The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Restrictionism in Retreat
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In 2007, when the late senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, congressional leaders of the bipartisan consensus on open borders, tried to jam an immigration amnesty down the country’s throat, “Middle America rose up and body-slammed the national establishment” as Pat Buchanan memorably put it. Having contacted all three of my national legislators in the uprising, I recall reassuringly thinking “while the elites control the commanding heights of the culture and our politics, we have the numbers. Quantity has a quality of its own, so as long as we remain vigilant, we can stop the sellout.”

That was true then. It’s not so much anymore:

A decade ago, immigration restriction was a majority position in the US. It no longer even commands a plurality. If the Great Awokening doesn’t burn itself out in the next couple of years, increasing immigration will be more popular than decreasing it a mere twenty years after decreasing immigration had more than five times the support that increasing it did.

The US had a great run.

GSS variables used: YEAR, LETIN1A(1-2)(3)(4-5)

 
Hide 322 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. How much of the shift was due to the radical shift that blacks have had in recent years?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    More to come on this variable, one that I'd overlooked previously (and inexcusably!).
  2. Can you show the results also for non-Hispanic Whites only?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, will do.
  3. Results by race?

  4. Audacious, don’t be so pessimistic. At that time of the previous recession, immigration was at the bottom of the list of top issues, now it is at the top, just imagine what will happen when you couple that with the next recession, which will happen at some point soon.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That immigration has gone from a distant 4th or 5th among Republicans a decade ago to the top issue today is encouraging. Otoh, many (non-elite) white liberals used to be reasonable about immigration. Now they are nearly all open borders zealots.
  5. Traditional politics teaches us the that the populous won’t stop growing left under a conservative President. Though i don’t want to elect a Dem to test this theory

    Millennials should have gotten more liberal as they aged, but thanks to a lack of home ownership and marriage that hasn’t happened.

    Non-Hispanic White Fertility is going to be in freefall soon. Gen Z places no importance in children

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Non-Hispanic White Fertility is going to be in freefall soon. Gen Z places no importance in children
     
    Meh. I can see it sort of going two ways.

    I'm quite impressed, the vast majority of white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships. I kind of see it as white retreat; as we are chased out of the media and basically everything else, we have nothing left but our families. We retreat and are kind of pressed into family formation because there is nothing else!

    However, you also have the climate strike crazies. I don't know how that will turn out. It's possible that the TFR will plummet due to that, but it certainly won't be a disaster since the more sane-minded people will continue to produce babies.

    Maybe Canada is unique, I don't know. (because it's so boring to start with). But I'm not seeing any kind of impending white fertility disaster. It's obviously still way too low (1.5) but it's not going to plummet to East Asian levels.

    Even in the US, I went to trendy white areas and you see lots of young couples with a child. Maybe they're delayed by 5 years but they're still making babies.

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.
  6. The good news

    Overall, these findings provide more support for theories emphasizing the role of stable predispositions than information or environmental factors. While voters do change their mind on immigration in the short-term, they often revert back to their initial position over time

    Still worth noting no one but white Rep/Indies and Asian GOP is against illegal immigration

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Still worth noting no one but white Rep/Indies and Asian GOP is against illegal immigration
     
    White Rep-Dem and Asian Rep-Dem gaps are the biggest on crime & security and economy & society, respectively (though Asian Rep-Ind gap is greater than the white Rep-Dem gap along the crime & security axis).

    Black and Hispanic Rep-Dem gaps are much smaller, esp. on the economy & society axis.
  7. The easiest defense argument to reverse that trend is mentioning: we don’t need more cheap labor as Robots and automation gain ground in near future. Do millennials and snowflakes like to struggle making a living?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Andrew Yang lets smart listeners figure this out but he's afraid to spell it out explicitly. Instead, he says "immigrants are scapegoated for jobs robots are stealing!"--which is partially true, of course, but also partially false.
  8. We are The New Romans.

    • Replies: @SebastianX1/9
    What an insult to Rome! America did nothing but spread the virus of pop culture, Hollywood, vulgarity and cultural trash across the world. Rome civilized what it touched; America degraded everything. Rome built the infrastructure of the West; America carpet bombed the world, either literally or through blackmail to impose its genocidal cultural agenda. Don't flatter yourself. Rome indeed!
  9. Glubb’s “Fate of Empires” reckons an average 250 year lifespan for empires

    http://thegreatstory.org/glubb.pdf

    (only 25 pages)

    if you take UK-US as a kind of twofer empire that would sort of fit.

    i think the underlying mechanism is some nation develops a competitive advantage and expands as an empire under a native martial elite until they over-extend and start losing money at which point they generate or attract a banking mafia to cook the books who eventually takeover and then destroy the empire from within.

    rinse and repeat.

    solution: don’t over extend, don’t allow a banking mafia

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The US largely gathered strength and camaraderie from it's founding through the 1950's, with some obvious missteps along the way (The Civil War and Reconstruction being the obvious ones, and the civil unrest of the early 20th century being another, this included gangland warfare, bloody labor disputes, and terrorism by anarchists and communists).

