Saturday, April 28, 2018

The Hater's Ball Day 2

The Derb is in good spirits. He seems to have just now discovered twitter despite having had an account for years. It's fun to watch.

As Z-Man noted, Richard Spencer is notably absent and a lot of (figurative) knives seem to be coming out for him. Just like the optimal approach to the JQ, I'm agnostic on Spencer's current status. A recurring theme that is hard to miss this year is that it's time to revisit the putative sagacity of the idea that dissidents should never punch to the right. When you're being stabbed in the back by the guy  on your right flank, sometimes the need to deliver a haymaker becomes unavoidable.

Speaking of the JQ, the results of the field study, at least up to this point, have been... inconclusive. There does exist a sizable contingent of Alt Jews out there, but they're skittish. On good information I've gathered their collective sense is that breaking ranks is as socially injurious to them as stepping off the leftist plantation is for blacks. Being an Uncle Isaac isn't easy.

Nicholas Fuentes delivered a masterful speech, and not just because he cited the Hispanic Heritage Survey's bottle of white pills. If our Occidental Renaissance is to occur, Gen Z is going to have to lead it. If we are fortunate, Fuentes will play a major part in that.

Fuentes was born in 1998. He's all of 20 years old. He left a strong impression of precocity today, especially the way he handled thinly-veiled mini homilies that were couched as questions during the question and answer session following his speech.

The boomers who tore into him spectacularly misread the situation on the ground. Jordan Peterson has one of the best-selling books in the world because he understands the challenges young men face. Fuentes does, too, and he has the added bonus of being part of that very cohort. People who are able to resonate with these young men are worth their weight in gold.

We need a Ron Paul of our own, someone who can do for identitarianism what the good doctor did for libertarianism. Fuentes has the capacity to be that person. It's indisputable after watching him today. I suspect he's smart enough to calibrate his presentation as time goes on. It's something he'll need to do. Making the transition from virtual personality to real world leader requires it.

In a moving presentation, Jared Taylor stated the obvious--we need to have more children. That alone is not sufficient, but it is necessary. He expressed regret at having only had two of his own, noting that while the transition from egalitarian to race realist was a transformative one, it paled in comparison to the transformation he experienced by becoming a father.

He also expressed regret in having not been told how wonderful it is to bring into the world people you love and people who love you. I could not agree more.

47 comments:

IHTG said...

The boomers who tore into him spectacularly misread the situation on the ground.

Elaborate?

Paul Rain said...

We need a Ron Paul of our own, someone who can do for identitarianism what the good doctor did for libertarianism.

Wait, what did Ron Paul or the Tea Party do for libertarianism and good government?

The Republican Party is as worthless as ever, the majority of quality young libertarians have become alt-right, the libertarian movement is being hijacked by Koch trash and queers.

What we need, is a wall, and beaners and other non-whites being strongly encouraged to leave. If that can't happen democratically- which it can't unless it happens in the next decade or so, realistically having to happen under Trump- then solving the problem through democratic means will no longer be possible.

Jay said...

could you elaborate on the joy of children?

Feryl said...

"What we need, is a wall, and beaners and other non-whites being strongly encouraged to leave. If that can't happen democratically- which it can't unless it happens in the next decade or so, realistically having to happen under Trump- then solving the problem through democratic means will no longer be possible."

The wall is over rated. We didn't have a wall in the 30's and 40's when immigration was non-existent. A wall would have gates that can be swung wide open at any time.

Something that can't be stated enough is that there are so many people in so many countries who we don't want here. Nations need to figure out their shit on their own, instead of dumping people elsewhere. Mexicans aren't the only problem. All kinds of people from all over the globe are deluging the West by the day, and physical barriers are no substitute for sensible elite policies that discourage the arrival of wave after wave of plain and boat people.

I have no idea what could happen WRT rapidly changing demographics and their effects, although it should be noted that FDR was strongly supported by "ethnic" whites after the national mood turned sharply against immigrants in the 1930's. The support of neo-liberalism that's spread to more and more corners of the globe since the early 90's can't last forever. Such neo-liberalism promotes open borders and elite decadence. Eventually the populace will reject it in favor Leftist policies designed to restore worker security. People aren't stupid and blind to the fact that people born in the 30's and 40's overwhelmingly control wealth, while those born after 1970 have been totally left out in the cold.

Millennials and Gen Z have virtually no patience with the standard GOP program of low taxes, de-regulation, union busting, inviting in foreigners who we just bombed in their homeland, and futile efforts at "outreach" toward the non-Sun belt working class and blacks, Asians, and immigrants.

The Boomer fueled agenda of "don't tell me what to do", in it's economic (GOP) and cultural (Dem) flavors is making people sick, and even many Boomers have been run off the reservation in the process. Elite level people (most of whom were born before 1960) having gobs of money is disgusting and unacceptable, given that these generations presided over the betrayal of sensible practices geared toward the stewardship of society.

Going back to the 1930-1970 ethos of spreading the wealth and avoiding reckless competition between super elites is what's become vital, and god willing they will see the light before they trash what's left of Western society.

Jim Bowery said...

Parse things a bit differently and the JQ resolves. Consider this fantasy exchange between a rational alt-righter (RAR) and two Jews, one rational (RJ) and one irrational (IJ):

RAR: I don't want to live in a society with Jewish influence. Would you oppose guys like me having territory that excluded guys like you?

RJ: As long as I could live in a society with guys like Jared Taylor, I don't see why I'd oppose you guys.

RAR: Well then, I see no reason why you and Jared Taylor can't be included in a confederation of states that respect differing preferences.

IJ: WHOA! History shows goys like you "eradicate" Jews from your lands and then you "eradicate" us from life. You may as well ask if I would oppose being killed!

RAR: So, am I to take it that you support the existing regime that keeps guys like me from raising our children in the kind of environment we deem healthy for them?

