, yeah, dumb.

Sid,

Indeed, everything is downstream of immigration. So much of what SWPLs care about, some of which you lay out, are only viable in a WEIRDO society.

Those who want to bring in foreign ringers--to elect a new people--are the enemy. They are the primary enemy.

Space Ghost,

Right. Getting it wrong on these other issues is akin to spending too much at a restaurant or on a new car. Getting it wrong on immigration is akin to losing your job and being barred from your career.

Anon,

Likewise. If I could be consul alongside someone from the left, I'd demand everything I wanted on the National Question. In return, I'd give carte blanche to my co-consul on the rest.

Anon,

Yes, everything is downstream of immigration--including civic nationalism.

Anon,

Same. Was willing to back Cruz if it came to that for the same reason.

Anonymous said...

In response to "Sid said..."

Agree whole heartedly, now what to do...turn these observations/consequences into poll-tested "talking points" and spread widely.

If I had them (but I am not a wordsmith or a sloganeer, short and sweet is better) I would repeat them, hammer them home into the noosphere. An army of clones could make these ubiquitous until they became universal-truth.

We should adopt/use the practices of the enemy that work, endless repetition, spread far and wide. I see the tactic, but I cannot see how to accomplish it, unfortunately.

Thanks, Sid.

Anonymous said...

Ask the native-americans/indians how letting small groups of poor, starving, persecuted foreigners worked out for them. As Dr. Savage said "Borders, Language, and Culture" are the traits of a nation.

Aeoli said...

How is annexing Mexico's workforce different from annexing Mexico?

jskdn said...

Demographics may be destiny but they take time to manifest in the electorate. On the other hand the benefits of immigration to the donor, capitalist class from mass immigration are immediate. So while those of similar interests in the future will pay the costs of the big government resulting from the actions of those in the present, do you think Republicans getting rich now care about that?

“I would vote for an immigration restrictionist socialist over a open borders libertarian.”

And it is precisely that linkage that should be made. Most Republican politicians only care about controlling immigration to the extent that some action in that regard poses an immediate political threat. Not long ago the same could be said about some Democrats (Rahm Emanuel) but their need for the pretense has pretty much vanished, not a little because of the cover provided by the news media’s agenda on the issue. But Republicans do care about their money and people who want limited and legal immigration should be advocating linking taking away that money and redistributing it to the working class with any failure to deliver on the former. People who won’t do the right thing for the right reason will often do so if their self-interest become tied to it.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

It can't be emphasized enough that the GOPe is controlled opposition. That isn't to sound conspiratorial, their job is to look "tough" and ensure that the businessmen who donate to them ensure that they get extra tax cuts and a soft regulatory touch vs. the Democrats who occasionally LARP as the party of the working class. McConnell would not have been majority leader if he didn't 100% fully get with the program. He doesn't care if the US resembles California, he only cares that the Chamber of Commerce set get what they want so they can still get donations. Besides, by the time America resembles Brazil, they'll probably be retired or dead anyway so they might as well get it while the getting is good. Let the other generations deal with the fallout.

Partially the reason why it hasn't quite hit the GOP yet at various levels because it's depressing to admit that the country is so demographically on the knife's edge that the only issue that matters these days is not getting demographically replaced. The randroids, Christcucks, the small "l" libertarians, and policy wonks have spent decades dealing with issues that no longer matter. Many of them are true DR3 believers who think that if immigrants read the constitution one more time that they'll become Republicans and they won't have to be known as The White Party. Or if they convince Somalis that a lower tax on capital gains means more jobs for them, that they'll finally come around. Some don't get it because they don't want to get it, not for malicious reasons but because it pretty much nullifies their life's work in coming up with carefully crafted arguments about welfare reform.

Either way, they're going to have to get it over it or risk losing their jobs. The situation is too precarious to throw the country away due to boomer idealism.

TWS said...

Rowling neither knows nor cares about sports. Obviously. She didn't care enough to even study some of the sports writers. So she got that part all wrong but she did make a great metaphor for our system.

Nothing matters except immigration. If we keep failing at that we'll be Americans like today's Italians are Romans. There's even a city called Rome and they speak a romance language. But nobody will mistake today's Italians for the world beating Romans.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Traitors are easy to spot. There motives are pretty obvious on inspection. The Lincoln Loser Stupid Party is there to keep you occupied with trifles. Focusing on minor issues such as abortion or trannies in the womens' lavatory can cast enough shadow to sell you out. Look at Chinless weasel McCuck. Chinese wife and as American as Toyota or Samsung. Its not necessarily China, just not American. McCain was a traitor from way back. Songbird at the Hanoi Hilton. He did more damage to the US Navy than the North Vietnamese. He almost sank an aircraft carrier showing off, lost enough planes flying poorly to be an enemy ace, and sang like a bird to not get hit. His Daddy and Grandpa were Admirals so he didn't get Leavenworth. Little Jebbie has a dumb brown wife. He's what is called a LOSER. This sad sack couldn't be Mayor of Tijuana with a cheap Mestizo wife like that, but he ain't American, not by a long shot. This Rockefeller puppet comes from a long line of gas station attendants. Grandpa Prescott was the first pump handle operator and his Daddy was so much on his knees he was CIA Director for awhile. Read my lips, NO MORE LINCOLN.

Sid said...

AE,

The most frustrating aspect of SWPLs is their hypocrisy. They want to live in ultra WEIRDO societies, but don't want to be openly pro-white. As such, they flood other white people's neighborhoods with minorities in order to feel good about themselves.

The hard SWPLs won't renounce their hypocrisy, but we can make it obvious to normies that the kind of "walkable, eco-friendly, pro-women" communities that SWPLs want are only possible when those communities are 80%+ white.