    But since circa 1960, it's been a gradual downhill slide.

    - The Civil Rights act of 1964 was very divisive, and we still have lingering bitterness from it
    - Vietnam was hated by a lot of people
    - Reaganomics helped create another Gilded Age
    - Reagan and Clinton oversaw mass incarceration
    - The government has since the 80's done a poor job of protecting the first amendment (campus speech codes began in the late 80's, and as far as I know the government has never went to great lengths to prosecute campus officials who forbid free speech).
    - Off-shoring of increasing amounts of industry started in the 60's-80's, then dramatically increased after NAFTA was implemented in 1993
    - The neo-cons deceived America into unnecessary and toxic wars under GW Bush.
    - Obama bailed out the big banks that have warped our economy and defrauded many people.
    - Trump is, if anything, bringing America even closer to Israel and Saudi Arabia than previous presidents did (if that's possible). Most Americans do not have a flattering opinion of both countries.

    So yes, if you suppose that America's "empire" began with it's founding (or given our ties to the Brit Empire, one could say that our "empire" is an extension of Britain and thus began with the arrival of the English in America), we are now over 200 years into it. So it would seem that we aren't too far away from the collapse occuring; the frightening number of Americans who are pro-invader is in itself very strong proof that we can't sustain much longer (compare this sentiment to the increasing nativism of the Progressive and New Deal era).
  10. The US had a great run.

    Yep, but all good things come to an end.

    • Agree: Talha
  11. Perhaps what is really happening is that since Obama took office, America has seen a surge in partisanship and division. And this is causing many Americans to no longer have any interest in looking out for each other. So a lot of Americans feel so much animosity and contempt for each other that it raises the reputation of immigrants.

    It’s also quite clear that the modern Left absolutely loathes the traditional white lower middle class majority population of historically white countries, thinks that they are ungrateful dinosaurs who need to go extinct. And this viewpoint has been spread primarily by upper class, and wannabe upper class, white liberals (as per countless studies which indicate that well-educated white liberals are the most ideologically extreme demographic, exceeding even “minorities” on how far to the SJW Left they are).

    So being “pro-immigrant” is essentially the same thing as being anti-lower class white native. This attitude basically did not exist before Obama was in office, since people of all strata in the past placed the needs of Americans first.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I just used up my [AGREE/DISAGREE/LOL/TROLL], but this is about what I was going to write. The ctrl-left wants to destroy the country, and it is a much bigger and emboldened part of the left than it was even a decade ago. They do not care about the factors in Oblivion's graph above, since they have no interest in the health of the traditional United States.

    That, along with just plain demographics (more immigrants and their children), explains the blue line, at least. The red line's going from the low 50's in % to 35% is even worse than demographic changes would suggest. That's pretty bad.

    Indeed, this is an important graph. We may be way beyond the tipping point, but then I don't trust polls so much, as you may know.

    Thanks again for starting the y-axis at ZERO, A.E.!

    , @dfordoom

    So being “pro-immigrant” is essentially the same thing as being anti-lower class white native.
     
    Yes. An important point.

    Again it gets back to the unavoidable truth that we are in the middle of a very nasty class war, and the upper and upper-middle classes are the aggressors.
  12. Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech. Those who express “taboo” opinions are often punished very harshly. So people are more hesistant to speak their minds. When pollsters ask them their thoughts, Americans often give the socially desirable answer to avoid getting into “trouble.”

    Support for cutting immigration has likely been stable (or even increased), but people fear the consequences of saying what they really think.

    People only feel truly secure in the ballot box. Which is why Trump became the nominee and remains popular.

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump’s various comments would’ve resulted in his support falling. Instead, after he made his latest controversial comments, his support actually increased.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Feryl

    Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech.
     
    PC first became a major problem in the late 80's; that's what prompted all the discussion of "PC" in the early 90's (in the 1980's, people did not have a term to describe the growing movement to encourage "sensitivity).

    But yes, it's gotten much worse since Obama was in office. I think electing a black guy president was seen as proof that we had made a certain level of "progress", which has made liberals extremely nervous of anyone who displays attitudes that are considered to be hostile toward modern liberalism. In other words: we've come to a certain point, and we can't accept anything that might lead us to going backwards.
    , @dfordoom

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump’s various comments would’ve resulted in his support falling.
     