IJ: You keep trying to pretend you're not so evil or so mentally ill that you need to be managed. Try it on someone else.

RAR: (Takes out gun and produces a modern art installation on the wall with IJ's brains.)

216 said...

I'm hesitant to praise Jordan Peterson. The man is an erudite high-class Cernovich.

Plenty of Boomercons and otherwise non-liberal youth have been taken in by these two, with considerable detriment. Selling self-help is not what we need, we need mass membership institutions with a formal hierarchy. DSA should be our guide, they will either take over the Dem Party or become a political party in their own right.

Classical liberalism was a failed ideology that brought the ruin of the British Empire. It has always led to social liberalism, and then to socialism. Jordan Peterson at least does the courtesy of admitting that he is a Liberal, and not a Conservative. His fans overlook that.

216 said...

Feryl,

Steve Bannon identified that either the nationalist right or the Corbynist Left is going to provide the solution. Woke neoliberalism can't deliver, at least until automation provides enough wealth for UBI or enough T-800s for genocide.

The most effective way to remove unwanted populations, has historically been destroying the economy. Millions of illegals were reported to have left during the 2008 recession. Brexit supporters were polled as having been OK with significant damage to the UK economy as the price of sovereignty. The USSR's collapse convinced at least a million Jews to settle in Israel, while evicting many Russian settlers from the now independent post-Soviet states.

M5S might be onto something with its "de-growth" policies.

szopen said...

Eh, I have only two kids, mainly because we have a long break between a daughter and a son. Because my wife was arguing we "can't afford a second child now" - which is something I can't understand about women. No matter how well your financial situation is, they always seem to worry. And then we tried for a year before she got pregnant, which actually is what to expect - but I had no idea then.

I hope at least my children will learn better and will have more.

Feryl said...

"I'm hesitant to praise Jordan Peterson. The man is an erudite high-class Cernovich."

C'mon dude. Peterson is a serious academic who's been in the trenches of academia for a long time without succumbing to PC. Cernovich is an Alt-lite with a gimmick.

I think the reason that Peterson caught on is that he's such a change of pace from the 80's and 90's, which is where most high profile Boomer commentators are still stuck (not the 60's, when PC didn't exist and economic progressivism was dominant). Peterson isn't rehashing the same old same old BS that's given newer generations a headache for 30+ years. He doesn't want Leftists to be foaming at the mouth minions of the CultMarx and neo-liberal elite (which is why he's calling for the war against men to end), and he doesn't repeat stale talking points about Big Gubmint and Leftists being the cause of every problem under the sun (it's time for the Right to put their accountability hat on).

In addition to the policies, there's also the style. Peterson (brilliantly) realized that being a domineering dickhead may have gone over well with Boomers and Gen X-ers in the 90's and 2000's, but the time for no holds barred verbal combat has come and gone. Millennials and Gen Z are willing to listen to older adults who remind them of their forgiving and patient parents. Guys like John Oliver, Bill Maher, Micheal Savage et al are popular with a niche of partisan younger people and a larger amount of older people. Appealing to normie Millennials and Gen Z on a broad level should bring us closer to reviving the cultural norms of the 1920-1960's, when older adults acted like, well, adults on an interpersonal basis. I'd also put Jared Taylor in with Peterson as older people who don't have time for annoying theatrics and bullying. The 70's and 80's weren't too bad either, since Silents at that time still had a large amount of influence on the culture of older adults.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

A couple boomers used the Q&A session to tell him how his generation felt about the boomers and how Gen Z is a continuing downward spiral from the millennials and that anyway the media and other institutions are so stacked against them that they have no way to break out. They asked no actual questions and ignored the data about promiscuity (Gen Z is less so than the last several generations have been), gun rights, racial identity, religious attendance (which is actually up among the leading edge of Gen Z), etc. When the video is put up by AmRen we'll be able to hear the whole thing.

Paul Rain,

He gave it salience and normalization. The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't have appeal beyond a subset of triple-digit IQ white men. Identitarianism has a much larger potential base of support, but it has to be normalized in the US first. It is already normalized in Europe, where there is a long tradition of it on the right.

Jay,

There is no stronger feeling of love in the world. It is impossible to experience the full range of human emotions without having children because only children are a possible recipient of a person's unconditional love. There's nothing my 4 yo son could do that would cause me to stop loving him. There are things my parents or my wife could do that we cause me to stop loving them, but not my kids. At some point that will probably change once they reach adulthood.

The closest a person can get to immortality (given current technologies, anyway!) is to have children. It is the strongest answer you will find to the existential questions that plague us all at one time or another.

Feryl,

Mocking the boomercon muh Israel, muh taxes, muh Reaganism is definitely a theme among the Gen Zers that are here.

Jim,

We want to be reasonable. Our instinct is to take them on side. But with every passing day that becomes a little harder to maintain. And the numbers don't lie--Jewish out-marriage rates are high, their TFR is low, and Jews aren't immigrating to the US anymore like they were in the 80s and 90s. The 2% will become the 1% and then become the 0.X%.

216,

He gives these guys a blueprint for a teleological purpose. Once they find that, they will not end up going down the same road as someone like Peterson because the challenges they face are different.

szopen,

That could've been written by JT himself. The opening vignette from Idiocracy is gold. The time will never seem right in advance and will always feel right in retrospect.

J Langness said...

Derb was twittering on Adderal yesterday it was awesome lol.

I agree with Jared- no transformation can compare to becoming a husband+father and actually being forced to confront the consequences of your choices and society's choices knowing that your progeny will be affected by them for the next 80 years. .

Happy for Mr Fuentes he seems like a good young man although I haven't had much exposure to him.

How was The Golden One's speech? I enjoyed Derb's notes on it on twitter at least :)

Thanks for the updates on AR AE- much appreciated and jealous you're there!