Anonymous,

I appreciate your kind words. You're correct that we need to keep on repeating our talking points until they're commonly accepted.

As for how to do this, social media has proven to be key. Our ideas are now starting to hitting the gates of normie forums like battering rams. In the past few months I've heard more conventional conservatives like Peggy Noonan and Mark Steyn reiterate Steve Sailer's written opinions.

Our cause is still more of a diffuse network than an established hierarchy. As such, it's incumbent on all of us to test out our messaging ideas where we can and share the results with the broader community.

Random Dude,

That's very true that the GOPe is a stunt horse party. They're there to fall down on command.

Even so, there are some signs that the GOPe who is there just to secure tax cuts and whine about abortion are realizing they wouldn't get the latest tax bill or Gorsuch without Trump. Ideally Trump will push ahead with the Wall, defunding accomplice cities and states, and axing DACA, and the GOPe will acquiesce to it. That's hoping for a lot, but here's to hoping.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Sid is always worth paying attention to.

Anon,

Indeed. We came, we saw, we conquered. Now they're coming, they're seeing, they're conquering.

Three cheers for Savage, who was among the mainstream an almost lone voice in the wilderness in the late 90s and through the 2000s.

jskdn,

The NRA eschews everything but gun rights/gun control in their endorsements and their actions. NumbersUSA does the same. Consequently, NumbersUSA is the first place I go for any election I'm participating in, and always support whoever earns the highest grade.

Random Dude,

Very well put as always.

TWS,

It's pretty surprising that such stupid rules got past her editor(s), but I suppose they're all cut from similar cloth. There are larpers who play a 'real life' version of Quidditch. It looks ridiculous, but to their credit they reduced the points awarded for catching the golden snitch to 30 points and don't let the seekers onto the field until 18 minutes in.

Joshua,

Jarring rhetorical flourish. Nothing of substance to disagree with, though.

jskdn said...


I see no coherent consensus strategy developing to force the GOP to act reasonably on immigration, while there are lots of sell out proposals out there. DACA provides a leverage opportunity to implement measures necessary to finally bring about immigration control, instead of “border security,” promises or as I call it border boob bait for bubbas. We need a “We won’t be fooled again act”, starting with fulfilling the 3 decades-old, ignored promise given in exchange for the 1986 amnesty to stop the employment of illegal immigrants, always the sine qua non of any workable immigration control policy, with mandatory E-verify. I’d include chain migration limits and ending sponsorship rights for amnestied illegal immigrants; being deportable and yet being allowed to stay in the country is plenty of an amnesty reward for having violated our laws by itself. I’d include a merit-based selection process, as visa overstay and asylum reforms.

The bill immigration benefits should only mirror those of existing DACA, that is continued TPS for the same population with any future LPR status being conditioned on the enforcement measures actually becoming realized: a version of the enforcement first that recognizes that those in government have proven that they can’t be trusted. Trump should declare that, for the time being, deportation of the DACA population is off the table to stop the media’s talk about deportation. That’s completely within the President’s prosecutorial discretion as the rulings against DAPA/expanded DACA made clear. Some of their work permits would start to expire if Democrats chose to keep blocking such a deal, but that’s on the Democrats if they refuse to accept laws and enforcment necessary for limited and legal immigration to be realized.

Unfortunately I’m not seeing a sensible consensus of the major immigration limitation organizations and the supporting pundits around such a bill. Without that and effort to drum up rank and file voter pressure on Republicans in Congress, I’d expect that they will do the wrong thing.

Feryl said...

"The most frustrating aspect of SWPLs is their hypocrisy. They want to live in ultra WEIRDO societies, but don't want to be openly pro-white. As such, they flood other white people's neighborhoods with minorities in order to feel good about themselves."

That's projection (partially). Conservative whites typically flee areas that are getting too diverse, while SWPLs often live in urban/near urban areas that either have lots of diversity, or are near areas with a lot diversity.

More proleish conservatives tend to live in suburbs/exurbs/small towns on the condition that they be mostly or entirely white (not necessarily Good Whites, but just whites of any kind), while yuppie Republicans (the few that are left) live in highly exclusive areas generally free of all problems, where all ne-er do well minorities and skeezy white people are all priced out.

A big reason conservatives often are impotent is their refusal to dirty their hands with more down scale urban areas. As I said recently, The GOP as of 1970 latched onto the still mostly undeveloped Western US and the Deep South simply because they found the urban politics and culture of the heavily developed/unionized Northeast to be icky. A pack mentality tends to develop among every ethnic group residing in the big city; let's not forget that NYC whites elected a series of no-nonsense crime fighting politicians in the 70's-early 90's. The unspoken reality was that whites (be they Jewish, Irish, Polish, Italian, whatever) felt under siege from black and Puerto Rican criminals, and something had to be collectively done. But GOP dreamers idealize every man being an island onto himself, building a new house in a Norman Rockwell country landscape, raising a family, and tending to a sizable property that ideally will never be inhabited by another family.

Feryl said...


The GOP's insistence on individualism works to a distinct disadvantage in the highly developed and unionized Great Lakes-Upper Atlantic coast region, home to most of America's legacy and traditionally important metro areas. In cheap and easy to develop areas, AFF and the resulting family takes precedence over everything else. In older and more difficult to develop areas, priorities shift towards making an alliance for the sake of camaraderie and protection. This alliance might be with your co-workers, or co-ethnics, or even activists and politicians who are comfortable on the street. Whites from the Northeast and the Great Lakes defected to Trump because he embraced a pugilistic and territorial mindset; from the 70's-pre-Trump, GOP candidates generally tried to sell people on "don't worry, be happy" sentiment which plays better with those living the bucolic muh family values lifestlye, but no much with people down on the street whose communities are being hit by factory closures, declining unions, decaying infrastructure, declining quantity and quality of public services, and so forth. Of course, Trump did poorly among non-whites (in urban politics, people choose ethnic champions), SWPL's (who came to believe in the Obama era that you should never say anything bad about diversity, even if deep down inside you know that too many foreigners fucks things up and Obama stirred too much black misbehavior).