    But Trump is pro-immigration. This is the guy who wants more immigration than ever before. He's not just pro-immigration, he's a pro-immigration zealot.

    His support remains strong because cucks are A-OK with being replaced as long as they get replaced legally.
    , @LondonBob
    Richard Baris finds this is his biggest problem phone polling, you have to tease their true opinion out, the internet is more accurate.

    The US is more polarised so lefties say they support immigration now to prove their credentials, the other issue is that the US doesn't have enough whites to sustain high support levels for restrictionism.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That's a glass-half-full reading of the situation. My glass-half-empty reading is that immigration restrictionism was low-hanging fruit that other pols could've picked up and run with after 2001, but no Republicans would pick it because of fear from donors and media. Trump finally walked up and grabbed the fruit just as it was being raised up out of reach.
  13. @notanon
    Glubb's "Fate of Empires" reckons an average 250 year lifespan for empires

    http://thegreatstory.org/glubb.pdf

    (only 25 pages)

    if you take UK-US as a kind of twofer empire that would sort of fit.

    i think the underlying mechanism is some nation develops a competitive advantage and expands as an empire under a native martial elite until they over-extend and start losing money at which point they generate or attract a banking mafia to cook the books who eventually takeover and then destroy the empire from within.

    rinse and repeat.

    solution: don't over extend, don't allow a banking mafia

    The US largely gathered strength and camaraderie from it’s founding through the 1950’s, with some obvious missteps along the way (The Civil War and Reconstruction being the obvious ones, and the civil unrest of the early 20th century being another, this included gangland warfare, bloody labor disputes, and terrorism by anarchists and communists).

    But since circa 1960, it’s been a gradual downhill slide.

    – The Civil Rights act of 1964 was very divisive, and we still have lingering bitterness from it
    – Vietnam was hated by a lot of people
    – Reaganomics helped create another Gilded Age
    – Reagan and Clinton oversaw mass incarceration
    – The government has since the 80’s done a poor job of protecting the first amendment (campus speech codes began in the late 80’s, and as far as I know the government has never went to great lengths to prosecute campus officials who forbid free speech).
    – Off-shoring of increasing amounts of industry started in the 60’s-80’s, then dramatically increased after NAFTA was implemented in 1993
    – The neo-cons deceived America into unnecessary and toxic wars under GW Bush.
    – Obama bailed out the big banks that have warped our economy and defrauded many people.
    – Trump is, if anything, bringing America even closer to Israel and Saudi Arabia than previous presidents did (if that’s possible). Most Americans do not have a flattering opinion of both countries.

    So yes, if you suppose that America’s “empire” began with it’s founding (or given our ties to the Brit Empire, one could say that our “empire” is an extension of Britain and thus began with the arrival of the English in America), we are now over 200 years into it. So it would seem that we aren’t too far away from the collapse occuring; the frightening number of Americans who are pro-invader is in itself very strong proof that we can’t sustain much longer (compare this sentiment to the increasing nativism of the Progressive and New Deal era).

    • Replies: @Pretzel Yardstick
    A good summation of what's gone wrong politically. But, as the current saying has it, politics is downstream from culture. Our culture has been warped by idiocracy and perversion.

    It's hard to foresee the dawn at midnight. But I won't give in to despair. Not yet.
  14. @JohnnyWalker123
    Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech. Those who express "taboo" opinions are often punished very harshly. So people are more hesistant to speak their minds. When pollsters ask them their thoughts, Americans often give the socially desirable answer to avoid getting into "trouble."

    Support for cutting immigration has likely been stable (or even increased), but people fear the consequences of saying what they really think.

    People only feel truly secure in the ballot box. Which is why Trump became the nominee and remains popular.

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump's various comments would've resulted in his support falling. Instead, after he made his latest controversial comments, his support actually increased.

    Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech.

    PC first became a major problem in the late 80’s; that’s what prompted all the discussion of “PC” in the early 90’s (in the 1980’s, people did not have a term to describe the growing movement to encourage “sensitivity).

    But yes, it’s gotten much worse since Obama was in office. I think electing a black guy president was seen as proof that we had made a certain level of “progress”, which has made liberals extremely nervous of anyone who displays attitudes that are considered to be hostile toward modern liberalism. In other words: we’ve come to a certain point, and we can’t accept anything that might lead us to going backwards.

    • Replies: @216
    As the Europeans have been coerced into convergence with the US on economic policy, so will the US be coerced into social policy convergence.

    That's bad news for us; German guilt and German-style hate speech laws, with at least partially Germanic efficiency.
  15. @Feryl

    Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech.
     
