Friday, June 08, 2018

Brief miscellany of items

- From a friend on business in DC:


Wearing MAGA hats in the most hostile place in the country to do so isn't for the faint of heart. These young shitlords are made of stern stuff. They're exactly what we need.

- Relatedly, a good dissident cartoon for someone like Ben Garrison to create would depict a couple of these well put-together young MAGA men seeing the Imperial Capital's sights while a swamp-dwelling SWPLs watches them walk by while loudly remarking on how backwards they are. Meanwhile the periphery of the cartoon is filled out with ghetto blacks chimping out, exploding Muhammads in their ninja outfits, pozzed degenerates in assless chaps, taciturn Amerindian peasants raking leaves, a Hmong nanny pushing a white baby in a stroller, and all the other Hotel Babylonia extras the SWPL nervously pretends to love.

Maybe in the follow up cartoon the SWPL can have his John Rocker/Falling Down moment.

- This was sent to me by a former employee. Kevin Yoder, our congress critter in Kansas' third district, is a cuck on the National Question. We have huge Sprint and Cerner presences here, and Yoder has been bought-and-sold by them. Trump the candidate may be dead, but Trumpism has only just begun.


- Cloud People invariably talk about "populism" and "democracy" as though they are antonyms, as though the former threatens the latter. Think about that for a second. Do they have a shred of intellectual integrity between them? Rhetorical.

- Doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculating, at present around 127 million men in the US are fertile. That compares to about 47 million women in the US who are currently fertile. Women aren't the natural gatekeepers of sex only because it's a potential investment of nine months (or eighteen years!) of their lives compared to 15 minutes of a man. They're also gatekeepers because there are in the general population a lot more fertile men than there are fertile women at any given time.

- Without unadulterated freedom of association, identity politics is inevitable. As soon as the government forces one party to interact with another party against its will (and on behalf of the other party's will), it has chosen sides. And when the government chooses sides based on identity, only fools--or WEIRDOs, if you prefer--unilaterally disarm by failing to act tribally.

It is in this context that I am regrettably forced to celebrate a heritage American WASP's filleting of a kykedyke and a low-IQ Latina in the highest court in the land. Being reduced to base identity instead of being able to appreciate said filleting on the quality of the craft alone pains me. Alas, what else remains?

45 comments:

Corvinus said...

Unless one can offer the requisite proof that they have been immersed in At Right and Roisseyian ideology, and are preaching it in the lunchroom and on the playground, the preteen boys who are wearing the MAGS hats do not fit the mold as "shitlords". They are simply wearing the hat because everyone else has it on their noggin’ as a way to identify themselves as part of a group that's "cool". They have little concept of race realism or white nationalism, nor the philosophical underpinnings behind those ideologies. Trump is rebellious, certainly, so why not have the Alt Right clown people into thinking pre-teen boys are the future defenders of Western Civilization.

Moreover, Shitlery was viewed by young boys and adult men as being a shrill, a busybody...a bitch. So there is no surprise here that Trumps’ bravado carried the day at Election time, along with her historical political missteps. Now, only time will tell what will be Trump's legacy. He may or may not be indicted, he may or may not be re-elected, he may or may not lead Generation Z to become Alt-Right He-Men. The hats were an effective meme, no doubt, for their widespread recognition and effective distillation of his campaign. But do these pre-teen boys generally have the intellectual capacity to comprehend that rhetoric at their age, and then articulate those ideas in a clear, concise manner Tyler Durden style? Probably not.

Again, let us offer proper context here. Generation Z is liberal-moderate on social issues, but moderate-conservative on fiscal and security issues, fitting the mold of (gasp) a Republican, or cuck. Generation Z supports marriage equality, transgender issues, and civil rights–there goes the Alt Right platform–and tend to favor national health care. They tend to lean independent, as they are skeptical of both political parties. Generation Z will probably support immigration restrictions, but will revolt against mass expulsions of their non-white friends. When it comes to political correctness, yes, they are sick and tired of cultural appropriations and safe spaces, and will fight back in some way. What about global warming? They are definitively concerned about its overall impact.

For those on the Alt Right, Generation Z will have to be coddled and prodded by way of propaganda to become reliable Alt Right foot soldiers and “race realists”. I highly doubt that a significant number of Gen Z’ers will be drawn to Alt Right living legends like the Andrew Anglins of the world who labels any white woman who bears mixed-race children as a race traitor, saying “It’s OUR WOMB. It belongs to the males in her society” or to the Brett Stevens of the world who clamors for a return to a monarchial form of government, with a complete deemphasis on modernity.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

the preteen boys who are wearing the MAGS hats do not fit the mold as "shitlords". They are simply wearing the hat because everyone else has it on their noggin’ as a way to identify themselves as part of a group that's "cool".

do these pre-teen boys generally have the intellectual capacity to comprehend that rhetoric at their age, and then articulate those ideas in a clear, concise manner Tyler Durden style?


They don't have to. In any mass movement only a small fraction of those involved understand the movement at an abstract intellectual level. That wearing a MAGA hat is a way of being rebellious *without being socially outcast* is what's important. When there are lots of these hats bouncing around the heads of Gen Z white guys, it means that the in-group acceptance has become so strong that it doesn't matter how strong the out-group opprobrium is.

Wrt identity issues, yes on sexuality, not on race. White racial identity is definitely stronger among Zs than it is among millennials, who probably represent the most self-loathing white generation of all time.

It's a sign that things are changing. I was in high school during the Bush years. It was definitely not cool to show support for Dubya in any way. The only kids who did were the overtly religious ones.

Audacious Epigone said...

prodded by way of propaganda to become reliable Alt Right foot soldiers and “race realists”

Optimistically disagree. Experiences on American campuses everywhere are smacking them in the face with the realization that as young white men they will hang separately if nothing changes.

Feryl said...

Found this on an old iSteve post:

"The Progressives’ reputation, long sky-high because they were seen as the forerunners of today’s liberals, has shrunk as their WASP chauvinism has become politically radioactive. Many of the Progressives’ favorite causes—anti-machine political reform, conservation, publicizing birth control, eugenics, muscular Christianity, immigration restrictions, and Prohibition—formed a fairly coherent agenda for maintaining WASP hegemony of America in the face of decades of heavy immigration."

Hmmm.
- Anti-corruption
- Responsible use of resources
- Limiting reckless growth (including the human population)
- Using religion as a means to better legislation and life (not as a means to furthering the aggrandizement of pious charlatans)
- Promoting immigration restriction as a general positive (by the 1920's people were horrified by urban over-crowding, child labor, ballot box stuffing, and the like that were correlated with too many foreigners).

The answers don't lie in promoting market or religious fundamentalism; nor do they lie in the "non-judgementalism" sentiment that we were beginning to drown in by the late 70's (Leftist elites could absolve themselves of their cowardly capitulation to The Chicago School by hyping up "justice" for fags and non-whites).

It remains to be seen as to whether any number of factors ("market" zealots, racial diversity, greed, etc.) prevent us from ever having another era like the 1920's-1950's. Readers of generational history know that some generations can inflict wounds that never stop bleeding; until we're bled out. The Boomer domination of intellectual and cultural life beginning around 1980 has prevented a lot of much needed "conversations" from happening. The twin goals of suppressing public discussion of ethnic/national differences and creating the "freedom" to pile up material wealth at any long-term cost might do us in after all.

We need to be implementing responsible measures to curb excesses, not act like partisan zealots who try and compensate for the other side's sins by over committing to a different but equally bad set of ideas.

Sid said...

"Experiences on American campuses everywhere are smacking them in the face with the realization that as young white men they will hang separately if nothing changes."

The modern workplace is also quite terrible. More and more white men I know will, off the record, acknowledge that women and minorities have a much easier time getting jobs and securing career advancements. In fact, in a number of fields, trying to advance as a white man is a rigged contest, and there's growing frustration about that.

Don't underestimate just how badly men crave advancement in hierarchical organizations. Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" is largely a man who can't advance in a conventional organization, and has to turn to radical ideologies to satisfy his existential needs.

I think what we've seen since 2012 or so, the explicit undercutting of white men in career opportunities and advancements, will be remembered as the catalyst which brought about race and sex realism in both Gen Z as well as Millennials.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus:
At times it's difficult to know whether you're trying to convince us ,or reassure yourself.