-JL

Feryl said...

"Steve Bannon identified that either the nationalist right or the Corbynist Left is going to provide the solution".

The nationalist flavor I don't think will ever really work in America, due to the country's substantial diversity which was generated to a large degree by the high immigration eras of 1870-1920, and 1970-Present day. If America is to ever have anything resembling ethnic peace and patriotism, we've got to go hundreds and hundreds of years without importing large numbers of foreigners. Having parents, or grand-parents, or even great-grandparents who were foreigners means that many people feel as though they don't have particularly deep roots in America, and as such this infringes on their sense of loyalty towards America and all other Americans.

We aren't India or something, where different ethnic groups (in effect) have lived in the same place for thousands of years. Many blacks, or Catholics, or whatever people in America still often feel like "outsiders" in a place they didn't found, and are for obvious reasons going to oppose any movement seen as "purity" minded.

To cite FDR's America again, the policies of the day ended up getting the support of "ethnic" Americans on largely economic grounds. If we are to achieve any real progress at reform, it's going to happen on economic grounds. After making a persuasive case for his economic ideas, FDR's America was able to also bring about a restoration of conservative cultural values. We went from the libertine values and economic free-for-all of the late 1800's-1920's, to the mid-Century era of big government and wholesome values.

Also, news flash: the economic "pull" of open borders chiefly appeals to the (economically) conservative values of affluent Americans who want their stock/share portfolio to zoom up, weaker unions, and cheap compliant nannies and gardeners. The sentimental BS pushed by both the elite Right and the globalist Left glosses over the cynical motives behind open borders, but we shouldn't be fooled by it. And we certainly should buy the myth, promoted by the mainstream Right, that it's "only" the Left who are selling us out. Trump et al are basically laying off the robber barons who off-shore good jobs and bring in immigrants to do the remaining domestic jobs.

Jim Bowery said...

"We want to be reasonable. Our instinct is to take them on side."

I don't think you can be "reasonable" unless and until you permit "consent" to override purported "benefit" of "taking them on side" (whatever that means).

Did you miss the entire point of my little parable?

Leaving aside any arguments about the ethics, people have developed strong reactions to being forced to accept any conditions on the environments in which they raise their children. I don't think it is "reasonable" to ask people to be "reasonable" when you are forcing conditions on the environments in which they raise their children -- particularly conditions that involve mixing human types, however small the "dosages" might be.

Call such reactions "irrational" or "unreasonable" if you must, but expect to have your brains end up as a modern art installation if you do not, at the same time, very clearly demonstrate your commitment to accommodating those ancient and well-founded protective instincts.

Kentucky Headhunter said...

You will never know true LOVE until you become a parent. However, it is also true that you will never know true FEAR until you become a parent.

Feryl said...

"A couple boomers used the Q&A session to tell him how his generation felt about the boomers and how Gen Z is a continuing downward spiral from the millennials and that anyway the media and other institutions are so stacked against them that they have no way to break out. They asked no actual questions and ignored the data about promiscuity (Gen Z is less so than the last several generations have been)"

And this is a repeat of the sort of 1990's era of cynicism about youth culture, when Hilary said that Gen X-ers were "super-predators" hunting down Boomers.

WRT behavior, I was reading David Finkelhor's stuff (http://unh.edu/ccrc/researchers/finkelhor-david.html) and he said that the early 90's saw a substantial improvement in child behavior, continuing onward, while teenagers in the late 90's and early 2000's (Millennials and borderline Millennials) were much better behaved than teenagers were in the 70's, 80's, and early-mid 90's. Most Boomers who talk about "kids these days" are just psychologically projecting and dredging up the dated attitude towards teens of the 80's and early 90's. Amongst Gen X-ers, there's less hysteria and judgement about young generation's morals/behavior per se, but there is a sense of frustration about the "entitlement' of teens and young adults without realizing that the abuse that Gen X-ers both took and gave out is exceptional and won't (and perhaps shouldn't) be repeated.

Lastly, it seems that every generation to some degree grates on the nerves of other generations, and every generation has it's pluses and minuses (e.g., Boomers are charismatic and creative, but flaky, Gen X-ers are often apathetic and nihilistic but they never asked for anything they didn't earn, and Millennials set an example for older and younger generations to follow, but signs of hubris are growing which the generations to follow will gently tease and then violently attack, as we saw with Silents doing the former to GIs in the 50's and early 60's, and Boomers doing the latter to GIs in the late 60's and 70's).

Concerned said...

For those attending this event, what is your strategy for dealing with personal & professional attacks? I am interested in attending such an event, but not at the risk of exposing my family to harassment & violence, or losing my job (again putting my family in jeopardy).

The Z Blog said...

On the plane ride home, I kept thinking about what we talked about with regards the JQ. It was very re-assuring that we are on the same wave length. I think what we were talking about is a much more challenging position. The "reasonable to a point" position is tough to sell, but probably the right course. This is doubly true for us because of the people who read and follow us. I have a lot to think about on that topic.

As far as Fuentes, I still feel like a saw a unicorn. The thing is though, the kid seems to just like being good at this thing he has a talent for doing. In some other field, no one would think much of it. I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth here. All hail Fuentes!

AB.Prosper said...

FDR is the wrong example I think since his era low fertility era for the most part on account of the Depression and I suspect urbanization

It didn't properly recover till 1944 or so when he was nearly gone and more so after most of our competitors were destroyed

It fell back to the depression level, measured here as children per couple in 1973 (it was a above in 1970-1972) with the start of the end of the post war boom and hasn't gotten above replacement since

We've spent nearly 2 generations with low fertility, well over 40 years, more than twice as long if you count the Depression

This suggests that Roosevelt and the later Great Society didn't have any real impact or help in any measurable way

With the proliferation of technology computers and automation over the last couple of generations its also going to make much less sense to use industrial era solutions to automation era economics

216 said...