    PC first became a major problem in the late 80's; that's what prompted all the discussion of "PC" in the early 90's (in the 1980's, people did not have a term to describe the growing movement to encourage "sensitivity).

    But yes, it's gotten much worse since Obama was in office. I think electing a black guy president was seen as proof that we had made a certain level of "progress", which has made liberals extremely nervous of anyone who displays attitudes that are considered to be hostile toward modern liberalism. In other words: we've come to a certain point, and we can't accept anything that might lead us to going backwards.

    As the Europeans have been coerced into convergence with the US on economic policy, so will the US be coerced into social policy convergence.

    That’s bad news for us; German guilt and German-style hate speech laws, with at least partially Germanic efficiency.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Gee, who thought that corporate globalism could ever be a threat to Free Speech, huh?

    Where I've always diverged from the Reagan Right is in not believing, as they do, that academic Marxists and big gov. are entirely responsible for stifling speech and dissent. Since the 70's it's been apparent that Corporate America will buckle to every latest PC development lest they "offend" a possible customer.

    William Domhoff (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/), who has studied "elite" dynamics in America since the 70's, has in his research been able to gather the evidence that Corporate America essentially put up zero resistance to affirmative action and women's lib, once these ideas went mainstream in the 70's. Whereas market de-regulation and union-breaking gathered steam after 1970.
  16. Politics is downstream from Culture.

    If the rich shitpokes that supposedly are behind the Conservative movement don’t get off their asses and start buying the influencers of our Culture, then all the politickin’ in the world isn’t going to do a damned bit of good.

    Of course, all too many of the rich shitpokes are Perfectly Okay with illegal immigration and coddling hostile sub-communities of aggrieved minorities.

    I guess their idea is that they’ll be too rich for their foreign flunkies to rape, murder or rob…

  17. @Feryl
    Perhaps what is really happening is that since Obama took office, America has seen a surge in partisanship and division. And this is causing many Americans to no longer have any interest in looking out for each other. So a lot of Americans feel so much animosity and contempt for each other that it raises the reputation of immigrants.

    It's also quite clear that the modern Left absolutely loathes the traditional white lower middle class majority population of historically white countries, thinks that they are ungrateful dinosaurs who need to go extinct. And this viewpoint has been spread primarily by upper class, and wannabe upper class, white liberals (as per countless studies which indicate that well-educated white liberals are the most ideologically extreme demographic, exceeding even "minorities" on how far to the SJW Left they are).

    So being "pro-immigrant" is essentially the same thing as being anti-lower class white native. This attitude basically did not exist before Obama was in office, since people of all strata in the past placed the needs of Americans first.

    I just used up my [AGREE/DISAGREE/LOL/TROLL], but this is about what I was going to write. The ctrl-left wants to destroy the country, and it is a much bigger and emboldened part of the left than it was even a decade ago. They do not care about the factors in Oblivion’s graph above, since they have no interest in the health of the traditional United States.

    That, along with just plain demographics (more immigrants and their children), explains the blue line, at least. The red line’s going from the low 50’s in % to 35% is even worse than demographic changes would suggest. That’s pretty bad.

    Indeed, this is an important graph. We may be way beyond the tipping point, but then I don’t trust polls so much, as you may know.

    Thanks again for starting the y-axis at ZERO, A.E.!

  18. Hmmmmm . . . several years ago there was a bill proposed by the then called “gang of eight” the public response was fairly clear and while they an that bill remain in the wings, i don’t think the mood of the country has changed much on immigration. If anything more than likely it is even more restrictionist.

    The current problem is staying keen to how manipulative polling data presents the issues via the questions they ask.

    ——————————————-

    “If the rich . . . that supposedly are behind the Conservative . . .”

    Conservative is just not what it used to be.

    • Replies: @Bilgeman
    "Conservative is just not what it used to be."

    Quite so.

    William F. Buckley was rather a bore...which was why his lot in life was to sit on "Firing Line" and sniff his disapproval as the vulgar Marxist hordes remade the world outside his quaint little studio.

    He may have been Hell on Wheels to cite at Faculty Lounge arguments, but out on the streets?
  19. We did have a good run, and spilt milk maybe but it didn’t have to be this way.

  20. @Oblivionrecurs
    The good news

    Overall, these findings provide more support for theories emphasizing the role of stable predispositions than information or environmental factors. While voters do change their mind on immigration in the short-term, they often revert back to their initial position over time

    http://magaimg.net/img/8muq.jpg

    Still worth noting no one but white Rep/Indies and Asian GOP is against illegal immigration

    http://magaimg.net/img/8mut.jpg

    Still worth noting no one but white Rep/Indies and Asian GOP is against illegal immigration

    White Rep-Dem and Asian Rep-Dem gaps are the biggest on crime & security and economy & society, respectively (though Asian Rep-Ind gap is greater than the white Rep-Dem gap along the crime & security axis).