These days it's easy for white conservatives to write off urban areas as too un-white and foreign, but a history lesson is needed here: Republican disdain for the city/older regions of America dates at least back to the 1940's, when most urban areas were heavily white. GOP elites don't give a damn about factories or homeless people; all that matter to them is that in theory anyone with common sense and a good work ethic ought to flee to the exurbs or a small town, and start a business or something. Remember that the GOP chiefly serves three things first: the Pentagon, Agribusiness, and Oil. And hey, last I checked the GOP loves to use foreigners as cheap labor even if it destroys the stability and functionality of huge swaths of urban areas. As far as the GOP is concerned, the city is only for poor losers and effete snobs, so why care?

Feryl said...

The randroids, Christcucks, the small "l" libertarians, and policy wonks have spent decades dealing with issues that no longer matter. Many of them are true DR3 believers who think that if immigrants read the constitution one more time that they'll become Republicans and they won't have to be known as The White Party.

If you feel like a good Dad/Father, or a hard working rugged individualist, or like some glorious champion of The Key to a Free Market Utopia. then you start to push more and more valuable allies away from you. Like, ya know, people who share your ethnicity/nationality/cultural background. Since you never are going to get a world in which that many people share your exact morality/spirituality, or believe that company owners are always more virtuous than labor leaders or politicians and government bureaucrats, you might as well try and make an alliance on the most fundamental shared interest of all: ethnic and national identity. Talking about moral issues and promoting Randian economics will pit individual crusaders against each other, and the competition often degrades national and ethnic solidarity. Defeating the British, The Indians, the Nazis, and the Soviets, all required a distinct set of shared ethnic/nationalist traits which we accepted and we allowed pride of these traits to supercede toxic in-group competition within Americans.

It's not coincidence that the Right going full retard on Chamber of Commerce crap and family values non-sense coincides with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 90's, with early signs of the cucking visible in the later 80's when relations with Russia were warming up.

Feryl said...

"Fighting back entails the same kind of difficult, relentless grassroots action the left excels at, which is why Whites are doomed."

From another conservative forum. Far too many conservatives don't seem to realize that a bunch of individualistic people living in the countryside are just not going to be able to band together for an effective counter-attack. In developed countries, rural guerilla warfare is what you do in desperation; when you're up against an occupier and these techniques usually won't flush out the occupier from urban territory....Unless the occupier is a much smaller force than the defending natives.

Since candy-ass conservatives have ceded more and more urban territory to non-whites and Leftists over the last 70 years, conservatives no longer have any almost any ownership of territory that's inhabited by dense populations willing to fight for Trad. American values and people. Thanks a lot. By abandoning urban areas and dumping vast numbers of non-whites on them (via dumb immigration policies), the GOP has seen to it that huge swaths of America have lost interest in fighting for America or it's trad. people and culture.

And lastly, a lot of aging conservatives adopting basically an ascetic mentality ain't gonna help. Russia didn't repel the Mongol hordes by permitting them in their cities while Russian patriots decamped to the countryside and cried about "nobody caring anymore". The Spanish didn't repel the Moors by sulking their time away in mountain hide outs.

Sid said...

Feryl,

SWPLs do like diversity. They enjoy seeing people of different races walking down the same street, store owners of various backgrounds, hearing different languages being spoken, etc.

But even so, the diversity is of a nice, friendly sort. SWPLs without children are often willing to take the risk of gentrifying potentially dangerous neighborhoods, but once they've married and have children will make a dash for neighborhoods full of whites, Jews, Asians, and upper middle class blacks and Hispanics. It's a safe diversity that feels good.

Before the 21st century, the Republican and Democratic parties represented the interests of different constituencies, and would try to balance each other's demands while drafting legislation. Similarly, there weren't hard blue and red states that we have today: Nixon and Reagan easily won the extreme majority of states in their relections. Class and regional differences in that time weren't intractable.

Today, the Democratic party is explicitly the non-white party, with debates within whether white women should be considered part of the Coalition if the Fringes, and whether blacks should be predominant or should share power with other groups.

The Republicans are implicitly, and reluctantly, the white party. The problem is that whites aren't just "woke" enough to prioritize their various interests before all else. As such, guys like Ted Cruz (who is white enough) is uneager to work for the interests of white New Yorkers, and union workers in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are grumbling about the corporate tax cuts and will probably stay home in 2018 and 2020 if they don't see something like an infrastructure bill that would revitalize their communities.

Feryl said...

"Nixon and Reagan easily won the extreme majority of states in their relections. Class and regional differences in that time weren't intractable."

On a presidential level, the GOP did well in the late 60's-80's because Lefty over-reach was associated with high crime rates and other kinds of civil disorder. In the case of Nixon, it was Silents who sided with the "law and order" candidate against the counter-culture side represented by Democrats (the active counter-culture was chiefly a phenomenon among that era's quite small SWPL population, with the possibility of POC trouble limited by their small numbers (blacks were less than 10% of the teen/adult population in the late 60's).

Silents were disappointed by Jimmy Carter, and by the late 70's were also tired of the Big Gubmint era of the mid-1930's-mid 1970's. Thus they ended up embracing Reagan in the early 80's. Boomers generally felt the same way about Reagan, by the time Boomers voted in larger numbers in the 80's (often over looked is that many Boomers were too apolitical or too apathetic to bother voting when they were young in the 60's and 70's).