AB,

High fertility rates are difficult to sustain in a system where women are encouraged to acquire at least one degree, if not two. While East Asia isn't riven with feminism as the West is, they still have status seeking that requires dual-earner households.

Israel has achieved a TFR of 3+, but they are on Sun Tzu's fatal ground. Israel is also considerably more religious than in 1948. Westerners will engage in white flight until this becomes impossible, or there is a politics Black Swan that brings nationalists into power.

Some conservative think-tanks wanted contraception to be over-the-counter. What we really need is an income-escalating tax on the Pill. Model it on how some European countries fine a traffic violation as a percentage of the violator's income.

AB.Prosper said...

216

US women were not encouraged to get degrees beyond high school until quite recently and fertility started to decline long before that. The correlation is pretty weak

Even if it wasn't its not possible to restore the 1950's even if enough people wanted too.

The tech has changed and the way we live has changed in profound ways that we are simply going to have to adapt too.

And while I get and support the idea of eugenic fertility, a society that considers eugenic abortion or even the open discussion of eugenics immoral is not going to pursue breeding policies like you suggest

At least one Midwestern state passed a bill to make eugenic abortion illegal because not enough Downs Syndrome kids were being born!

Until ultra rational people take over we are far more likely to double down on old religions and old policy and the future will belong to the Chinese who could plausibly be making genetic supermen in exo-wombs raised by near A.I. while we are whining people aren't going to church

Random Dude on the Internet said...

https://twitter.com/TheAmazingLucid/status/990674313085947910

Sorry for the off topic comment but looks like the caravan reached the border and they're crossing the fence without any issue.

Feryl said...

How R we gonna hold the moral high ground by acting as if being American has something to do with, ya know, being born here.

America is an idea, a philosophy, a dream. It's not defined by your accent, your disposition, your familiarity with and affinity for cultural icons, past events, the food, and overall customs/values.

Just kidding.

The US establishment overwhelmingly considers itself to be the capital of the world, and a beacon unto the rest of the world. The last thing it wants is to send the message that Americans are an idiosyncratic and unique people who no longer wish to be excessively involved in the affairs of other countries and non-American ethnic groups, of which one facet is inviting in large numbers of foreigners with little vetting and accountability.

I can't stress enough that Trump is next useless on immigration affairs until he and other elites reach a consensus that excessive levels of immigration are economically destabilizing to lower classes and a subsidy for corrupt elites.

Feryl said...

"FDR is the wrong example I think since his era low fertility era for the most part on account of the Depression and I suspect urbanization

It didn't properly recover till 1944 or so when he was nearly gone and more so after most of our competitors were destroyed"

It fell back to the depression level, measured here as children per couple in 1973 (it was a above in 1970-1972) with the start of the end of the post war boom and hasn't gotten above replacement since

Well, other than curtailing urban unrest, labor unrest, winning a war, guiding us thru the depression, and other such things that set the stage for the economic boom of future presidents, FDR didn't do much at all. Fertility was low because:

1) The Depression and it's aftermath
2) A cautious national mood
3) Suburbanization and higher birth rates took off with the GI bill and the building of the interstates after WW2 ended

Some of this was good luck and timing, and being a young country, but on the whole America's leaders did a terrific job in the 1930's-1950's. Then there were some Left-wing excesses in the 60's and early 70's, which caused many people to become cynical about progressive reform and more amenable to conservative "reforms" (slashing social spending, lower taxes, union busting, opening up the borders, and the like). We've been stuck in that mode since the late 70's, and those who were teens and young adults in the 70's-1986 are now wielding a lot of power and still have a Reagan era mindset about big government and rights being more important than responsibilities. Those of us who grew up after the mid 80's are much more skeptical of "voodoo" economics and policies/culture that encourage narcissism and greed.

Either we can discourage elites from becoming too arrogant, or we can go easy on them on the theory that restraining elites discourages people from the hard work that can lead to elite status.

The 1970's saw declining birth rates because people were (economically) cautious, and also because of a sense of resource scarcity. Resource scarcity initially lowers birth rates, and in the face of many years of economic problems the demand for economic Leftism grows. The economic booms of the 80's and 90's raised birth rates and destroyed the progressive culture of the 1930's-early 1970's; conversely, the growing sense of a lack of opportunities and no widely shared gains since the late 2000's has been driving more and more people into a populist desire to rein in elites.

Feryl said...

There's a priceless scene in The Amityville Horror (1979) in which the patriarch can't find an important stack of money, and he goes berserk. Stephen King, around 1982 (before the Reagan era got into full swing) said that for a "contemporary" movie it was harder to conceive of anything scarier. People in the 70's and very early 80's were genuinely frightened at the possibility that the good times and optimism of the 50's and most of the 60's were gone.....And weren't coming back. How do you expect people to have hardly any kids when it seems like there's not a whole to go around anymore?

216 said...

Feryl,

Environmentalism, at least the popular pseudo-Gaia worship variant, is a white phenomenon. This could be due to language barriers, but I've never known the Japanese or the Koreans to fret over their "carbon footprint". Individualist solutions prosper even in our most collectivist movement. And environmentalism is a major reason why YT has fewer kids, on top of feminism and consumerism.

Black nationalists love to rip YT for "environmental racism" and destroying the utopia of subsistence farming. But blacks are the least environmentally conscious of all groups in US society. Big leftist foundations award tens of millions in grant money to get blacks to visit the National Parks.

Audacious Epigone said...

Julian,

The Golden One didn't seem comfortable. His delivery was clunky and he drank a ton of water through the course of giving it. My guess is he didn't run the public speaking 101 playbook, which demands you walk around the stage before taking it. Probably just nerves. I wanted to find him afterwards to give a testimonial from one of my employees who sent me a message for Marcus about how he'd changed my employee's life, but I think he bailed after his speech. He is hard to miss!