White Nationalism is in its incipient stage.
American Nationalism ,currently identified with Trump and the "MAGA" theme, serves as an assertion of group identity and loyalty, and is often implicitly White,particularly in an era when American Nationalism and Identity are seen as "racist" by so many.
At the least the celebration of MAGA and Trump is a rejection of open borders, and implicitly multiculturalism,and multiracialism.
Not White Nationalism, but a step in the right direction,because it suggest an awareness that a multiethnic society isn't in their interest.
I believe White Nationalism, (as opposed to White racial consciousness which can exist without White Nationalism) for the masses is likely to arise as a defensive reaction to a changing racial/cultural landscape and the social and political changes this will entail.
This will take time,but many of the elements are already in place:Distinctive group identities, historical experiences, traditions,and biological traits.
Nationalist movements have started with less.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

not act like partisan zealots who try and compensate for the other side's sins by over committing to a different but equally bad set of ideas

I'm bad about letting my anti-anti-X get the best of me. The advice is well taken.

Sid,

Right, especially if it's a large, publicly-traded company or I assume even worse if its a government job of some sort. For white men, working for themselves is increasingly their best option, but that's of course not for everyone. Young white men from modest backgrounds and accompanying modest skill sets and capacities face the most institutional discrimination of any demographic segment of the population.

Anon,

Exactly. It's clear now that Trump is a transitional figure, an opportunist who has expanded the overton window, harpooned several corrupt Western institutions that are now in the process of bleeding out to death (major media, the political system, the entertainment industry, etc), and has shown a generation of white men that they don't have to apologize for who they are or the interests they have.

Gabriel M said...

Cloud People invariably talk about "populism" and "democracy" as though they are antonyms, as though the former threatens the latter. Think about that for a second. Do they have a shred of intellectual integrity between them? Rhetorical.

That's a far better question than you realise:

The “contest remains unsettled just three months before the votes will be cast”? Wow, that implies that the normal thing would be for the contest to be over with and settled, three months before anyone has voted, like in the Democratic party, where it’s now considered a foregone conclusion that Hillary will win, or like in the EU, where if the leaders don’t like the results of an election, they cancel it and find another way to achieve the same result. Anything short of a managed, EU-style election leaves a dried-up liberal like Dan Balz feeling unsettled and out of sorts. Liberals want elections to be decided before they even occur, because an election implies the existence of a majority that possesses power—a power outside liberal control. Also, when things are decided by election, that means the majority has control and the minority doesn’t, which is unequal and unfair. The only way to avoid such inequality is to have the unelected elite running everything, in the name of good principles and for the benefit of all. This is all the more necessary when liberal education and the liberal culture have turned the populace into a bunch of debased demi-humans incapable of governing themselves.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008934.html


Say the word democracy. Notice how good it sounds. Everything democratic is good. A democratic meeting, a democratic policy, a democratic giraffe... if the adjective fits the noun at all, anything you paint with it comes out shiny and bright.

Now say the word politics. Notice how bad it sounds. This person is a politician. She's being so political. These dangerous proposals would politicize US foreign policy. Every use of the word is negative. Everything you paint with it comes out sordid and mean.

But... what is democracy without politics? Is there any such thing? If there is, doesn't it sound like something North Korea would come up with? Our higher form of democracy has transcended mere politics. Uh huh. Sure. I know where you're going with that.

As objective realities — structures of governance — aren't democracy and politics in fact... synonyms? But if they're the same word, how can they have opposite connotations? How can it be that everyone knows, obviously, of course, democracy is a good thing, but politics is a bad thing?

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2016/04/coda.html

Sub said...

"Right, especially if it's a large, publicly-traded company or I assume even worse if its a government job of some sort. For white men, working for themselves is increasingly their best option, but that's of course not for everyone. Young white men from modest backgrounds and accompanying modest skill sets and capacities face the most institutional discrimination of any demographic segment of the population. "

I work at a large public university in the research department, and I can confirm the hurdles in front of us white male devils. Doctorates continue to be critical to career success in scientific research, and recently during admission interviews I heard an adjacent lab having a discussion about how there were "too many fucking white guys applying" to the graduate school, and the graduate student advisor to the selection committee was going to try and get their apps thrown out in favor of more black guys.

This whole conversation was done out in the open so apparently not something they thought the school would object to.

On the plus side, I work with a young white dude who is pretty leftist in all other ways, and when I relayed this conversation to him, his response was "sooner or later this racism against whites has to end" which was surprising to me given his other views. It makes me think that your anti-AA platform is a good one to drive a wedge in the Coalition of the Fringes, too bad the cucks will never do it.

snorlax said...

In hagiographies of FDR, Bernie Sanders, early Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro etc. "populism" and "populist" are positive terms.

This seeming discrepancy can be resolved by substituting two words which both translate to "populism."

Völkism = bad
Socialism = good

кто кого?

Joe Suber said...

The alt-light exemplified by Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Paul Joseph Watson, Cernovitch, Lauren Southern and even maybe Pewdiepie made huge inroads among those who had any hope of redemption while providing enough cover on race to make it okay to be a fan. Now those figures either are losing audience or getting more racially aware, and more "trad." Antifa antics continue to drive polarization, which helps us. The women and men on the right are more attractive in both looks and sanity and humor. This is all stuff kids are acutely aware of.

There is nothing worse than "approved" cool, so the window must continue to move in a rightward direction. We are simply in a race with those who are using demographic forcing and control of a waning mass-media to attempt to seal the deal for globo-homo-gayplex.

Nathan Wright said...

The 180-inversion of the meaning of "democracy" one of the 2% media's most stunning gambits. Hubris encapsulated.

Audacious Epigone said...

Gabriel,

Great links, thanks. Nothing new under the sun.

Sub,

If those sorts of conversations are being had in the open, it's worth surreptitiously recording and leaking out to the public.

Joe,

Exactly. The reason I'm mostly sanguine on the "intellectual dark web" is because like SJWism got out of the left's control, obliterating SJWism will get out of the alt light's control. Some people will stop with Dave Rubin, I guess. But for a lot of people, that's their gateway, the spoonful of sugar before the red pill goes down.

Nathan,

"The 2%" is one of the best neologisms of the last year, so it's not all bad bad bad!

Sub said...

AE,

I have regretted every day since that happened that I didn't turn on the camera on my phone and leave it on the bench nearby. Ah well, too late now. I will definitely be ready if something like that happens again, beyond the usual leftist nonsense that constitutes what I hear every day to put a roof over the family.

Sid said...

Very OT, but...

The latest Star Wars movie, Solo, has been a complete bomb. Disney will lose money on it.

Why? The series has become a SJW fest, and the fans are tired of it. They stayed home.

Granted, a box office performance doesn't say all that much about greater political and cultural movements, but this shows that white men are brimming with agency and have enough communication and solidarity, even at this point, to be able to stand against those who loathe them.

Remember, much of the alt-right came into being once male nerds had enough of what was happening to their video games. They joined the preexisting structures of the dissident right and gave us the ability to meme that had never happened before. Cultural battles like these seem like a sideshow, but they're the recruiting grounds for new talent.

Feryl said...

"In hagiographies of FDR, Bernie Sanders, early Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro etc. "populism" and "populist" are positive terms."

Dude, what are y'all smoking? Did FDR spend ages in office because he was a clown who had no idea what the hell he was doing? Sniping at FDR is partisanship Jihad at it's worst. Yeah, I'm sure he had his flaws and mistakes, but who doesn't? If at least half of what the GOP partisans said about FDR was true, then how come the GOP was out of office between 1933 and 1953? Americans in the 1930's-early 1960's overwhelmingly were in favor of "activist" (or "big") government, relative to what the political mores of the very early 20th century and the late 20th century. But since Boomers alternately whine about the waycism of the 1930's-1950's (if on the Left) or whine about the horrors of government expansion in that era (if on the Right), an era of of progress, cooperation (rather than cut throat competition) and general goodwill among (English speaking) men has been ret-conned into some kind of abomination.