    Black and Hispanic Rep-Dem gaps are much smaller, esp. on the economy & society axis.

  21. A decade ago, immigration restriction was a majority position in the US. It no longer even commands a plurality. If the Great Awokening doesn’t burn itself out in the next couple of years, increasing immigration will be more popular than decreasing it a mere twenty years after decreasing immigration had more than five times the support that increasing it did.

    On the other hand, the intensity against immigration is much higher today even though held by a smaller fraction. In politics, intensity often trumps numbers.

    We need an attractive, articulate figurehead to crystallize that opposition, someone who will make it possible to hold that view in public for the masses, someone after the transitional figure that Trump is.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Feryl
    In the Progressive era (circa 1900-1930), we had many prominent individuals publicly inveighing against immigrants for contributing to crime, over-crowding, and over all cultural dissolution. The public grew so fed up with the chaos that even some of the cuckier elites realized it was in their best interest to halt immigration, which we did in 1924 with relatively little fuss (in comparison to the ideological conflict that beset us during the Civil War, and is currently plaguing us right now).

    I just don't foresee our leadership being able to reach a consensus that will enhance the social and political security of America, even if many people want it as desperately as they now do.
  22. “The US had a great run.”

    about sums it up.

    interesting side thought: when reparations hits, and it will, immigration of white people might drop. finally, immigration of one group will voluntarily decline.

    who wants to set foot on US soil and immediately begin paying reparations.

  23. this is also why the often cited date of 2042 for europeans becoming a minority in the US is not correct. once the next democrat president takes office, that border will become a flood. legal immigration will be ramped up. and we’ll be swamped by 2030.

    the day Trump leaves office, the United States ends.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    the day Trump leaves office, the United States ends.
     
    Depends who succeeds him.  What do you think of Carlson in 2024?
  24. @216
    As the Europeans have been coerced into convergence with the US on economic policy, so will the US be coerced into social policy convergence.

    That's bad news for us; German guilt and German-style hate speech laws, with at least partially Germanic efficiency.

    Gee, who thought that corporate globalism could ever be a threat to Free Speech, huh?

    Where I’ve always diverged from the Reagan Right is in not believing, as they do, that academic Marxists and big gov. are entirely responsible for stifling speech and dissent. Since the 70’s it’s been apparent that Corporate America will buckle to every latest PC development lest they “offend” a possible customer.

    William Domhoff (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/), who has studied “elite” dynamics in America since the 70’s, has in his research been able to gather the evidence that Corporate America essentially put up zero resistance to affirmative action and women’s lib, once these ideas went mainstream in the 70’s. Whereas market de-regulation and union-breaking gathered steam after 1970.

    • Replies: @216
    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel "Coach Red Pill" had a good video on this.

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.

    So Woke is both a way to market, reduce labor costs, and deter lawsuits. Additionally, it provides the "cheap grace" versus the much more expensive "going green". This is what happened in the recent Amazon 1-day strike, the white collar employees protesting were concerned with getting the company to stop taking DoD contracts and committ to more environmentalism.

    Its accepted wisdom that racial diversity reduces indicence of unionization and effectiveness of a union. I'm not sure if gender diversity has the same effect.
    , @dfordoom

    Where I’ve always diverged from the Reagan Right is in not believing, as they do, that academic Marxists and big gov. are entirely responsible for stifling speech and dissent. Since the 70’s it’s been apparent that Corporate America will buckle to every latest PC development lest they “offend” a possible customer.
     
    I agree but I'd go further. Corporate America has not buckled to pressure. Corporate America has been the driving force behind these destructive developments.
  25. @Twinkie

    A decade ago, immigration restriction was a majority position in the US. It no longer even commands a plurality. If the Great Awokening doesn’t burn itself out in the next couple of years, increasing immigration will be more popular than decreasing it a mere twenty years after decreasing immigration had more than five times the support that increasing it did.
     
    On the other hand, the intensity against immigration is much higher today even though held by a smaller fraction. In politics, intensity often trumps numbers.

    We need an attractive, articulate figurehead to crystallize that opposition, someone who will make it possible to hold that view in public for the masses, someone after the transitional figure that Trump is.

    In the Progressive era (circa 1900-1930), we had many prominent individuals publicly inveighing against immigrants for contributing to crime, over-crowding, and over all cultural dissolution. The public grew so fed up with the chaos that even some of the cuckier elites realized it was in their best interest to halt immigration, which we did in 1924 with relatively little fuss (in comparison to the ideological conflict that beset us during the Civil War, and is currently plaguing us right now).