But lo and behold, the nation's porous borders in the 70's and 80's set the stage for large regions of America becoming much less white and American. Imperial over-reach apparently necessitates bringing in foreign scab labor. AFF is much tougher for X-ers and Millennials than it was for older generations, so the GOP can't rely on muh family values like they could with older generations. The correct moral posturing just won't cut it anymore. The GOP succeeding on a general election level is inextricably linked with America being much more white and affordable back in the 70's and 80's. Rising white generations, esp. in the Rust-belt and Northeast, don't yet feel like going all in on racial bloc voting because the GOP is still committed to the obscurity of outdated economic ideology, while also suffering from the aforementioned cowardice and impotence that results from giving up on large chunks of America. As long as there are still prairies being farmed and/or developed, the GOP can still get wood and delude itself that these areas are going to eventually pull POC and white liberals away from the damn cities and the damn Northeastern 1/4 of America. .

Black Death said...

Interesting post, interesting discussion. Europe is dealing with the same problem. Immigration was a major driver in the BREXIT vote. Now Poland is facing EU sanctions for refusal to take its "fair share" of immigrants:

In response to Poland's actions, an Official Says EU Likely to Give Poland Unprecedented Warning.

The European Union's executive Commission will likely decide next week to trigger an unprecedented procedure against Poland that could move the country closer to losing its voting rights in the EU, a top official said Friday.

The move would involve a formal warning to Poland that it sees a "clear risk of a serious breach" of European values in new bills that overhaul the judicial system.

Poland's new Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki tried to persuade leaders at an EU summit in Brussels ending Friday that the bills do not violate democratic values.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron voiced hopes that the step won't be necessary, but vowed to back the Commission if it comes to that.

Merkel's Last Stand

Tom Luongo calls the Article 7 threat "Merkel's Last Stand"

Poland and the rest of the Visigrad Four – Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia – are headed for a collision course with the rest of Western Europe.

Invoking Article 7 will eventually allow the European Parliament to rescind all economic aid to Poland and its voting rights within the body. While at that same time not allowing Poland free access to international trade because it will not be an independent nation at that point.

Any move to extricate itself from the EU politically or practically will be met with the most strident opposition. Look no further than Brexit talks and the brutal put-down of Catalonia’s independence movement to see Poland’s future.

The first step is a political reprimand. But, the problem for Merkel and the EU in general is that Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party is more popular than ever thanks to its opposition to her nonsense.

The same thing is happening across all of Eastern Europe. The Czechs just elected their version of Donald Trump, Andrej Babis. The Austrians put together a coalition government this week comprised of the two most anti-immigration parties in the country.

And their new Foreign Minister wasn’t on the job more than a couple of days before publicly declaring Austria would be ending its economic sanctions against Russia which have been in place since 2014 over Russia’s reunification with Crimea.

I wonder how well that’s going to go over the next time the council of EU Foreign Ministers gets together. EU sanctions require unanimity or the measure is rescinded.

....

Article 2 of the EU treaty requires members to uphold "European values." In practice that means the such values are whatever Germany wants them to be, i.e., democracy equals mass immigration. Article 7 provides for punishment for member states that don't toe the line. The Eastern European states, with bitter memories of when their national identities were submerged in Communism, understandably want none of this.

Audacious Epigone said...

jskdn,

We've burned too many times for anything other than an enforcement-only resolution paired with possible concessions in the future contingent upon those enforcement metrics being realized. That's not going to happen in a 51-49 Senate full of quisling cucks.

So what we end up doing is playing defense, shooting down amnesty again and again. But it's a rearguard action.

A moratorium in return for X, Y, and Z is the only thing that won't deteriorate to a 1986 redux.

Feryl,

That's projection (partially)

Maybe to some extent, but white cities like Portland and Austin are more popular with SWPLs than 'diverse' cities like Houston and San Diego are because the former have (non-demographic things) that SWPLs want while the latter don't. White liberals don't interact with non-whites in more than the most superficial sense anymore than white conservatives do.

Black Death,

Germany telling Poland what to do again. I'm sure this will end well, just like last time.

Feryl said...

"European values".....Sheeeit, where did this fetish over "values" come from? Prior to the mid-1980's, the word "values" was always used in reference to numerology, not morality.

Anyway, this whole thing is laughable. There are Teutonic values, British values, Nordic values, Baltic values, and Slavic values. If that sounds confounding to a time traveler reading his first blog post ever, just replace "values" with culture/ethnicity and it'll make more sense.

Trying to avert intra-European conflict by collecting as many Euro countries as possible and making them answer to a pan-national elite seemed like a good idea after WW2 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But being that Poles, Austrians, Frenchmen, etc. are never going to be interchangeable, perhaps one ought to expect inter-national and inter-ethnic tension and competition to arise sooner or later in Europe, with certain groups disobeying the ideas and authority of an arrogant multi-cult. political body because, well, nobody likes to have foreigners/aliens bossing you around.

Anyway, the EU is a zombie. Most countries' proles hate it. The arrogance of Merkel and the strength of her Germany are stirring up once dormant fears of German power and zeal. Measures intended to suppress German industrial, military, and political might after WW2 appear to have almost totally faded away, and since Merkel is a neo-liberal who supports diversity, her far Left rampage is being defended by the same people who claim that Trump is a closet Nazi. The US, Germany, and France are the dominant forces in Western politics, and they all have hubris-stricken tone deaf elites betraying their countrymen while brashly dictating non-sense to other countries.

You're never going to be able to get Brits, Germans, and Slavs on the same page for very long, over any matter. Insisting that foreigners flood someone else's country is tantamount to an act of belligerence; these foreigners may not be wearing battle dress or carrying guns, but their very identity makes them invaders who would be most unwelcome in the vast majority of nations that this world has ever known. Even the US, back in the Ellis Island days, tried to keep out most of the undesirables. And regardless, no other country was telling the US that it could or could not accept foreigners back then. The presence of aliens in areas where they are not welcome is going to stoke tension, as it already has, most apparent in the Slavic and Baltic countries that aren't ashamed to be white or Christian and they aim to keep their countries that way.