Lord almighty how much does your brain have to be rotted by Boomer ideology to not understand how wholesome the culture became in the 1920's-early 1960's? People were generally agreeable and upbeat. People lived modest lives and weren't constantly trying to one up each other insecurely and childishly. The modern Left needs to come to terms with this, but so does the Right which would still largely prefer to chest-thump virtue signal in front of a dwindling crowd (the Darwinist macho dumbfuckery promoted by Boomers and early Gen X-ers is deader than Disco).

The "strange" Millennials who are so "wimpy" have a lot of growing up to do, but their aversion to to the mindless competition and violence of a bygone era (the late 60's-early 2000's) is a step in the right direction. The future isn't Mad Max; that's what most people born before 1970 want because, ya know, I'm a bad motherfucker who'll rule my kingdom. If you understand generational theory, you must realize that both the GI generation and the Millennials hate individualistic practices (including interpersonal violence). And I think that the younger readers of this blog aren't delusional preppers or anything; if they envision future drama and conflict, it's in tribal terms with a likely resolution of new terms under which we all agree to live in relative peace(like them or not), not in terms of Heroic individuals and/or their families hunkering down as everything collapses beyond recovery. Since today's older generations are still pissy and bitterly resentful towards their enemies, they fantasize about blowing the whole thing up and getting rid of the goddam government, the bureaucrats, the lawyers, etc. so that they finally get what they always wanted: a world that doesn't tell them what to do. Whereas many of the youth wish to be given a world where institutions function better (which they know to only be possible when individuals suppress their selfish desires), not so much a world where institutions beyond the nuclear family.....Don't exist at all.

Feryl said...

I actually think Trump's election was counterproductive, because his actual original platform has mostly been either misconstrued or forgotten by both the Left and the Right. The Left lost their shit over Trump's gauche persona and "racist" statements, which blinded them to the genuine reform measures that Trump initially pushed for (such as reduced medical costs, and re-industrialization). Meanwhile, Trump's troll personality, his reputation for being "tough", and his half-hearted attempts to honor his campaign platform, have been embellished into this icon of a new Right movement. Reality check: Trump isn't Hitler, or even much of a ethnic activist or warlord type at all (his rhetoric on crime and immigration is conventional American Right stuff, not unlike what we generally heard from the 1970's-1990's; he's not arresting and harshly punishing immigrants/criminals enough to be a Duterte, nor is he being more of a Left authoritarian and going after business owners who tolerate immigrants/criminals). But Trump isn't the authentic reformer he was billed to be either, as he's almost totally capitulated to a conventional GOP agenda (while sidestepping the most obvious betrayals, like the TPP, a blanket immigrant amnesty, and a new large scale theater of war, etc.). But merely avoiding the replication of GW Bush is a really low bar to clear; he's one of the worst presidents ever, the least you could ask of the GOP president is that they not go full retard by using the Bush playbook.

Reducing existing war theaters, enforcing E-verify, raising the minimum wage and criminalizing the use of cheap (e.g. immigrant) labor, busting up obvious monopolies in Left-leaning industries at the very least (e.g. Disney-ABC-Fox), slapping tariffs on China made crap, the list goes on. It shouldn't be that hard to sell this stuff as a means to greater popularity with the masses. It's possible that the GOP is so stubborn and greedy that nobody at all could pull reforms off within the current GOP. But if ADD-rattled Trump couldn't be bothered to even try after about 6 months of frustration in 2017(and even at that time he never appeared to do more than merely politely introduce some unusual populist ideas to the GOP brass and his cabinet, which were almost always ignored and many of his populist supporters were evicted from the scene by the summer of '17, e.g. Rich Higgins getting "deplatformed" after he complained of a Muslim and cultural Marxist plot to destroy the West).

The Right can't delude itself into a continuation of the pointless culture war (where one-upping opponents is more important than cooperation for the greater good), nor can it forget just how worthless and dated GOP ideology still is (Millennials don't want to hear the same relentless moaning about taxes and regulations that the Boomers embraced in the 80's and 90's). And Trump moved the needle at least in rhetoric and expectations, and the needle shouldn't be swung back by his not getting any bigger hardcore fanbase (he won because of moderates and cross-overs taking a chance, not because 50% or more of Americans ever believed him to be some kind of exulted warrior from whom strength and victory will be drawn). His devotees didn't need much to have their expectations met, but what of the others who took a chance in their voting or didn't vote for him (or vote at all)? The Trumpites can't act as if meeting some mild expectations ought to be reason enough to celebrate him.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Speaking of white men brimming with agency.

Arise, white man. Arise! ARISE!

Sid said...

AE,

SJWs make our job of red pilling normies an easy one.

SJWs act outrageously to white men. White men respond with egalitarian talk of fairness, and they get beaten down for that. They find the alt-lite and civic nationalism, and stand taller and longer before getting beaten down again. Then they find the red pill, and they can't be beaten down again. Those of us who are red pilled can be ignored or vilified, but the SJWs can't really beat us down.

Just look at this: https://twitter.com/ConCaracal/status/1005884221922119680?s=19

Passer by said...

Corvinus

"Generation Z is liberal-moderate on social issues"

Or they are *brainwashed* to be liberal-moderate on social issues. It all depends on who owns the media. The people who own Holywood and the media (lots of jews) want liberal non-ethnocentric population that is going to tolerate their infiltration and various pro-israel activities/lobbying/parasitism. Ergo they use the media 24/7 to cause the population to become more liberal, so that they can be safe. Just like a parasite alters its host's brain or immune system in order to be safe.

In Russia, for example, people are becoming much more nationalist and becoming more conservative and religious. Do you know why is that? It is because their ruling elite wants that. During Soviet times, the elite wanted them to be atheist, so media pushed ateism on them. Now the elite wants them to be conservative and religious, so media pushes that to them. So the elite uses the media, the education system promotes religion, traditionalism, builds lots of new churches, etc. Ergo - the population "magically" becomes more conservative.

In Israel, half the jewish population believes that palestinians should be kicked out of the country. People are nationalist, ethnocentric, and believe that Israel should be a jewish ethnostate. Do you know why is that? It is because their elites want that. Ergo, the local brainwashing system (media and education system) pushes religion, nationalism and ethnocentrism on them. A jew is not even allowed to marry a non-jew in Israel, and books about interethnic love relations between jews and palestinians get banned.


Have you ever thought that people are whatever their ruling elites want them to be?
And that they may not be "liberal" or "conservative" by default?

Gabriel M said...

Ergo, the local brainwashing system (media and education system) pushes religion, nationalism and ethnocentrism on them.

Wrong.

A jew is not even allowed to marry a non-jew in Israel,

Wrong

and books about interethnic love relations between jews and palestinians get banned.

Wrong.

Corvinus said...

AE...

“They don't have to. In any mass movement only a small fraction of those involved understand the movement at an abstract intellectual level.”

Don’t be obtuse. Mass movements throughout history, from the American to the Chinese Revolution, require the foot soldiers to have other than a rudimentary comprehension of the philosophical underpinnings of why they ought to overturn a system or reform an institution. Those leaders must be able to articulate clearly and concisely the goals of the movement, as well as its desired outcomes. And considering the accessibility of the Alt Right’s manifestos on the world wide web, I tend to think there will be more questions than there are answers. Pre-teen boys in particular will be inquisitive as they get older about matters.

So would you say that you are one of those “small fraction who understand the movement at an abstract intellectual level”? Why or why not?

“That wearing a MAGA hat is a way of being rebellious *without being socially outcast* is what's important.”

There remains the stigma to a meme created by a sexually charged meglomaniac who is under intense legal peril.

“When there are lots of these hats bouncing around the heads of Gen Z white guys, it means that the in-group acceptance has become so strong that it doesn't matter how strong the out-group opprobrium is. “

I would say increasing numbers, but these tend to be young men who historically were opposed to liberalism and the Democrats to begin with. And it remains to be seen whether there is this strong in-group acceptance, if that assessment is indeed accurate, has long-term sustainibility.

“Wrt identity issues, yes on sexuality, not on race. White racial identity is definitely stronger among Zs than it is among millennials...”

I think you are jumping the gun here.

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/257641/multiracial-gen-z-and-the-future-of-marketing.html

“...who probably represent the most self-loathing white generation of all time.”