    I just don’t foresee our leadership being able to reach a consensus that will enhance the social and political security of America, even if many people want it as desperately as they now do.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    I'm sure the dozens of anarchist bombings along with the assassination of McKinley had something to do with it as well.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    It wasn't just the public getting fed up back 100 years ago. I wish I could easily find the VDare article on this (not sure exactly what keywords to use) - it related the story of how the elites of the early part of the 20th century got fed up with immigrants and their bombings and assassination (attempts?) on Presidents, etc. I'm sure a lot of the capitalist elites were well aware that some of the new crowd were pro-Communist too. It was time to shut it down, and they did it, with a signature by one of my favorite Presidents, "Silent Cal" Coolidge.
  26. @Feryl
    Gee, who thought that corporate globalism could ever be a threat to Free Speech, huh?

    Where I've always diverged from the Reagan Right is in not believing, as they do, that academic Marxists and big gov. are entirely responsible for stifling speech and dissent. Since the 70's it's been apparent that Corporate America will buckle to every latest PC development lest they "offend" a possible customer.

    William Domhoff (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/), who has studied "elite" dynamics in America since the 70's, has in his research been able to gather the evidence that Corporate America essentially put up zero resistance to affirmative action and women's lib, once these ideas went mainstream in the 70's. Whereas market de-regulation and union-breaking gathered steam after 1970.

    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel “Coach Red Pill” had a good video on this.

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.

    So Woke is both a way to market, reduce labor costs, and deter lawsuits. Additionally, it provides the “cheap grace” versus the much more expensive “going green”. This is what happened in the recent Amazon 1-day strike, the white collar employees protesting were concerned with getting the company to stop taking DoD contracts and committ to more environmentalism.

    Its accepted wisdom that racial diversity reduces indicence of unionization and effectiveness of a union. I’m not sure if gender diversity has the same effect.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Feryl
    What I always role my eyes about is the idea that Capital is lacking the balls to get what they want. Uh, hello, back in the early 20th century they literally shot labor activists!

    All variants of the Right (except, of course, the dissident post-Boomer Right) have historically made excuses for the business owner class, blaming big labor, big law, and big government for various ills, and taking big Capital off the hook.

    The evidence suggests that, save for some exceptionally peaceful periods (like most of the New Deal era), Capital tends to do whatever they feel is in the interests of stock/share holders, even if the public well-being is compromised. Around 1920, that included violent strike breaking. Around 1970, that included feminism. We can also tell that Capital will follow every dumb trend that comes down the pike, lest they not adapt to the cultural mores of the day.

    It would take a while for me to find the pertinent sections, but if you poke around on Domhoff's website there's lots of fascinating stuff about the give and take between the government, business, and labor. Labor historically is the red-headed step-child of the three, and only during times of unusually high public sentiment and elite cooperation is Labor granted all that many concessions. A major reason old-school Leftists refuse to accept the modern era as "Left-wing" is because Labor has experienced one set back after another since the late 70's.
    , @Feryl

    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel “Coach Red Pill” had a good video on this.
     
    Right, the evidence is overwhelming that the "private sector" at best conforms to the prevailing values of the day (even if they are destructive), and at worst, aggressively pushes destabilizing things before a lot of normies wish to have them. E.g., Americans actually were fairly trusting of banks in the 1970's, but by the late 70's it was becoming clear that many in the business sector wanted to de-regulate banking even though we'd suppressed massive booms and busts from the 1930's-70's.

    "The profit motive" is not culturally conservative or wholesome*. Regardless of what the "free-market" idolaters would have you believe. A society works best with a "mixed" approach that prioritizes to some degree fairness and equitable distribution of money, assets, and bargaining rights. Neither Reaganite union busting and merger happy crony capitalism nor pure communism is the way to go.

    *Making money should not come at the expense of ethics.
    , @Feryl

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.
     
    This also would've had the effect of getting a neutered workforce. Why? Women are less apt to fight for unions, and less apt to ask for a raise. They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.

    The private sector nurturing the "liberation" of women was, indeed, a great way to enhance profits. The turn towards women in the work-force has coincided with diminished wages, weakening unions, and the rise in value of many assets and living expenses, which "forces" Mom and Dad to work in order to be to afford a lot of things. Ironically, however, when men did most of the work that meant reduced consumerism and less competition, which kept things affordable. Think also of the demand for housing rising exponentially beginning in the 1970's due to all the suddenly single Silent and Boomer women who no longer shared housing with a man.