Feryl,

Yes, we lack both the rootedness and the political history that corresponds to that rootedness. Europe has that--being a blood-and-soil nationalist, while not popular in Europe (especially Western Europe), is still accepted because it has such a long pedigree. We don't have that in the US.

Jim,

From the time Hadrian crushed them through the middle of the last century, the Tribe couldn't beat anyone on the battlefield, yet here we are, stuck with ZOG. They've outplayed us for centuries. I'd rather them join us. Genetically, they're already doing so in large numbers outside of Israel. The out marriage rate for Jews in the US is well over 50% and among non-Orthodox Jews it's 75%, their TFR is below replacement, and no new Jews are coming here. They are disappearing.

Kentucky Headhunter,

Yep, it expands the full range of emotions you become capable of. It's the ultimate in existentialism!

Concerned,

I'm in the same situation. AmRen does a fantastic job protecting attendees' privacy. Without going into details, Henry Wolf did a couple of ingenious things to help with that. AmRen also required press not to capture images of anyone inside the conference center (except for speakers) and the noodle-necked antifa miscreants were kept a good 100 feet away from the front entrance and not allowed inside at all. I suspect not a single person was doxxed this year.

But at some point we just have to take some risks. No one lives forever.

Z,

I'm thrilled to hear you say that, because I obviously want him to be true. Hell, I predicted someone like him would arise, so now I need him to fulfill the prophecy!

And yes, give the JQ as much treatment and as much deliberation as you can muster. We need it.

AB Prosper,

The inverse correlation between educational attainment and fertility among women is stronger than any other variable. Yes, correlation isn't causation, of course, but the correlation isn't just robust at the national level, it's robust internationally as well. It's a much stronger predictor than IQ is.

lineman said...

I agree with Jared- no transformation can compare to becoming a husband+father and actually being forced to confront the consequences of your choices and society's choices knowing that your progeny will be affected by them for the next 80 years. .

Amen on that and nothing will cause more motivation to protect and preserve them than when your child looks up at you with their mothers eyes filled with trust that you will take care of them...

AB.Prosper said...

Feryl. that is why I did not specifically include Roosevelt. We do not know what effects his policy had on the general fertility rate.

Now do we know if the US would have recovered in time

I'm tepidly pro Roosevelt on grounds that while Treasury Secretary Mellon was correct about purging the rottenness, people need to eat NOW not in five years

That said Roosevelt was an industrial age phenomenon and came from a time when shovel ready meant actual shovels not bulldozers and borders were closed. We can't repeat what he did and it won't work again

Still the US hasn't been above replacement fertility for nearly half a century now , since 1972 its been below with only two years (1972 and 2007) its been at replacement , technically 2007 was a tiny bit above it but basically its been low for a very long time and this suggests that low fertility is the expected norm for advanced civilizations

To some 216 said: Environmentalism

My opinion here

The phenomenon is a resurgence of White folk religion more than anything. In the pre Christian past of Europe a lot of sacred activity took place in groves, hills, springs and the like not buildings. Pre Rome basically all of it did where possible.

As the influence o Christianity fades, the religious instinct is going to be lean to its natural roots and the core idea of that is nature is sacred and ought to be worshiped

As for its influence on having children, I agree there is some. Its not a proximal cause for most though.

Again just my opinion but urbanization and economic decline are the main causes. You can't herd people into cities, treat them as interchangeable cogs with no certitude of stable employment and lower their wages without consequences,

Poorer smart people have less kids

Also for those that are doing OK and wweren't drowning in debt , there are opportunity costs to having kids and getting married early . People have choices they didn't have in the past and are exercising them. In the long run most people will still want a couple of and will have them later which is not optimal but so long as its by 35 or so, isn't insurmountable

Sow, Reap.

lineman said...

The best thing to do I think about the JQ would be to make the as irrelevant as possible in your life...I would say most people aren't doing that but instead complaining about them which makes you seem weak...

Audacious Epigone said...

lineman,

The other day coming home from I'm turning down my street. My wife (seven months pregnant) is standing on the front porch, my son is riding his bike around the top of the cul de sac, and my daughter is running down the driveway yelling "hi daddy!", "hi daddy!"

That's what is about. That's what we're fighting for.

Z-Man talks a lot about negative identity vis-a-vis blacks. To put it in Nietzchean terms, it's slave morality. We would do well to avoid a similar dynamic vis-a-vis Jews.

lineman said...

Yep I agree wholeheartedly...

Corvinus said...

AE...

"Nicholas Fuentes delivered a masterful speech..."

Indeed. He is articulate and engaging. Of course, he is simply spouting of Alt Right philosophy with youthful exuberance. There isn't anything earth shattering or groundbreaking here. However, is one major flaw--Nicholas is not white. He is Hispanic. So how did his family and ancestors arrive to our shores? Wouldn't that be a kick in the shorts if his great-grandparents came here as illegals? They would have to go back.

"Jordan Peterson has one of the best-selling books in the world because he understands the challenges young men face."

You do realize that Vox Day is on the warpath, right, with this guy? Day is looking forward to "eviscerating him" in a future blog post--he has been prepping for it in several posts. So, are Peterson's allies going to come to his defense? As you clearly stated, "when you're being stabbed in the back by the guy on your right flank, sometimes the need to deliver a haymaker becomes unavoidable." Although, as Day says, he has never lost in a cage match, physical or intellectual.

Hopefully, you will dedicate a post that will counter Day's assertions.

Feryl...

"Appealing to normie Millennials and Gen Z on a broad level should bring us closer to reviving the cultural norms of the 1920-1960's"

That time period and its cultural norms has LONG since sailed, my friend. The M's and Gen Z's do their own thing.