Big assumption there, Cochise. Perhaps the reason why white men generally do not overtly identify with or do not prolifically embrace their whiteness is that they would describe their race as PART of who they are. To YOU, you may categorize it as self-loathing. To THEM, it may be looked at as being practical, or dare I say “woke”.

Sid,

“The modern workplace is also quite terrible. More and more white men I know will, off the record, acknowledge that women and minorities have a much easier time getting jobs and securing career advancements. In fact, in a number of fields, trying to advance as a white man is a rigged contest, and there's growing frustration about that.”

Anecdotally, that would be your experiences. But dozens and dozens of professional white men that I know have not had those pitfalls and tribulations.

Corvinus said...

Anonymous 4:32...

“White Nationalism is in its incipient stage.”

They said that in 1865, and again in 1920, and yet again in 1960.

“American Nationalism ,currently identified with Trump and the "MAGA" theme”...

No, that would be Trumpian Nationalism, which is HIS brand of American nationalism.

“At the least the celebration of MAGA and Trump is a rejection of open borders, and implicitly multiculturalism, and multiracialism.”

Trump is a marketer of ideas, especially ideas that will make him popular and make him money. He is a hollow man philosophically. Trump did not regularly espouse to those ideas prior to being elected. He only hitched his wagon to them as the means to secure votes. So, yes, he in a way he has made those issues come back to the forefront, and that likeminded people are talking about them and are excited to implement them as national policy. But will those ideas have staying power and will it pick up steam with more white voters on board when he is gone from the political scene are key questions here.

“Not White Nationalism, but a step in the right direction,because it suggest an awareness that a multiethnic society isn't in their interest.”

For some white people, but not necessarily the pre-teen white boy who wears a MAGA hat but is friends with the black kid or Asian boy from across the street.

“This will take time,but many of the elements are already in place:Distinctive group identities, historical experiences, traditions, and biological traits.”

Maybe this time it will stick. Or maybe it won’t.

Passer-by...

"Or they are *brainwashed* to be liberal-moderate on social issues. It all depends on who owns the media."

Assuming that there is brainwashing taking place, and assuming that people lack the ability to make their own decisions when it comes to race and culture. And, of course, if you are going to make this argument, you must be consistent here by recognizing that the Alt Right is also engaging in similar bamboozling and hoodwinking tactics.

"The people who own Holywood and the media (lots of jews) want liberal non-ethnocentric population that is going to tolerate their infiltration and various pro-israel activities/lobbying/parasitism."

I will employ Niwdog’s Law here—As an online discussion continues with multiple posters, the likelihood of a person making assertions that the Jews are behind everything in the world that is “bad” exponentially grows.

"In Russia, for example, people are becoming much more nationalist and becoming more conservative and religious. Do you know why is that? It is because their ruling elite wants that."

It's much more than simply the "ruling elite".

http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=605858 --> Ethnic Russian nationalism has been growing since the fall of the Soviet Union, along with attempts by the regime to commandeer it — what Emil Pain terms “imperial nationalism.” On the one hand, Putin and his administration recognize the leading role of the ethnic Russian people in forming the Russian state. On the other, naked ethnic nationalism could provoke separatism in a multiethnic country such as the Russian Federation. Imperial nationalism offers a middle ground. Putin can present the country as a great power and tie a desire for ethnic greatness to the greatness of the state.

Corvinus said...

Passer-by...

"During Soviet times, the elite wanted them to be atheist, so media pushed ateism on them. Now the elite wants them to be conservative and religious, so media pushes that to them. So the elite uses the media, the education system promotes religion, traditionalism, builds lots of new churches, etc. Ergo - the population "magically" becomes more conservative."

OR, maybe people agree with the position taken by the elites, so there is little indoctrination that takes place.

And we need context here regarding Russians and religion.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church -->

"Similarly, it is difficult to disentangle the extent to which the upsurge in Orthodox affiliation found in the surveys represents an expression of long-held faith or a genuinely new wave of religious affiliation. It may be that after the fall of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, Russians felt freer to express the religious identities they had quietly maintained during the Soviet era. However, given that the share of Russians identifying with a religion rose almost as much between 1998 and 2008 as it did from 1991 to 1998, the data suggest that the change is not solely an immediate aftereffect of the collapse of the Soviet system."

"In Israel, half the jewish population believes that palestinians should be kicked out of the country. People are nationalist, ethnocentric, and believe that Israel should be a jewish ethnostate. Do you know why is that?"

Yes. But America is not Israel :)

"It is because their elites want that."

No, it's what PEOPLE want, which includes the elites.

"And that they may not be "liberal" or "conservative" by default?"

There is scientific evidence that suggests that one is biologically more likely to be a liberal or conservative.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-your-genes-predict-whether-youll-be-a-conservative-or-a-liberal/280677/

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

About one-third of American colonists supported independence from Britain in 1776.

The Bolsheviks took power with membership well below 1% of the total Russian population.

Majorities have and continue to consistently want reduced levels of immigration into the US, to no avail.

And Trump is not under "intense legal peril". If you really believe that, I invite you to make money off of it. PredictIt has markets on whether or not Trump will survive in office through 2018 and through 2019 and through 2020. Too late to cash out on 2017, ha (been there, done that).

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
"They said that in 1865, and again in 1920, and yet again in 1960."

In 1865 A Southern White Nationalism and an American White Nationalism (Unionism) were in conflict with one another,neither was like contemporary White Nationalism, because they were both White Supremacist.

The North wasn't fighting for racial equality.

The resurgence of Racial Consciousness among Whites
in the '20's and '60's were likewise White Supremacist.
They were reactionary in that they wanted to remodel U.S. society on a past pattern.
The continuation of the United States was emotionally important to them.

Since the U.S.was, even in the'60's,overwhelmingly White, people could reject White supremacy as a doctrine without giving it up as a fact. So many of those opposed to de jure White Supremacy had no problem with de facto White Supremacy.

White Nationalism is different, because it doesn't deny non- whites their right to Ethnostates.
It's revolutionary, rather than reactionary, because it breaks hard with the past. The Union is no more important to it than the Soviet Union was to Russian Nationalism.
It's more moral than a civic based American nationalism which denies the nationalist aspirations of the Lakota, Navajo etc.
White Nationalism doesn't assert White Americans as the first among many, but as an equal among equals.
I find it difficult to believe you think Whites in the late 21st and early 22nd centuries are not going to think and feel differently than those in a very different racial, cultural and political environment of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"About one-third of American colonists supported independence from Britain in 1776."

And that number increased as the war progressed, with moderates being key. John Jay, James Duane, and Robert Morris, alongside John Dickinson, are generally ignored in their role in the revolution because of the attention paid to "radical patriots".

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/91293/LaPointe_project.pdf%3Bsequence=1

http://www.historynet.com/the-patriot-who-refused-to-sign-the-declaration-of-independence.htm

"To be a moderate on the eve of the American Revolution did not mean simply occupying some midpoint on a political line, while extremists on either side railed against each other in frenzied passion. Moderation for Dickinson and other members of the founding generation was an attitude in its own right, a way of thinking coolly and analytically about difficult political choices. The key decision that moderates ultimately faced was whether the dangers of going to war against Britain outweighed all the real benefits they understood colonists would still enjoy should they remain the king’s loyal subjects."

"The Bolsheviks took power with membership well below 1% of the total Russian population."

I don't if that was that low of a percentage.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/bolsheviks-russian-revolution-october-lenin

"If hostility toward the Bolsheviks on the part of ordinary citizens dissipated in the face of the apparent threat of counterrevolution within a few weeks after the July uprising, then already by the second half of August — before General Lavr Kornilov’s failed rightist putsch — there were increasing signs that the party, with its apparatus essentially intact, had embarked on a new period of striking, rapid growth. I found that a clear indication of the degree to which the party’s fortunes were again on the rise was reflected in the results of mid-August elections to the Petrograd City Duma. In these citywide elections, the Bolsheviks scored a resounding triumph."

...

"Let me recall in briefest terms what occurred in Petrograd following Kerensky’s August 27 announcement that General Kornilov had refused to recognize his authority and that troops supporting Kornilov were aboard trains and already nearing the capital. The Kadet Party, the main Russian liberal party, sympathetic to Kornilov’s objectives and distrustful and scornful of Kerensky, refused to support him. For the briefest time, it appeared that Kornilov’s troops could not be prevented from occupying the capital and that the Provisional Government would surely fall. But all political groups to the left of the Kadets — Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, SRs, Anarchists, every labor organization of any importance, and soldier and sailor committees at all levels — immediately banded together in defense of the revolution."