    So in the 70's, we suddenly had a massive wave of competition for jobs and housing between men and women. Wages go down, housing costs go up.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    Woke Capital is why this revolutionary cycle will be much more effective than the one which tore through the country in the late 60s-early 70s. After eight years of Obama the Federal government has been thoroughly penetrated by operatives of subversion. The DOJ is the most obvious example of this process. Woke Capital has also infected education and culture with its virus. We'll be lucky if we manage to avoid an authoritarian regime based on the Chinese (Google) model.
  27. @prime noticer
    this is also why the often cited date of 2042 for europeans becoming a minority in the US is not correct. once the next democrat president takes office, that border will become a flood. legal immigration will be ramped up. and we'll be swamped by 2030.

    the day Trump leaves office, the United States ends.

    the day Trump leaves office, the United States ends.

    Depends who succeeds him.  What do you think of Carlson in 2024?

  28. @Oblivionrecurs
    Traditional politics teaches us the that the populous won't stop growing left under a conservative President. Though i don't want to elect a Dem to test this theory

    Millennials should have gotten more liberal as they aged, but thanks to a lack of home ownership and marriage that hasn't happened.

    Non-Hispanic White Fertility is going to be in freefall soon. Gen Z places no importance in children

    Non-Hispanic White Fertility is going to be in freefall soon. Gen Z places no importance in children

    Meh. I can see it sort of going two ways.

    I’m quite impressed, the vast majority of white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships. I kind of see it as white retreat; as we are chased out of the media and basically everything else, we have nothing left but our families. We retreat and are kind of pressed into family formation because there is nothing else!

    However, you also have the climate strike crazies. I don’t know how that will turn out. It’s possible that the TFR will plummet due to that, but it certainly won’t be a disaster since the more sane-minded people will continue to produce babies.

    Maybe Canada is unique, I don’t know. (because it’s so boring to start with). But I’m not seeing any kind of impending white fertility disaster. It’s obviously still way too low (1.5) but it’s not going to plummet to East Asian levels.

    Even in the US, I went to trendy white areas and you see lots of young couples with a child. Maybe they’re delayed by 5 years but they’re still making babies.

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.
     
    Got any graphs for Canada by ethnic group?
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    My bias could be from living in Florida, particularly central, we've got a deadly combination of some of the nation's Highest Divorce rates, a very irreligious population, and some of the largest metros with the lowest % of white Millennials with degrees (51.3% of national white births where to degree holders, 29% to associates degrees or some college, 19.7% to high school or less)

    The largest fertility decline since 04 has been Hispanics. Which is easiest to have when you're the clear winner in fertility and still are

    Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 - below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.

    However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.
    , @Expletive Deleted

    white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships.
     
    have you quizzed them on their ideal mate choices?
    Would it by any chance be something like
    " 7ft tall bodybuilder handyman who runs his own business worth millions - oh and who can take time off to mind the kids, anytime I want to go and find myself on a trip to Europe/Africa with my girlfriends. On his yacht. " ???

    tl;dr if they weren't hanging out for an Apex Alpha (20%:80%) they'd already be married. 50% of guys are above average, but will never be good enough for her even if she looks like the back end of a bus and chews with her mouth open.
  29. This graph isn’t really important. White liberals and Dems are going radical. Republican base is radicalizing a bit but is mostly staying still. The country is also getting less white.

    It’s actually impressive that the level of support for restrictionism is so high. I don’t know why you’re blackpilled about this lol.

  30. Oh LOL. So 65 percent of the American populace are supportive of the current status quo, and do not wish to dismantle . Yikes

  31. @216
    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel "Coach Red Pill" had a good video on this.

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.

    So Woke is both a way to market, reduce labor costs, and deter lawsuits. Additionally, it provides the "cheap grace" versus the much more expensive "going green". This is what happened in the recent Amazon 1-day strike, the white collar employees protesting were concerned with getting the company to stop taking DoD contracts and committ to more environmentalism.

    Its accepted wisdom that racial diversity reduces indicence of unionization and effectiveness of a union. I'm not sure if gender diversity has the same effect.

    What I always role my eyes about is the idea that Capital is lacking the balls to get what they want. Uh, hello, back in the early 20th century they literally shot labor activists!

    All variants of the Right (except, of course, the dissident post-Boomer Right) have historically made excuses for the business owner class, blaming big labor, big law, and big government for various ills, and taking big Capital off the hook.

    The evidence suggests that, save for some exceptionally peaceful periods (like most of the New Deal era), Capital tends to do whatever they feel is in the interests of stock/share holders, even if the public well-being is compromised. Around 1920, that included violent strike breaking. Around 1970, that included feminism. We can also tell that Capital will follow every dumb trend that comes down the pike, lest they not adapt to the cultural mores of the day.