Feryl said...


"Maybe to some extent, but white cities like Portland and Austin are more popular with SWPLs than 'diverse' cities like Houston and San Diego are because the former have (non-demographic things) that SWPLs want while the latter don't. White liberals don't interact with non-whites in more than the most superficial sense anymore than white conservatives do."

True, but I also was getting at the (often unsubstantiated) charge that liberals push POC onto God fearing, wholesome, gosh darn patriotic TradCon whites. Not really; most TradCons would rather sever their balls than live in dystopian ghettos. Many whites who live (either out of desperation or preference) around lower income POC are not either Ned Flanders or Patrick Bateman Republicans. Their historically has been greater preference for Republicans among higher income people, which held true in 2016 though it was weaker than normal (being that Patrick Bateman types feared the deportation of their gardeners). Many younger SWPL types will eventually build up funds, grow up, maybe want to have a family, and they'll leave fashion behind and discover their inner Patrick Bateman in higher income suburbs and in exurbs.

Take Steve Sailer; he used to be more of a Patrick Bateman type (he's basically admitted that he was yuppie in the 80's and 90's). Than at some point in the late 90's, he started a blog and started becoming a populist, His AFF theories, Sailer strategy (which emphasized the unfashionable upper Midwest), and skepticism of randian non-sense reveal that he was becoming more of an old-school Democrat, concerned about how we could realistically help the underclass (which he admits is partly an IQ thing), not condescend to them or offer bogus GOP sentiment about enlarging the GOP base(free enterprise zones in the ghetto, Bush's Home owner society, etc.). The vast majority of Sailer's criticism of the Left is based on the looney bin of modern Leftist ID politics and post-modernism, whereas Ned Flanders moans about moral "values" and Patrick Bateman still hasn't forgiven FDR for the New Deal. Even though we ought to be correcting the excess of the post mid-1970's, not questioning a time when elites were responsive to citizens (the 1930's-1960's).

A decent number of SWPLs never really advance beyond the bohemian mindset, and these people will remain in or near hipsterville well into middle age or even older. Ya know, Dick Florida's creative class (fags, artists, etc.) who think that suburbs and small towns are for boring breeders. If they end up not interacting a lot with POC, that's incidental to being around creative people, not so much hypocritical or arising out of a vindictive desire to inflict POC on BadWhites. And as I mentioned above, urban whites (blue collar or otherwise) showed back in the 70's/80'/90's that they can band together and find political champions who aren't to the left of Stalin. Too bad the GOP's open door immigration policy as well as status strivers shoved a lot of the more blue collar whites out of the cities. Then again, even a lot of NYC Jews supported Ed Koch back in the 70's and 80's, and Koch, among other things, vocally supported "law and order" in the late 70's, banned gay bathhouses in the mid 80's, and even tried to ban cyclists from certain roads (Shock! Horror!).

Feryl said...

The dominance of the GOP in outlying areas (due to heavily white demographics) indicates, that, well, just what exactly are people smoking when they say that liberal whites carry some kind amulet that wards off POC and sends them towards BadWhites? Left leaning people, whites included, are more amenable to living in or near urban areas which have neighborhoods of varying ethnic make-up; there are a lot of ex-cons, homeless people, obnoxious half-wits etc. who have to live some where, and blacks of course are well-represented on the ne-er do well set. Blacks by and large ain't living in the nice suburbs, or exurbs, or in small towns, unless we're talking about the absurd set of Middle class blacks associated with the FedGov in the Mid-Atlantic.

True, non whites are rapidly making inroads to many previously white areas, but that's the stupid party's fault for not halting immigration, not the fault of liberals trying to extend money and sympathy to whatever underclass happens to be here. It's cucks and neo-liberals who want to dump more and more immigrants on us. Until very recently, Leftists generally tried to help out whoever was on their city's/nation's street, not support economic or immigration policies that stretched our resources even thinner.

Sid said...

Hi Feryl,

My comment was aimed more at SWPLs than Democratic Party apparatchiks. The kind of yuppies you described, if they lived in liberal cities, often did evolve into SWPLs, particularly the upper middle class, economically successful and socially liberal types.

SWPLs do like seeing people of different races walking down the street, but their interactions with them are generally superficial and are often limited to the nicer, more successful ones. They love having black lawyers in their neighborhoods, but aren't so eager to set up affordable housing units so blacks from the ghetto can move nearby. If anything, they're happy to out price blacks from where they were living and have them move out to places like Ferguson.

The key thing here isn't that SWPLs want to live in racially homogeneous cities - they don't - but their neighborhoods and their children's schools rarely qualify as truly diverse. It's really badwhites (both urban proles in big cities and flyover proles in the suburbs and exurbs) who are expected to bear the brunt of diversity and are called racist if they don't like it.

Open borders Democrats (which is now pretty much the entire party, given that Bernie Sanders cucked on immigration) and open borders Republicans have done comparable amounts of harm to the country. There are differences between them, but choosing between them is like choosing between getting my eye gouged out with a fork or burning the top of my mouth with steaming hot pizza. Can't I just avoid both?

Feryl said...