"Majorities have and continue to consistently want reduced levels of immigration into the US, to no avail."

Indeed. I am in that camp of reforms designed to reduce immigration.

"And Trump is not under "intense legal peril". If you really believe that, I invite you to make money off of it."

You really haven't been paying close attention then. But he and his administration is without question down the barrel of the legal gun. Now, he may not get impeached by 2020, but Cohen probably has a lot of information that Trump does not want to be revealed to Mueller. These complicated investigations take years to flesh out.

Corvinus said...

Anony 8:43 p.m.

"In 1865 A Southern White Nationalism and an American White Nationalism (Unionism) were in conflict with one another,neither was like contemporary White Nationalism, because they were both White Supremacist."

Unionism does not equal American White Nationalism, nor is it linked to White Supremacy. Furthermore, there were numerous conflicts--northern vs. southern lifestyles, anti-slavery vs. pro-slavery, business vs. agrarian, preserve the union vs. secession. While it is accurate to say that northerners and southerners harbored racial ill will towards blacks, as it was a product of the times, it is also accurate to say that increasing numbers of northerners and southerners looked to ensure political rights for blacks, especially those who had been free.

"The North wasn't fighting for racial equality."

No, but it wasn't fighting for racial domination, either.

"The resurgence of Racial Consciousness among Whites in the '20's and '60's were likewise White Supremacist."

Not necessarily.

"They were reactionary in that they wanted to remodel U.S. society on a past pattern. The continuation of the United States was emotionally important to them."

A pattern that artificially placed one group above other groups. The continuation of a system that repressed a large swath of people--immigrants from southern-eastern Europe, Jews, women, blacks, Asians, Hispanics--who were citizens or would become citizens.

"So many of those opposed to de jure White Supremacy had no problem with de facto White Supremacy."

Not necessarily.

"White Nationalism is different, because it doesn't deny non- whites their right to Ethnostates."

Except the United States isn't Europe. We are way too mixed up. Americans are mutts.

"White Nationalism doesn't assert White Americans as the first among many, but as an equal among equals."

And what happens when there are white people who oppose white nationalism on the grounds that American nationalism supersedes ti?

"I find it difficult to believe you think Whites in the late 21st and early 22nd centuries are not going to think and feel differently than those in a very different racial, cultural and political environment of the 19th and 20th centuries."

Thanks for your strawman. We will know when we get there how whites and non-whites feel about our nation racially and culturally.

Anonymous said...

@Corvinus,
Unionism doesn't even equal American Nationalism, necessarily. One can be a Unionist without being an American Nationalist.
Nonetheless ,most Unionist were and are American Nationalist,(this has become more true over time)and the American Nation in the mid nineteenth century was a White Nation.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 spelled this out very clearly.
Yes there were many contributing factors to the Secession War, but all those factors had produced two Nations by 1860, both committed to White Supremacy .
One believing slavery essential to White Supremacy, one believing it wasn't.
Slavery, with the "pass system" for blacks and the slave patrols ,was to the South, what Indian reservations and the military patrols were to the West ;the institutionalized bulwark of White Supremacy.

If I remember correctly, of the twenty-three free states only four gave blacks citizenship rights and another four forbade free blacks from living in them, in the others blacks were allowed ,but not citizens.
So yes the U.S. was founded as a White Nation
that institutionalized means to maintain White Supremacy.

"No, but it wasn't fighting for racial domination, either."

Tell that to American Indians.
If you want to downplay the racial aspect of that struggle,you're still left with an American nation conquering Amerindians nations. I'm not sure that morally that's much better.
However in the Secession War, you're correct,the North wasn't fighting for racial domination.
It didn't have to .
White Supremacy was not threatened in the North or in the reunited Union they envisioned.
Also, remember giving blacks citizenship and voting rights didn't threaten White Supremacy,anymore than Palestinians having such rights in Israel threatens Jewish Supremacy.

"A pattern that artificially placed one group above other groups. The continuation of a system that repressed a large swath of people--immigrants from southern-eastern Europe, Jews, women, blacks, Asians, Hispanics--who were citizens or would become citizens."

It is such a system that White Nationalist would do away with.
White Nationalism ISN'T White Supremacy.

"Except the United States isn't Europe. We are way too mixed up. Americans are mutts."

I'm not sure if you mean geographically mixed up, or genetically ,or both.

Genetically speaking it's generally very easy to distinguish people of European ancestry from someone of Asian, African and Amerindians ancestry.
By and large , if you consider yourself a member of a particular group and society considers you a member of that group, then you're a member of that group.
The correspondence between Self Identified Race/ Ethnicity and population assignment by DNA is "near perfect".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Anonymous said...

@Corvinus (cont.)
Each ethnoracial group has its own geographical concentration.
White Americans the northern and central
tier of States.
Meso Americans the southwest.
Blacks the southeast.
These are the core areas of Ethnostates.
Population transfers will undoubtedly occur .Some willingly some unwillingly.
Each Ethnostate will determine its own policy with regard to non- nationals .
There are humane ways for this to be effected.
It needn't be done all at once.
Many could live out their lives in their homes.
Just as resident aliens and not citizens.

"And what happens when there are white people who oppose white nationalism on the grounds that American nationalism supersedes ti?"

I suspect they'll be about as numerous as those who believed Soviet nationalism superseded Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian etc. nationalism.
In which case they'll learn to live with it.
As AE points out in this post,
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/color-trumps-ideology.html?m=1

race as an identity trumps even American Nationalism among Millennials.
American Nationalism appears to be going,
going...

If they're as numerous as the Loyalist in the American revolution ?
Well, then we have a precedent ,don't we?
I think you're believing White Nationalist will be opposed by an "American" majority including many White people.
This may be true,but they won't be opposing for the same reasons. That's important,because they'll have different end games in mind.
Besides other Ethnoracial Nationalism's will be growing as well,shrinking the "American" majority.
Many Whites will realize they have nowhere else to turn.

"Thanks for your strawman. We will know when we get there how whites and non-whites feel about our nation racially and culturally."

I'm not sure what "strawman" you're referring to.
You're whole argument seems predicated on the premise that, what feelings you believe Whites and non-whites have today, will be the same in the future.
But yes, they'll know which of us is right, when they get there.
I believe this is still a generation or two away.
I'll be an old man by then.
If I'm still among the living.

Corvinus said...

"Nonetheless ,most Unionist were and are American Nationalist..."

I see you moved the goalposts here. Unionists were typically American Nationalist, which does mean they championed white nationalism nor white supremacy.

"(this has become more true over time)and the American Nation in the mid nineteenth century was a White Nation."

No, the American Nation was one that was founded by a host of European countries, along with imported Africans and displaced (eventually) tribal groups.

"The Naturalization Act of 1790 spelled this out very clearly."

It was a product of the times. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria. Remember that Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians, at various points in American history, were deemed other than being able to embrace the culture and values of Americans by nativists (that being the WASP ancestors of the ORIGINAL founders of our country). These Europeans were considered racial and ethnic pariahs. Ironic how some of those individual members of those persecuted groups today are acting in a similar fashion to nativists of the past.

Again, the 1790 Immigration Act at that juncture specific ethnic attitudes. Those sentiments gradually changing within the white population. Remember, the Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as other than white and completely unassimilable. Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites, but future generations, through an act of Congress, have been well within their liberty to include those groups of people.

"Yes there were many contributing factors to the Secession War, but all those factors had produced two Nations by 1860, both committed to White Supremacy."

No, the North was other than committed to white supremacy, as evident by passage of the 13th through the 15th Amendment.

"One believing slavery essential to White Supremacy, one believing it wasn't."

You are arguing from a false premise. The North was not advocating White Supremacy during the Civil War; rather, it was committed to freeing blacks from bondage and providing them from legal protection by the Constitution. These actions are decidedly not tied to White Supremacy. In the minds of Southerners, the eradication of slavery would not merely mean the loss of property but the destruction of White Supremacy, a notion that became more entrenched by Northerners as the war dragged on. After the Civil War, it was the South, not the North, who sought to perpetually circumvent constitutional guarantees of black liberties through black codes.