"he said that the early 90's saw a substantial improvement in child behavior, continuing onward, while teenagers in the late 90's and early 2000's (Millennials and borderline Millennials) were much better behaved than teenagers were in the 70's, 80's, and early-mid 90's."

Hogwash. Every decade of people decry how the future generation is the worst generation. Writers from the 80's asked why kids were so much more impolite than kids from the 60's. Authors from the 60's asked why children were more disrespectful than children in the 40's. Writers from the 40's asked why youngsters were so much lazier than youngsters from the 20's, etc.

"The nationalist flavor I don't think will ever really work in America, due to the country's substantial diversity which was generated to a large degree by the high immigration eras of 1870-1920..."

Finally. You speak truth here.

216...

"Environmentalism, at least the popular pseudo-Gaia worship variant, is a white phenomenon. "

In reality, it was Native Americans who took inspiration from their ancestors responsibility to respect natural systems, predicated on a reverence for the interconnectedness of all life forms. White European settlers lacked the general willpower and knowledge to balance resource use and preservation of the environment. Recall that tens of millions of buffalo were slaughtered per federal policy in the 1870's and 1880's to bring the Plains tribes to their collective knees? Why? The white man coveted the resources on their territory, and sought to bring "civilization" to the West. A classic case of ecocide.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Fuentes talked about that, specifically with regards to how life could be easy for him if he went the Ben Shapiro route--he'd be an articulate, sharp young conservative that the boomer cons would love, and he'd provide them with a protection shield on account of being an honorary non-white. Sure, he's a "white Hispanic", which isn't as powerful as being a black woman, but it's better than being a non-Hispanic white. He's very honest and aware of his capabilities. No false modesty, but I don't detect ridiculous arrogance, either. Just self confidence.

As for VD, I think he's incorrect about the US, just as Spencer is. White Americans are all European mutts now. His Anglo-America may have been optimal, but the toothpaste is out of the tube now and there is no putting it back.

Wrt Peterson, I'll probably agree with VD on the merits but still see the Peterson phenomenon as a good thing even if I see (as I do) his emphatic 'anti-collectivism' as hopelessly quixotic. Peterson is great at getting directionless, abandoned white men to stand up and infuse meaning in their lives. He's going to lead them to water and then be surprised when they don't drink from the pond he thought they were going to drink from.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"Sure, he's a "white Hispanic", which isn't as powerful as being a black woman, but it's better than being a non-Hispanic white."

False assumption here. As a white Hispanic, Fuentes is reviled more than non-Hispanic whites for taking on a "true" white identity and talking about "sending them back", when his own family had benefitted from coming here in the first place. It is hypocrisy of the first order, akin to Malkin complaining about "anchor babies". But I get it, one must cover the decided weaknesses for their allies.

And as far as Peterson is concerned, you are missing the point. He could be the My Little Pony for the current generation of boys by making them feel good about themselves. But VD is going for the intellectual jugular here, and his posts have the distinct likelihood given his high IQ audience will neuter any potential progress to be made by Peterson with the aforementioned demographic.

So your own advice of "when you're being stabbed in the back by the guy on your right flank, sometimes the need to deliver a haymaker becomes unavoidable" will fall to the wayside if VD "happily eviscerates" Peterson without the Alt Right even offering a modicum of refutation of VD's points. That attitude will not bode well for Alt Right morale. Because if you and others will "probably agree with VD on the merits", then in reality Peterson becomes irrelevant.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Wrt Fuentes, understanding lifeboat ethics is imperative here. His position is entirely tenable once it is understood.

Wrt Peterson, he's way bigger than the intellectual core of the Alt Right. He'll likely just ignore VD and the vast majority of his readers/listeners will be completely unaware of VD's criticisms.

Corvinus said...

AE...

“Wrt Fuentes, understanding lifeboat ethics is imperative here. His position is entirely tenable once it is understood.”

Who are you trying to kid here? Again, it is noble on your part to come to his defense, but his position is other than tenable to the Alt Right mantras. It is actually downright offensive. How convenient that lifeboat ethics somehow applies to the “best of the white Hispanic lot” who make the case their lives should be spared from drowning. The problem is that we, as white people who are fatally altruistic in nature, not only save those deemed worthy, but end up saving everyone in the end. Thus, what becomes a few people who receive lifejackets becomes an entire ship that enters the port. And then we become inundated with vibrants. No, he must be sent back. That is how we got into this predicament in the first place.

For all we know, his family could have come from humble origins, who worked as migrant farmers, perhaps illegally, and by the grace of God received citizenship. Perhaps, and I am speculating here, the very reasons why he identifies with “white culture” is that he ashamed of his past, and thus works overtime to erase any trace of his real identity--that of a mixed race man, whom he thoroughly realizes he is NOT desirable by certain groups, in particular the Alt Right. So, for some reason, he takes hold of Alt Right philosophy in order to ingratiate himself with that very group who will drop him like a bad habit as soon as he is no longer useful. He is similar to Jack Donovan and Milo in this regard. Desirable for the cause, but still degenerative. Is not homosexuality a barrier to the detriment of the rebuilding of the West? I suppose as long as they maintain a strong counter to the SJW’s and the Jewish elites, their "unbecoming qualities" are merely tolerated.

“Wrt Peterson, he's way bigger than the intellectual core of the Alt Right. He'll likely just ignore VD and the vast majority of his readers/listeners will be completely unaware of VD's criticisms.”

Peterson is a relative newcomer to the Alt Right scene. He does not carry the clout in this ommunity as a Derb, or a Brett Stevens, or even Vox Day. And he is not ignoring VD, and nor are his fanbois. Considering that his supporters generally read the same blogs and have their own blogs, they are cognizant of VD’s critiques of their hero. Apparently VD is appearing on the Alex Jones show to discuss “the two leading charlatans of the Approved Opposition, Jordan Peterson and Benny Shapiro.”