The Democrats of which you speak are a product of decades of high immigration levels, which "conservatives" are primarily responsible for, due to the need for cheap labor among conservative elites (yuppies need their nannies and gardeners, agribusiness CEOs need their Mexicans). Also came about because US regimes since 1960 (GOP mainly but Democrats also) like to wreck foreign countries with pointless wars and then offer relocation to the US as a make-good for the hapless natives in those regions and as a token of idealistic blank slate/magic dirt dreaming. Look it up; conservatives welcomed kajillions of South Asian boat people into Texas and California back in the 70's, and go figure, 1st generation Asian immigrants tended to actually be grateful and they voted Republican. Since the early 90's Asians (esp. later generation children/grandchildren of immigrants) have moved heavily to the Democrats, ID politics being what they are. Mexicans have always been praised by GOP elites, because the GOP tends to admire the class structure of Mexico (where proles seldom challenge the ruling class, and Mexico remained much less socialist/communist than other Latin American countries were in the 1930's-1980's). Meek Mexican immigrants make for fine laborers (in comparison to burly and entitled white Anglos and blacks), and they tend to not make political waves (unlike whites or blacks).

Did I also mention that Texas (a GOP stronghold since the 1960's) has a historical affinity for Mexico, and since some Texas Mexicans vote for the GOP, it's fueled GOP delusion about converting more POC. As Bush said, they're "natural conservatives". With this kind of idiocy, the GOP has no one to blame but themselves. It took the GOP 20 years to listen to Rust Belt whites after Steve Sailer pointed the way, and even then, it took someone with no GOP background to come into the party and notice that due to Sunbelt demographics and the under-rated size/importance of PA and the Midwest, the GOP had to begin making appeals to other regions of the US. But the normal GOP is still ignoring what made Trump effective at getting elected. The most depressing thing to emerge in Trump's aftermath is a cuck funded survey of Trump voters, which proved that his voters are primarily concerned about immigration and Islam yet the author's conclusion was that Trump voter bigotry needed to be excised from the party so as to better appeal to "rising" demographics. This is what happens when war mongers and cheap labor lovers fund the intellectuals and analysts who'll rationalize anything in order to keep globalist schemes going and stab Americans in the back.

Feryl said...

The current ethnic activist dominance of the Democrats, that has emerged since circa 2000, is analagous to what happened to the Dems in the late 1800's and early 1900's. From about 1850-1910, millions of immigrants came into America and forever altered the country's demographics. Expected rivalries emerged and/or were imported from the Old World, to the dismay of most prole historical Americans. Eventually, immigrant/"ethnic" whites established themselves in politics, invariably with the Democrats. More or less openly, Mayflower/WASP Americans of the North took refuge in the GOP and battled urban ethnic machines. It comes as little surprise that Jews and Irish Catholics ran the GOP off in the Northeast and some of the urban Midwest, while Germans (ethnically and culturally more similar to Puritans) weren't quite so Democratic. Be that as it may, when war with Germany happened in WW1 and WW2, it drove paranoia about the loyalty of German-Americans. The political and civic unrest associated with large numbers of immigrants and questions of ethnic loyalty eventually drove elites to pass the '25 immigration act. And then it was a Jew and an Irish Catholic who were two of the main forces behind the '65 immigration act.

jskdn said...

Audacious Epigone,

First of all there is going to be immigration legislation for DACA at a minimum. Trump has already gone out on a limb there. But a legislative DACA replicating the existing program would be amnesty lite, without a defined path to LPR. So realistic people should try to make sure it’s that and that only, no conflation with the Dream Act bills, and that it is conditioned on the inclusion of measures to finally bring limits and the rule of law to immigration. And it should be made clear that no better status for those in DACA will happen until those enforcement measures are well established in practice. The theme should be no more lies. That those wanting legal and limited immigration are who is really willing to compromise, unlike the no borders crowd, with the quite reasonable expectation that government finally, after decades of deceit, effectively enforce immigration laws.

The notion that you can play nothing but defense, endless goal line stands against the mass immigration crowd is a sure path to losing. The other side is already winning with demographics and if they score their legislative victories, Coulter is right, it’s all over.

Unfortunately, as massively outgunned by the anti-border crowd, the limited and legal backers don’t even seen to have the sense to coalesce around a coherent strategy.

Sid said...

As it stands today, it's really the upper crust of the GOPe, their policy wonks, and and especially their donors who support open borders. There really isn't any popular zeal for it among rank-and-file Republicans.

I used to be an English tutor for low income immigrants and refugees. (Yes, I'm sure everyone who has read my comments on AE's blog is laughing hard right now, but it's true. And yes, I was as hardcore a race realist back then as I am today.) I never got overly political with my Hispanic students, but they made it clear they don't like Republican voters because we don't really care for other people coming to our land. They also said the Democrats promise them and deliver on the gibs, and of course Hispanic immigrants who can barely speak English are not going to read the National Review and realize they need to work hard and not get any entitlements because Reagan.

I'm not saying there's nothing Republicans can do to win Hispanic votes, but it's not going to be pretty. The best we can do is tell Hispanic citizens who speak fluent English that we think they're better than the illegals at least, and if their ancestors lived in America before 1925 or so we'll consider them Legacy Americans. A lot of Hispanic citizens want to be seen as better than illegal peasants, much the way yuppies and SWPLs want to be seen as better than flyover proles, but good luck getting more than 40% of their vote.

There definitely were robust parts of the Democratic Party that opposed immigration and I honestly feel more affiliation with them than I do with the open borders parts of the GOPe. After Bernie Sanders lambasted open borders as a Koch Brothers idea, I openly told friends and family that I would gladly vote for him over Jeb, and my comments about him both online and offline were largely positive until he cucked on immigration, with the debate he and Hillary had on Univision being particularly disappointing.

That said, that faction of the Democratic Party was effectively purged in 2016. As much as I loathe open borders Republicans, they at least have some element of rational self interest in their thinking. In informal settings, you'll hear them say, "Thank God we have Mexican immigrants instead of Muslim ones." Granted, population replacement will be cataclysmic no matter who does it, but I agree that Mexicans would make the process much less painful as it happens than other groups would.