"Slavery, with the "pass system" for blacks and the slave patrols ,was to the South, what Indian reservations and the military patrols were to the West ;the institutionalized bulwark of White Supremacy."

Actually, Native Americans remained a threat to the territorial integrity of an expanding nation, which included the South, who had played an important role in coercing them out of their homelands. So there is not this separate distinction as you are trying to pass off here.

Recall also that the Worcester case stated that tribal groups had legal standing in our courts as separate entities, until Jackson illegally refused to enforce that decision. And, of course, there were those reformers who sought to incorporate Native Americans and blacks into our society. Hardly efforts clearly demonstrating White Supremacy.

Corvinus said...

Anony 12:05/12:08...

"If you want to downplay the racial aspect of that struggle,you're still left with an American nation conquering Amerindians nations. I'm not sure that morally that's much better."

OK.

"White Supremacy was not threatened in the North or in the reunited Union they envisioned."

"Also, remember giving blacks citizenship and voting rights didn't threaten White Supremacy,anymore than Palestinians having such rights in Israel threatens Jewish Supremacy. "

Patently false. The South passed black codes, and later on Jim Crow laws, with the intention to maintain their grip on political and economic power; thus, White Supremacy would be maintained. In the North, blacks had more opportunities to exercise their liberties compared to their southern brethren.

"So yes the U.S. was founded as a White Nation that institutionalized means to maintain White Supremacy."

Actually, the U.S. was founded by several European countries, each with their own unique customs, that blended together. The sentiment of White Supremacy was borne out of the necessity to unite competing groups (Europeans) against non-Europeans in order to justify their political and economic domination. Regardless, those attitudes gradually changed by way of law and custom, with non-whites and women (gasp) gaining full citizenship and the liberties therein. Nations do not remain static.

"It is such a system that White Nationalist would do away with."

No, as the separation of the races bears out attitudes of superiority, which manifests itself into behaviors. And as far as my referring to Americans as Mutts, I was not referring to genetics, but to the fact that different Europeans here in the States eventually intermarried, which was a relatively rare occurrence in Europe among the peasant stock or commoners.

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

In other words, YOU must prove that your ancestors are directly related to British settlers, otherwise you must go back.

Corvinus said...

Anony continued...

"Each ethnoracial group has its own geographical concentration."

Not by design, but by personal choice. Big difference here. And each region has a rich history of generally getting along and not referring to itself as an "ethnostate". Too many Mutts.

"These are the core areas of Ethnostates."

Americans generally do not view it in this manner, nor are they willing to uproot themselves merely because the Alt Right virtue signals them to death about the "benefits" of "ethnostates".

"Population transfers will undoubtedly occur .Some willingly some unwillingly."

Assuming that the United States breaks up into Ethnostates.

"Each Ethnostate will determine its own policy with regard to non- nationals."

Assuming it even gets that far.

"There are humane ways for this to be effected."

I would prefer a war if pushed came to shove. Have one final winner. Because it is other than humane to demand that people who have lived in a region for decades be designated as "resident aliens". That is fascist.

"Many could live out their lives in their homes. Just as resident aliens and not citizens."

American citizens would not give up their citizenship under this arrangement. There would be blood.

"I suspect they'll be about as numerous as those who believed Soviet nationalism superseded Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian etc. nationalism. In which case they'll learn to live with it."

Except America is not the former Soviet Union.

"race as an identity trumps even American Nationalism among Millennials."

Sources?

"I'm not sure what "strawman" you're referring to."

You attributed to me an argument I did not offer--"I find it difficult to believe you think Whites in the late 21st and early 22nd centuries are not going to think and feel differently than those in a very different racial, cultural and political environment of the 19th and 20th centuries".

What I think is that the Alt Right overestimates that white people today will inevitably become "woke", unite under one racial banner--white--and go all "Hulk" on non-whites. It could happen, but given our nation's history, I wouldn't bet on it.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
"I see you moved the goalposts here. Unionists were typically American Nationalist, which does mean they championed white nationalism nor white supremacy."

I didn't move the goal post. I was simply pointing out that it's possible to be a Unionist without being an American Nationalist of any description.
Such as John Calhoun was.
I still maintain the United States was a White Nation in sentiment,and in fact.
The Naturalization Act of 1790,merely codified this with respect to Naturalization.
During the secession crisis and war both sides were committed to White Supremacy,
but the North wasn't fighting for White Supremacy because no one was challenging it in the North or the Union as a whole.
White Supremacy was woven into the social norms of the North ,and codified in law in most Northern States.
White Supremacy could and did exist in the North and the reunited Union, without slavery.
Lincoln himself was a White Supremacist,as this quote illustrates,
""I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
This is from Abraham Lincoln's fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858.

Nor does the passage of the 13th,14th,and 15th Amendments prove otherwise.
These Amendments, like abolition and Affirmative Action, had the most impact where most blacks lived, ie. the South.
The lives of White Northerners changed very little.
White Supremacy did not end with their passage.
Sure, there were those who were opposed to White Supremacy in the North as well as the South.
In both cases they were definitely a minority.
Their existence does not disprove the U.S.was a White Nation, committed to maintaining White Supremacy by custom, mores, norms and, where necessary ,laws, anymore than the existence of Communist in the U.S. proves the U.S. isn't a Capitalist society.

"Actually, the U.S. was founded by several European countries, each with their own unique customs, that blended together."
The U.S. was founded by White Americans. They were a product of ethnogenesis from several European ethnicities.
They were distinctive from Europeans,as well as Amerindians and Africans.
Neither of which were considered part of the Nation.

Anonymous said...

@Corvinus:
"The sentiment of White Supremacy was borne out of the necessity to unite competing groups (Europeans) against non-Europeans in order to justify their political and economic domination. "
Is this you conceding that the United States, as conceived by the founders, was a White Nation which was committed to preserving White Supremacy?
The way you worded that paragraph suggest you're one of those who believe that White, as an identity ,
was created for the purposes of oppression.
That's false.
People have always classified and formed groups on the basis of shared traits,particularly when a neighboring people
have different traits.
"White", "Black" and "Indian" identities would have arisen even had slavery and conflict not existed.

"No, as the separation of the races bears out attitudes of superiority, which manifests itself into behaviors."

Which do you believe is more likely to have a negative attitude towards members of another race/ ethnicity:
1) a White kid in the
Atlanta Independent School District
or
2)a Japanese kid in a school in Akita Prefecture?
Which has more of an opportunity to engage in the type of behavior that concerns you?
It's pretty obvious isn't it?

Ethnic states eliminate a major source of dangerous violence. Dangerous not only to individuals but to society as a whole.

Anonymous said...

@Corvinus:
"Not by design, but by personal choice. Big difference here. And each region has a rich history of generally getting along and not referring to itself as an "ethnostate". Too many Mutts."

It seems to me that when people's personal choices produce such racial concentrations,that's a good argument for Ethnostates.

Why do you keep using the word "mutt" ?
I think it's because you believe each ethnoracial group, White, Black, etc. is a historically recent mixture of different ethnic groups from Europe, Africa etc. and aren't ethnic groups themselves, but rather panethnicities .
I 've got news for you.
Those European and African ethnic groups were once panethnicities too.
The Angles, Saxons,Celts, Danes and Normans became the English, for instance.
Well the English, French, German etc. became White Americans.
The same process is at work.
We're no more mutts than any other ethnic group.

I said:
"These are the core areas of Ethnostates."
You said:
"Americans generally do not view it in this manner, nor are they willing to uproot themselves merely because the Alt Right virtue signals them to death about the "benefits" of "ethnostates".

The Alt Right will have nothing to do with this.
Human nature will.
Look at the history of multinational states.
The Austro- Hungarian Empire, The Ottoman Empire, The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia.
Since the rise on national consciousness in the 19th century,its been knocking out one multiethnic state after another.

"
I would prefer a war if pushed came to shove. Have one final winner. Because it is other than humane to demand that people who have lived in a region for decades be designated as "resident aliens". That is fascist."

You'd rather see a war than peaceful separation?
You want definite mass violence to avoid a legal change in some people's relationship to a government?
And you think I'm fascist!