The question remains will you sit on the sidelines or will you intervene? You know, for the boys' sake.

Corvinus said...

AE...

And now Vox Day has gone full retard.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/mailvox-thats-exactly-how-good-i-am.html

Audacious Epigone said...

I have no love lost for Shapiro, who is a pressure release valve, a guy who patrols the boundaries on the right without accomplishing anything laudable like Peterson does. I am way behind on my VD reading, by two weeks or so. Will comment if I think I have anything valuable to add.

Feryl said...

"Hogwash. Every decade of people decry how the future generation is the worst generation."

What are you smoking? Measures of crime and violence rose substantially around 1967 (after slightly rising in the early 60's), then stayed high for about the next 30 years. The main demographic responsible for crime is males aged about 15-25.

Who was 15-25 in 1967? Early Boomers.

Who was 15-25 in 1997? Later Gen X-ers.

Neil Howe says that crime stats show a steep decline in youth crime in the very late 90's and early 2000's, which is when Millennials were beginning to make up a substantial portion of adolescents and young adults. Meanwhile, crime stats for older people remained fairly high. In other words, the Boomer and X-er cohort who were committing lots of crime as youngsters continued to do so as they aged. And early Millennials who generally avoided crime as youngsters have continued to do so as maturing adults.

Measures of poor behavior (such as skipping school, drinking, and fighting) amongst juveniles were substantially worse in the late 60's-mid-90's amongst Boomers and X-ers than they were among older generations of youth (in the 40's,50's, and early 60's) and younger generations of kids (in the late 90's-present).

The Youth Risk Survey reveals that measures of danger and violence in high schools have been declining since the later 90's. Smoking rates peaked in the earlier 90's, and have declined in practically every subsequent year. Drinking has declined also. Kids in the 2010's are substantially less likely to have on the school grounds been in a fight, seen a fight, or brought a weapon to school than they were in the 90's. The cohort born in '79-'84 is more likely to have used illegal drugs than those born in the late 60's-1978 and those born after 1984 (illegal drug use rose among kids rose from about 1994-2000), but other than that Millennials and Gen Z are much better behaved than young (or old) Boomers and X-ers were.

You can't buy into the crap pushed by Boomers that the 60's and 70's were this wondrous time when people who didn't live in NYC felt comfortable keeping their doors unlocked. Young Boomers in the 60's and 70's were largely oblivious to the havoc that they were wreaking on society. Older generations who told them to slow down, to stop smoking every drug that they could get their hands, to stop screwing everything that moved, were considered "squares" who need to get out of the way. Conservative Boomers in the 80's admitted how much their generation fucked up, but the problem is that they bought into noxious neo-liberal economics at the same time. And so the pattern was set for Left-wing Boomers excusing behavioral decadence for 50+ years while Right Boomers encouraged economic decadence for the last 40 years.

Corvinus said...

Crime rates is but one metric. There are other factors involved, from cultural phenomenon to political activism to financial dependence. Again, every decade of people decry how the future generation is the worst generation.

"Neil Howe says that crime stats show a steep decline in youth crime in the very late 90's and early 2000's..."

Indeed, And there is a reason why. San Diego, for example, like other metropolitan areas, was bursting at the seems with delinquents. But something happened here and other cities.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-juvenile-crime-20170803-story.html

"Since 2015, the average daily population in the juvenile halls and youth camps was 445 -- nearly two-thirds less than predicted. The dwindling population of juvenile hall is part of a broader and deeper decline in juvenile crime that has accelerated markedly since 2010 — in San Diego and numerous counties across the state. That decline — measured in arrest rates, the number of youths supervised by county probation officers, and held in juvenile halls — has been driven by a broad change in approach over the past decade. Instead of the increasingly harsh juvenile measures of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which lowered the age for children to be tried as adults and locked up youths for minor crimes, probation departments have embraced a system that emphasizes early intervention, evidence based risk assessment of youths, a strong tilt toward rehabilitation and away from incarceration. By almost any measure the shift has had enormous effect."

It would appear that this shift in how to address delinquency would be the primary factor as to why millennials are less likely to commit crimes.

"The cohort born in '79-'84 is more likely to have used illegal drugs than those born in the late 60's-1978 and those born after 1984 (illegal drug use rose among kids rose from about 1994-2000), but other than that Millennials and Gen Z are much better behaved than young (or old) Boomers and X-ers were."

Depends upon how you define "better behaved". Moreover, you are neglecting to take into account how the political and social landscape was markedly different when each generation was growing up. Compared to the Baby Boomers, Milliennials are more self-absorbed, dependent, and lack agency.

http://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/

Again, every decade of people decry how the future generation is the worst generation.

Corvinus said...


If we look at the 1920's, several studies were conducted regarding the impact that industrialization and urbanization on America's youth. Reformers of the day were particularly troubled by the noticeable rise in juvenile delinquency. This study from the time period presents their findings.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000088376276;view=1up;seq=13

The Children’s Bureau was established in 1912 to investigate and report on matters pertaining to childhood in America. Among these concerns were maternity care, infant mortality, the conditions of working mothers, juvenile delinquency, desertion of children, child health, and state and local administration of child welfare laws. In the 1920's, the Children's Bureau began to take a significant interest in movements in the United States concerned with morality and social behavior. In 1924, its publication Child Welfare Summary News carried an article on crime and the punishment of criminals. In response to the article, numerous religious and sectarian (non-religious) groups submitted proposals for improving the morals and behavior of American youth.

Again, every decade of people decry how the future generation is the worst generation.

"Young Boomers in the 60's and 70's were largely oblivious to the havoc that they were wreaking on society."

Yes, I get it, you are not a fan of Boomers. Regardless, like all generations, they have their strengths and they have their flaws.
Again, every decade of people decry how the future generation is the worst generation.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"I have no love lost for Shapiro, who is a pressure release valve, a guy who patrols the boundaries on the right without accomplishing anything laudable like Peterson does."