There are Democratic normies who dislike immigration, though they lack the perspective that immigration is issue number one and everything else is secondary. But the people who actively push for the Great Replacement on social media are almost always leftists. For every neocon intellectual like William Kristol who endorses the Great Replacement, there are a hundred stupid SJWs who are still crying that Hillary lost.

What's worse is that, for them, immigration is a moral issue and not one of interests. As such, they believe there should be no limit on immigration, and actively virtue signal over that.

When Trump signed in the travel ban, it was political leftists who stormed airports and publicly demanded that an infinite amount of migrants from failed states in the Middle East and Africa flood our country. If a Republican had joined them, they would've threatened to slit his throat for being on the enemy racist side.

The cucks have a lot to answer for, and yes, they're probably even more responsible for the rut we're in than the Democrats. Even so, we have no option but to proceed with the Republican Party, at least until the Democratic Party radically changes.

Sid said...

I suppose open borders on the right is like regulating Wall Street on the left: I haven't met any Democrats who openly state they think Wall Street should or can regulate itself. Most Democrats I know passionately support strong, firm measures to reduce the power and influence of Wall Street.

Even so, Wall Street owns the Democratic Party. Obama and Geithner went easy on Wall Street firms following the crash and are now reaping the monetary rewards. Clinton, Rubin, and Summers all worked to undo Glass-Steagal and all made a lot of money after the Clinton administration. While I don't know any Democrats personally who think Wall Street should regulate itself, Hillary said just that to Goldman Sachs. It really frustrates Democratic voters that's the case, much the way rightists like us wish GOP cucks would go to their beloved Mexico and get out of our way.

Even so, the rank-and-file Republicans aren't all that adamant about bringing Wall Street to heel, and are often given to blaming the federal government alone for the Mortgage Meltdown. As such, the Democratic voters are probably right when they state it will be through them alone that Wall Street can be reined in.

Feryl said...

"When Trump signed in the travel ban, it was political leftists who stormed airports and publicly demanded that an infinite amount of migrants from failed states in the Middle East and Africa flood our country. If a Republican had joined them, they would've threatened to slit his throat for being on the enemy racist side."

Our domestic security forces are a joke. The NY Times recently ran in article saying that the occasional terrorist attack means that we must be doing something right. We operate the world's largest army and have dozens of redundant military bases for Pentagon pork and to insure that Right-leaning careerists get to have their own bureaucracy; Leftists dominate every other institution, wouldn't be fair to leave the Right out in the cold. If Obama wanted to fubar the military with ID politics, fine. Why should we have even one branch of the FedGov left that functions with any semblance of competence, as long as the others stink? Yet in spite of vast resources spent on "defense" and "security" we permit massive inner city riots, violent protests, and accept hostile foreigners in our midst.

Prole natives are disgusted by this, but nearly all elites aren't listening to us. Liberals and cuck Republicans will assail realtalk (let alone realaction) about foreigners and POC; meanwhile, the latest Muslim atrocity is ignored or elicits bland platitudes or stern warnings from cucks to not judge the ethnic group responsible for the attack

Sid said...

A lot of the more vile people in "security" are happy to have a certain degree of instability and chaos in the country.

1. If the only Muslims we had in America were guys like Razib Khan (I know he's an atheist but he comes from a Muslim family), then there really wouldn't be much of a need for a security apparatus. It's having the low-to-mid IQ hot-headed losers which ensure the guys who specialize in security will always have jobs.

If not just that these guys have spent their lives focusing on security: they get a genuine thrill out of the danger. Would you rather watch an episode of The Sopranos/Breaking Bad or an episode of The Golden Girls? Social instability is a necessary precondition for a meaningful existence for them.

2. There's a story that Harry Reid gave out billion dollar contracts into UFO sightings to his buddies. Pork barrel projects will get a whole lot less scrutiny if they come from the Pentagon! And that is especially so if we're in wartime.

Towards the end of WWII, guys like Hermann Goering hoarded all of the wealth and goods they could as the Nazi racket came crashing down. It was precisely because the national security situation of Nazi Germany was so perilous that they were given a free hand to rob and loot.

3. If you found people like Cincinnatus and gave them carte blanche and a specified period of time before they retired, the security problems facing America (open borders, constant inflow of future terrorists, restive ghettos), these guys could institute effective reforms and then go back to their plowing their farm fields.

Feryl said...


"1. If the only Muslims we had in America were guys like Razib Khan (I know he's an atheist but he comes from a Muslim family), then there really wouldn't be much of a need for a security apparatus. It's having the low-to-mid IQ hot-headed losers which ensure the guys who specialize in security will always have jobs."

Blank Slatism is the biggest enemy, as it always is.

Africans and Arabs are dumb and temperamental, but swaggering and lazy blacks are terrible at organizing any kind of trouble beyond the most base and chaotic violence. Besides, blacks are an often cheerful bunch, who can't be bothered to get in room with a bunch of other sullen blacks and plot to vent their rage on society (keep in mind that it was Jews who spearheaded and secretly guided blacks in the civil rights era; blacks alone are hapless at leading movements and organizations).

What makes Arabs the worst ethnic group in the world is they're emotional, dumb, incredibly neurotic, and.....Can get their shit together to plan beyond the next 5 minutes (said plans usually involve violent hostility towards an outgroup, but whatever).

American elites envy Latin America where native blood makes much of the underclass taciturn and thus disinterested in forming terrorist cells or uh, labor unions.