I said, ""race as an identity trumps even American Nationalism among Millennials."

You asked for a source:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/color-trumps-ideology.html?m=1

go to this post and follow the links.

" What I think is that the Alt Right overestimates that white people today will inevitably become "woke", unite under one racial banner--white--and go all "Hulk" on non-whites. It could happen, but given our nation's history, I wouldn't bet on it."

Nothing is inevitable about the course of human events.
I just believe current conditions and projected
trends, are conducive to an increase in racial consciousness among all groups in the U.S.,and this is a necessary but not sufficient factor in the rise of ethnoracial nationalism among all groups.
The history of the U.S. has no precedent for what kind of society we're becoming. So look to the examples of multinational states elsewhere.
You might not like what you find.

Corvinus said...

Anony...

“I didn't move the goal post.”

Assuredly, you did. Just own up to it already.

“The Naturalization Act of 1790,merely codified this with respect to Naturalization.”

At the time, but it granted future generations the opportunity to enable non-whites to enter our shores and become immigrants. Remember, WASPS were not too happy in allowing the Irish and Germans to migrate here. They felt that the culture would be diluted.

“During the secession crisis and war both sides were committed to White Supremacy,”

That simply is not accurate.

“Lincoln himself was a White Supremacist…”

Context is key. His statements were made in the environment preceding the Civil War. His statements concerned abolition, not civil rights, and of course even Illinois opinion was against black voting. The issue was shaping opinion to end slavery—not grant political rights for blacks. When the Civil War erupted, Lincoln was pragmatic and purposeful; in a series of events he changed his posture toward black civil rights—he moved to an emancipation policy and enabled blacks to enlist in the Union Army. A White Supremacist is not interested in affording former slaves constitutional liberties. But Lincoln clearly understood the political ramifications in ensuring black freedom.

“Their existence does not disprove the U.S.was a White Nation, committed to maintaining White Supremacy by custom, mores, norms and, where necessary ,laws, anymore than the existence of Communist in the U.S. proves the U.S. isn't a Capitalist society.”

Corrected for accuracy —> The U.S. was a nation that consisted of several distinct European groups who created a distinct culture that allowed itself over two centuries to incorporate non-European traditions and values, which include blacks, Native Americans, and Asians.

“It seems to me that when people's personal choices produce such racial concentrations,that's a good argument for Ethnostates.”

Except those personal choices were not the result of seeking an ethnostate. Rather, it was to live among their own brethren, however that was defined by them. Regardless, the likelihood of the United States breaking up Yugoslavia style is decidedly slim. It would take radical, pervasive, and fundamental shifts. I’m not holding my breath.

Corvinus said...

Anony...

“I think it's because you believe each ethnoracial group, White, Black, etc. is a historically recent mixture of different ethnic groups from Europe, Africa etc. and aren't ethnic groups themselves, but rather panethnicities.”


That’s another strawman. I never made this statement nor implied it.

“The Angles, Saxons,Celts, Danes and Normans became the English, for instance. Well the English, French, German etc. became White Americans.”


Thanks for making the argument for heterogeneity. It obviously works. And the English, French, Germans, etc. became Americans of European descent. Again, there were those who opposed certain European groups as being utterly incapable of being assimilated. Perhaps your ancestors came from one of those groups. You are going to have to go back.

“The Alt Right will have nothing to do with this.”

Assuredly, the Alt Right will try to play an integral role here, as they insist that “human nature” will “win out”.

“Look at the history of multinational states.  The Austro- Hungarian Empire, The Ottoman Empire, The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia.”

Unique stories as to how and why each “fell”. Completely different in development compared to the United States and how our peoples interact with one another.

“You'd rather see a war than peaceful separation?  You want definite mass violence to avoid a legal change in some people's relationship to a government? And you think I'm fascist!”



As you just said, it’s human nature, right? Why go against it? Did not the multinational states that you listed break up generally in a violent way?due to violence? Besides, you assume there is a dire need of America to separate itself. That’s not how the majority of Americans feel.

“You asked for a source…”

I asked for sources. And AE merely made his own interpretation of the data that he put into his own chart, rather than take into account the explanations offered by the authors from the survey for each graph. One must delve deeply into the how and why. AE is forgetting correlation does not equal causation.

“Is this you conceding that the United States, as conceived by the founders, was a White Nation which was committed to preserving White Supremacy? “

No, what I am saying is that only when it was deemed necessary did whites make this argument. It was ultimately committed to preserving liberties. But as product of the times, those liberties were afforded to only certain groups of people. But in the infinite wisdom of our Founding Fathers, they enabled future generations to make reforms and changes.

Corvinus said...

“The way you worded that paragraph suggest you're one of those who believe that White, as an identity, was created for the purposes of oppression. That's false.”

All groups have used their racial or ethnic identity for oppression. It’s in our DNA as humans. It’s just that Europeans the last 400 years have been at the forefront here.

“Which do you believe is more likely to have a negative attitude towards members of another race/ ethnicity:  1) a White kid in the Atlanta Independent School District or  2)a Japanese kid in a school in Akita Prefecture?  Which has more of an opportunity to engage in the type of behavior that concerns you? It's pretty obvious isn't it?”

We don't know their backgrounds, or attitudes, or experiences. One must have more information to make informed decisions.

“Ethnic states eliminate a major source of dangerous violence. Dangerous not only to individuals but to society as a whole.”



Not necessarily. Besides, violence, there is high levels of corruption.

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=21152

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/19/new-issue-of-theoretical-criminology-features-research-on-post-soviet-region/?utm_term=.b251658e92eb

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/17/ussr-soviet-countries-data

“I just believe current conditions and projected trends, are conducive to an increase in racial consciousness among all groups in the U.S.,and this is a necessary but not sufficient factor in the rise of ethnoracial nationalism among all groups.”



Maybe. Or maybe not.

“The history of the U.S. has no precedent for what kind of society we're becoming. So look to the examples of multinational states elsewhere.  You might not like what you find.”



Again, the causes for the development and breakup for those places, as well as their current status, is based on a wide range of unique factors, some of which are not remotely applicable to the U.S.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,
" Thanks for making the argument for heterogeneity. It obviously works."


History shows that culturally disparate groups can, given enough time and the right conditions,become a nation.
The record of racially disparate groups becoming a new Nation isn't as promising.
White Americans and Black Americans have lived together in the South for over 350 years and still remain racially and culturally distinctive people.
The same is true in South Africa.
Besides a biological distinctiveness each of the Nations' of the United States has its own historical experiences,its own narrative, its own heroes, its own geographical concentrations , its own holidays.
Unlike many societies in the past where the different ethnicities were racially indistinguishable, in the U.S. the nation one belongs to ,and thus the narrative they are identified with ,are generally ascertained at a glance.
This is something the Anglo-Saxons didn't face when incorporating the Danes and Normans.
Still the process of assimilation to a new group identity took centuries and no small amount of force.
A common National narrative is a critical component of any group identity.
The traditional narrative that had evolved in the United States is under attack from the intellectuals of the non- white Nations, as well as the Left.
The destruction of a common narrative is indicative of the breakdown of community.
The breakdown of the psychological unity which sustains a Nation.

Anonymous said...

@ Corvinus,


The political class in the U.S. might find a way to prevent dissolution,
by creating a new narrative for a new American identity which links the undeniably racially conscious,and White ,America of the past with the increasingly non- white, diverse America of the future,without insulting and alienating Whites,or insufficiently recognizing the obstacles non- whites have faced.
That'll be quite a trick.
Until recently the White American narrative was THE American narrative.
Now as the other nations grow in power and influence their narratives begin to assert themselves.
Civic Nationalists in Academia, media,and government try to create an overarching narrative that encompasses elements of all these national stories,without alienating any group.
On the other hand,intellectuals on the hard left,and many among the non -white nations, are constructing a narrative in which all Whites are morally condemned as racist, even if unconsciously, and racially conscious Whites are the embodiment of evil.


White American Nationalist can ,
rightfully, assert that their narrative is a continuation of the traditional American narrative.
A narrative of a White Nation created by and for Whites.
A nation which tolerated the presence of others ,and allowed them a great deal of freedom, and more rights and life opportunities than their own Nations would or could give them.
What did we get in return?
Hatred ! Contempt!
The White American Nationalist says, "Never Again! "





Corvinus said...