Laudable? Sir, you really need to get your head out of the sand. Whatever in-roads Peterson has made is about to be washed away by the Vox Day storm. As the Z-Man stated, "This lust for recognition is certainly at the root of the endless in-fighting we see among the alt-right personalities. An alt-right person gets some traffic to their YouTube channel and before long they are picking fights with everyone they used to call allies. Because the drama results in more traffic, it becomes a feedback loop. The traffic releases endorphins in the brain of the e-celeb. It’s like crystal meth for these guys. Each hit increases their craving for the next hit. Eventually the drama blows up into nasty feuds and vendettas."

Indeed, this is a vendetta. But punching back by the Alt-Right against their brethren is painful, but necessary in this case, especially if you believe that the work of one of your allies is downright vital to the cause. You, not I, have the cudgel to intercede. Peterson will need all the help he can muster.

Feryl said...

. Instead of the increasingly harsh juvenile measures of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which lowered the age for children to be tried as adults and locked up youths for minor crimes, probation departments have embraced a system that emphasizes early intervention, evidence based risk assessment of youths, a strong tilt toward rehabilitation and away from incarceration. By almost any measure the shift has had enormous effect."

"It would appear that this shift in how to address delinquency would be the primary factor as to why millennials are less likely to commit crimes."

1) Boomers in the 60's and 70's "benefited" from lackadaisical enforcement of juvenile delinquent policies. There was a simultaneous rise in youth crime and decrease in punishing young offenders (small infractions and new offenders would get treated lightly, and then they would go and commit more serious crimes that finally forced the judge to throw the book at them). Every other movie in the 80's had a plot about a scumbag getting away with a crime due to inept judges, which enabled the scumbag to commit more crimes.

2) The draconian measures to stop youth crime in the 80's and 90's had a negligible effect on stopping late Boomer and Gen X criminals. There was a small drop in crime from about 1981-1984, which is when the national mood improved and before crack was a huge issue.

3) Weaker enforcement of juvenile delinquent policies in the late 2000's-present came about because society no longer feared youth crime epidemics. The national survey of crime victims reveals that the public's experience with crime closely matches officially reported crime statistics. There's still an overblown sense of danger among middle aged people who grew up in the dangerous 70's-90's, and still don't understand the vast reduction in crime that occurred almost entirely due to Boomers and X-ers aging out of the age range associated with crime while today's youth is much less dangerous.

I dunno what your age is, but even I as a 33 year old remember watching the news in the early 90's and vividly seeing how apocalyptic inner cities were in the late 80's-mid 90's. Minneapolis was called "murderapolis" because the city was recording record high murder rates in the 90's. But crime in suburban and rural areas in the 70's-mid 90's was also much higher than it's been before or since.

Crime was indeed a problem in the 1920's, but due to any number of reasons (and I would put it down to generational degeneracy) crime and juvenile delinquency of the early 20th century pales in comparison to the horrific mayhem of about 1967-1997. There's a reason the prison population soared in the 80's and 90's; it's not just because of harsher punishment, but also because the major crime waves that started in the late 60's necessitated that eventually we had to do something to make the streets safer. And by the 80's there wasn't much else to do but throw tons of people behind bars.

Feryl said...

"Yes, I get it, you are not a fan of Boomers. Regardless, like all generations, they have their strengths and they have their flaws."

"Compared to the Baby Boomers, Milliennials are more self-absorbed, dependent, and lack agency."

WRT selfishness, yeah, sure, the same Boomers who fought to get authority and tradition out of their bedrooms and boardrooms because God forbid anyone tell them what to do or how to do it.

Agency? Early Boomers coined the term "workaholic" because so many of them in the late 70's and esp. 80's became driven to climb the ladder and best the competition. How's that worked out for us? Late Boomers are less likely to self-ID as workaholics, and indeed it appears that people born in the 60's are less likely to be schemers than people born in the 40's and 50's.

Gen X-ers have a lot of blemishes on their record, too. They had record high rates of teen pregnancies, after all.

Jay said...

@Corvinus,

JBP is not an "ally" of the Alt right. He is a self-declared liberal who abhors nationalism and identity politics of any kind (((excepting))). Peterson has, no doubt, helped some take off the blinders re: evbio, IQ, etc that will lead some down further red-pilling paths.

I think his main help has been preaching the preeminent importance of personal responsibility to listless young males. Regardless, ideologically he is the avowed enemy of nationalists and identitarians everywhere. He is a globalist at heart who wishes we could all just get along, despite his knowledge of the data on race and IQ.

We can and should take what is good from him, but what good there is is limited

Corvinus said...

"JBP is not an "ally" of the Alt right."

If he is serving a useful purpose, like convincing "listless young males" to "man up, he is indeed an ally of the Alt Right.

"Peterson has, no doubt, helped some take off the blinders re: evbio, IQ, etc that will lead some down further red-pilling paths."

Undoubtedly, for some men. But for others, I suspect they will become awoken and realize that this "red pill-blue pill-black pill" philosophy is not all what is it cracked up to be.

"Regardless, ideologically he is the avowed enemy of nationalists and identitarians everywhere."

Yet he is acknowledged by the Alt Right as important to part of the cause, similar to Jack Donovan and Milo. I suppose the Alt Right is no different than the rabid SJW's in taking what they can get from people that run counter to their core principles.

"He is a globalist at heart who wishes we could all just get along, despite his knowledge of the data on race and IQ."

Data on race and IQ that many whites can assuredly make their own decisions on.
We can and should take what is good from him, but what good there is is limited

Corvinus said...

"We can and should take what is good from him, but what good there is is limited".

Great to know that loyalty by some on the Alt Right knows no bounds.