- Asians are emotionally restrained and smart, but also quite neurotic so you see stuff like people dying while playing video games, and mass murder appears to be an Asian specialty (relative to their lack of other dysfunctional behaviors). Note also that Asians often bristle at the "model minority" label (as do Jews), whereas whites, blacks, and Mexicans often embrace their stereotypical ethnicity (I remember Sailer having a story about a young black telling a college professor that he wanted to learn more about racial differences, not be told PC happytalk)

- Whites are moderately temperamental and smart, but only somewhat neurotic. In seemingly every trait imaginable, whites are generalists, not specialists.

- New world natives and mongrels are pretty emotionally restrained, relatively dumb, and not very neurotic at all. Elites around the world want their underclass to be like this; quietly cheerful, not emotionally or intellectually capable of challenging much at all. Remember that we make a lot of stuff in Mexico and Asia because whites, blacks, and dune coons get mouthy very easily. It has to affect productivity when your workers get to talking.....And complaining.

Sid said...

What makes Arabs the worst ethnic group in the world is they're emotional, dumb, incredibly neurotic, and.....Can get their shit together to plan beyond the next 5 minutes (said plans usually involve violent hostility towards an outgroup, but whatever).

Arabs also are easily offended and nurse their grudges for ages. The Arab-Israeli Conflict should have been resolved decades ago, given that it's a dispute over a few acres. Arab migrants feel all kinds of slights just by living in other countries. As it stands, yes, they're an order of magnitude more difficult to be around than just about anyone else is.

Whites are moderately temperamental and smart, but only somewhat neurotic. In seemingly every trait imaginable, whites are generalists, not specialists.

I understand your point and think it's generally true on the basis of OCEAN personality traits, but I think whites have a uniquely high level of affective empathy and ability to form organized institutions on universalist principles. Some of our behaviors and thought patterns are strange to other races (i.e., whites form NGOs to combat poverty in countries they've never been to and to push for the humane treatment of animals. Such things are simply inconceivable to non-whites who haven't been immersed in our modes of thinking and feeling).

New world natives and mongrels are pretty emotionally restrained, relatively dumb, and not very neurotic at all. Elites around the world want their underclass to be like this; quietly cheerful, not emotionally or intellectually capable of challenging much at all.

I read a few history books on India awhile ago. I was blown away by how Muslim princes swiftly dominated the entirety of the Indian subcontinent. Similarly, the British never had more than a few thousand soldiers there at any given time.

East Indians are different from New World natives, no doubt about it, but they have a fairly passive and resigned view of the world that makes it easier for more active, domineering groups from outside to rule over them. That may yet be a reason why so many big companies hire South Asians.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

After Bernie Sanders lambasted open borders as a Koch Brothers idea, I openly told friends and family that I would gladly vote for him over Jeb, and my comments about him both online and offline were largely positive until he cucked on immigration, with the debate he and Hillary had on Univision being particularly disappointing.

Couldn't be said any better.

Wrt to Amerindian peasants vs surly Muslims, the former is less abrasive and overtly dangerous, but I'm not sure that's a feature rather than a bug. There are hardline nationalist parties in several European countries that are still 80%+ white because of how jarring Islamic immigration is. Frog in the boiler...

It really frustrates Democratic voters that's the case, much the way rightists like us wish GOP cucks would go to their beloved Mexico and get out of our way.

This is exactly why it has to not just be the most important issue, it needs to be the only issue. Deliver on immigration or you're gone. We don't care about anything else you've done. If you've cucked on the National Question, you're out.

Feryl,

Yet in spite of vast resources spent on "defense" and "security" we permit massive inner city riots, violent protests, and accept hostile foreigners in our midst.

None of this matters so long as we're dropping bombs on inbred pederasts in the hindu kush.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Razib is 1 in a million.

Oh, but Bangladesh has a population of 157 million. so yes, that sounds exactly right to me--we bring in 157 Bangladeshis per year. I can work with that!

3) I hold out hope that Trump is, at this late stage in his life, in the mold of a Cincinnatus.

Sid said...

AE,

The "one-in-a-million" rule is a great one to apply to immigration. Even during the pre-1965 golden age of immigration restriction, we still allowed for Jewish theoretical physicists and German rocket scientists to come over. All-in-all, it's hard to argue with the results.

Razib Khan is truly a superb thinker, combining cutting edge knowledge of genetics, an encyclopedic understanding of history, and a rational, judicious intellect.

We let in millions of Mexican migrants while we were wholeheartedly trying to make blacks enjoy completely equal social outcomes with whites. If that was our goal, then yes, Mexican migrants are hard to get worked up over! It's only been fairly recently that the general American public is coming to understand that letting in millions of people who are here to undercut the minimum wage and collect gibs for their kids, and whose voting patterns make policy debate effectively impossible, are at least as much as a burden for society as having huge swathes of American cities be unlivable ghettos.

So far there haven't been any stories about Trump enriching his companies or having affairs with women while in office, even with all the world's scrutiny on him. I think his personal angle on being president is to make his name immortal, which is a very Greco-Roman aspiration.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

I think his personal angle on being president is to make his name immortal, which is a very Greco-Roman aspiration.

Tangentially, I remember hearing about how "historic" Obama's election in 2008 was (because he was the first black), as if to indicate that being elected president of the US is not particularly historic in and of itself!

Sid said...

AE,

"The first black/female/gay X" is how most journalists read and judge history. It's similar to "American inventors" on Google: the actual achievements are less important than trying to apply as much attention to "marginalized groups!"

fwiw, the key prerequisite for being a journalist (except for connections, of course) is having superior verbal skills, either in speaking or in writing.

As such, it's particularly unforgivable to have journalists who aren't historically literate. I don't particularly care if doctors and engineers can't have a discussion with me about the Plantagenets, but journalists should be able to compare current events to things other than Hitler taking power in 1933.

KevinPeter said...

I really appreciate your post and you explain each and every point very well.

https://nzil.co.nz/