"History shows that culturally disparate groups can, given enough time and the right conditions,become a nation."

Exactly.

"White Americans and Black Americans have lived together in the South for over 350 years and still remain racially and culturally distinctive people."

Recall that from the 1620's to the 1860's, the white-black relationship was predicated on the immorality and debauchery known as slavery. For another hundred years, this relationship focused on legalized segregation, which in reality was illegal and immoral given the widespread disparities politically and economically. It takes generations for a new relationship to be forged from the ground up. But this distinctions that once were prominent are becoming blurred.

"Besides a biological distinctiveness each of the Nations' of the United States has its own historical experiences,its own narrative, its own heroes, its own geographical concentrations , its own holidays."

Yet, there is a common bond, that of being part of the American experience.

"Unlike many societies in the past where the different ethnicities were racially indistinguishable..."

Not necessarily. Refer to the Roman Empire and the development of Great Britain.

"in the U.S. the nation one belongs to ,and thus the narrative they are identified with ,are generally ascertained at a glance."

Our nation belongs to the citizens that reside in it, which includes a host of different racial and ethnic groups.

"This is something the Anglo-Saxons didn't face when incorporating the Danes and Normans."

No, they viewed each other as barbarous and treacherous invaders, each with their distinct ways of life. It took hundreds of years for these groups to become "one". In other words, they were viewed as being "different".

"Still the process of assimilation to a new group identity took centuries and no small amount of force."

Indeed.

"The traditional narrative that had evolved in the United States is under attack from the intellectuals of the non- white Nations, as well as the Left."

Corrected for accuracy --> The Coalition of the Fringes, Right and Left, are crafting a narrative to drum up support for their own racial and cultural designs, with normies caught in the middle.

"The destruction of a common narrative is indicative of the breakdown of community. The breakdown of the psychological unity which sustains a Nation."

The narrative is that the Founding Fathers enabled future generations of American citizens to chart their own course.

Corvinus said...

Anony...

"The political class in the U.S. might find a way to prevent dissolution, by creating a new narrative for a new American identity which links the undeniably racially conscious,and White ,America of the past with the increasingly non- white, diverse America of the future,without insulting and alienating Whites,or insufficiently recognizing the obstacles non- whites have faced."

OR, the people of America have made their own decisions regarding race and culture, one that is disturbing to certain groups of people, who insist that the "elites" have programmed the people by way of Jewish propaganda.

"Until recently the White American narrative was THE American narrative."

No, the American narrative incorporates both white and non-white stories.

"On the other hand,intellectuals on the hard left,and many among the non -white nations, are constructing a narrative in which all Whites are morally condemned as racist, even if unconsciously, and racially conscious Whites are the embodiment of evil."

Which is Coalition of the Left Fringe material. Normies, or the mushy middle, generally sees right through it. Of course, the Coalition of the Right Fringe makes it seem that all white people must stand up for whiteness, lest they be deemed "traitors" and "cucks".

"A narrative of a White Nation created by and for Whites."

You mean a nation created for and by the people.

Anonymous said...

@Corvinus:
" Recall that from the 1620's to the 1860's, the white-black relationship was predicated on the immorality and debauchery known as slavery. For another hundred years, this relationship focused on legalized segregation, which in reality was illegal and immoral given the widespread disparities politically and economically.
It takes generations for a new relationship to be forged from the ground up. But this distinctions that once were prominent are becoming blurred."

The Jews and Arabs lived together in Palestine for even longer without becoming one Nation.

This is because their differences mattered to them.

As the differences between Whites and Blacks matter to most Whites and Blacks in the United States.

In other words they desire to preserve their distinctiveness.

Still the Arabs and Jews in Palestine lived in relative peace.

Until the demographics were changed by the Zionist.

Changing demographics lead to changes in group relations.

Why would we want to create such conditions in the U.S.?
The decline of the White majority is the beginning of the end of the good thing we've known.

" Yet, there is a common bond, that of being part of the American experience."

I know you honestly believe that ,but they've had different historical experiences!
You're opening statement makes this clear.
We're not one Nation.
Psychologically we are already distinct Nations.
Distinct in the sense of which group is their primary group ,and presumably has their first loyalty.
Just like the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

" Not necessarily.
Refer to the Roman Empire and the development of Great Britain."
Both were multiethnic, not multiracial, not even the Roman Empire in any substantial way.

" Our nation belongs to the citizens that reside in it, which includes a host of different racial and ethnic groups."

I think you're confusing the concept of a State, which is a political society, with a Nation ,which is an ethnic community bound together by common traits;language, religion, history, race,or some combination thereof.

Historical experience shows that for most people loyalty to their Nation trumps loyalty to the administrative State which governs it.

" No, they viewed each other as barbarous and treacherous invaders, each with their distinct ways of life. It took hundreds of years for these groups to become "one". In other words, they were viewed as being "different"."

Like Jews and Arabs today? Why would we want to lay up that kind of conflict for future generations?
Contrary to what you might believe, democracy, constitutionalism and freedom can survive the Union.

Besides ,the Angles, Celts and Danes differed mainly in language.

The fewer the traits in which they differ, the easier those traits are changed, and the less important a trait(s) is as an ethnic marker, the easier it is for two groups to mingle.
The Irish largely gave up Celtic speech, as did the Welsh and Scots , but kept they kept Catholicism, consequently they never became British.
By the time Religion didn't matter. It was to late.
A new identity, and a new narrative, uniting the formerly distinct Celtic tribes of Ireland ,had been born.
So is it likely to be true for the Nations in the U.S.

" The narrative is that the Founding Fathers enabled future generations of American citizens to chart their own course."

We can't agree on a course,and the lines of disagreement largely follow racial contours.


" OR, the people of America have made their own decisions regarding race and culture, ..."

Well some people believe we ought to settle the racial problem through racism against Whites or even our genocide .
Others believe peaceful, humane separation is preferable.
Seems the jury is still out on the decision "we" are going to make.

" You mean a nation created for and by the people."

Yes. White people.

Corvinus said...

"The Jews and Arabs lived together in Palestine for even longer without becoming one Nation. This is because their differences mattered to them."

False comparison. The situation there compared to America is radically different. Our differences matter here, from the Polish to the Irish, from the Mexican to the Nigerian, but the common bond has been and will always be our civic nationalism.

"In other words they desire to preserve their distinctiveness."

Indeed, but not at the expense of our nation.

"Until the demographics were changed by the Zionist."

I will invoke Niwdog’s Law—As an online discussion continues with multiple posters, the likelihood of a person making assertions that the Jews are behind everything in the world that is “bad” exponentially grows.

"Changing demographics lead to changes in group relations."

Sometimes.

"Why would we want to create such conditions in the U.S.?"

Assuming those conditions have been created in the U.S. that requires political dissolution.

"The decline of the White majority is the beginning of the end of the good thing we've known."

For some white people, this decline is on their minds, and they seek recourse, at best, or retribution, at worst. Still other white people do not view in this matter, and that is of their own personal free will, their own volition. It has nothing to do with being propagandized by the "Jewish" media, it has everything to do with liberty.

"Psychologically we are already distinct Nations."

Remember, It's OK to be white. And black. And Asian. And Hispanic. And indigenous. And mixed.

"I think you're confusing the concept of a State, which is a political society, with a Nation ,which is an ethnic community bound together by common traits;language, religion, history, race,or some combination thereof."

No, there is no confusion here.

"The fewer the traits in which they differ, the easier those traits are changed, and the less important a trait(s) is as an ethnic marker, the easier it is for two groups to mingle."

You just described the citizens of the United States.

"The Irish largely gave up Celtic speech, as did the Welsh and Scots , but kept they kept Catholicism, consequently they never became British. By the time Religion didn't matter. It was to late. A new identity, and a new narrative, uniting the formerly distinct Celtic tribes of Ireland ,had been born."

Because over several generations they intermarried and developed common cultural ties while maintain their own traditions, just like the history of America.

"Well some people believe we ought to settle the racial problem through racism against Whites or even our genocide."

Except there observably is no genocide being committed against white people in America.

"Yes. White people."

No, just people. Doesn't matter what is their race or ethnicity.