    It would take a while for me to find the pertinent sections, but if you poke around on Domhoff’s website there’s lots of fascinating stuff about the give and take between the government, business, and labor. Labor historically is the red-headed step-child of the three, and only during times of unusually high public sentiment and elite cooperation is Labor granted all that many concessions. A major reason old-school Leftists refuse to accept the modern era as “Left-wing” is because Labor has experienced one set back after another since the late 70’s.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    I am a boomer, and old school trade unionist. I worked as a business agent for over 30 years. What most people fail to understand is that union staff do essentially the same job as human resources departments, just for a different employer, with some different interests. Union members are conservative in many ways For example, they don't (or at least didn't) like change for the sake of change, they like predictability.
    We were always against immigration, legal or illegal. We understood that immigration produces an excess pool of labor, which reduced demand and therefore suppressed wages. What people mis-interpreted as "pro-immigrant" or "pro Black rights" was our requirement to defend all employees' rights under a collective agreement, which includes due process for discipline and dismissal. Union members are like citizens, all have the same rights under the law of the workplace - a collective agreement.
    We weren't anti-employer. There is no benefit to members to have a company move, go bankrupt or be in financial difficulty. The real breakdown in relations started with the offshoring of jobs in the 70s, and the new concept of "Human Resources", which treats employees like they can be replaced by one waiting on a shelf, replacing Personnel Departments, who dealt with employees as people. Discussions and consultation became diktats. Employee loyalty disappeared as employees discovered the change.

    Funny how the "new" left and "new" trade unionists forget all about Cesar Chavez sending his members, mostly immigrants, out to patrol the border for illegal aliens. They understood the consequences of illegal immigration. Apparently today's union members don't.

  32. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Non-Hispanic White Fertility is going to be in freefall soon. Gen Z places no importance in children
     
    Meh. I can see it sort of going two ways.

    I'm quite impressed, the vast majority of white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships. I kind of see it as white retreat; as we are chased out of the media and basically everything else, we have nothing left but our families. We retreat and are kind of pressed into family formation because there is nothing else!

    However, you also have the climate strike crazies. I don't know how that will turn out. It's possible that the TFR will plummet due to that, but it certainly won't be a disaster since the more sane-minded people will continue to produce babies.

    Maybe Canada is unique, I don't know. (because it's so boring to start with). But I'm not seeing any kind of impending white fertility disaster. It's obviously still way too low (1.5) but it's not going to plummet to East Asian levels.

    Even in the US, I went to trendy white areas and you see lots of young couples with a child. Maybe they're delayed by 5 years but they're still making babies.

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.

    Got any graphs for Canada by ethnic group?

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I don't have anything based on ethnic groups. However, I calculated TFR for Ontario. The whiter the health region, the higher the TFR. Of course, a TFR of 1.6 vs 1.4 makes really no difference when there's hundreds of thousands of non white immigrants flooding in per year.

    TFR by white% health region ontario 2017
     
    You can also look at the BC Total Fertility rates by zone, and basically greater Vancouver is very low, while the mountains and other places are higher.
  33. anonymous[252] • Disclaimer says:
    @Feryl
    In the Progressive era (circa 1900-1930), we had many prominent individuals publicly inveighing against immigrants for contributing to crime, over-crowding, and over all cultural dissolution. The public grew so fed up with the chaos that even some of the cuckier elites realized it was in their best interest to halt immigration, which we did in 1924 with relatively little fuss (in comparison to the ideological conflict that beset us during the Civil War, and is currently plaguing us right now).

    I just don't foresee our leadership being able to reach a consensus that will enhance the social and political security of America, even if many people want it as desperately as they now do.

    I’m sure the dozens of anarchist bombings along with the assassination of McKinley had something to do with it as well.

  34. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Non-Hispanic White Fertility is going to be in freefall soon. Gen Z places no importance in children
     
    Meh. I can see it sort of going two ways.

    I'm quite impressed, the vast majority of white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships. I kind of see it as white retreat; as we are chased out of the media and basically everything else, we have nothing left but our families. We retreat and are kind of pressed into family formation because there is nothing else!

    However, you also have the climate strike crazies. I don't know how that will turn out. It's possible that the TFR will plummet due to that, but it certainly won't be a disaster since the more sane-minded people will continue to produce babies.

    Maybe Canada is unique, I don't know. (because it's so boring to start with). But I'm not seeing any kind of impending white fertility disaster. It's obviously still way too low (1.5) but it's not going to plummet to East Asian levels.

    Even in the US, I went to trendy white areas and you see lots of young couples with a child. Maybe they're delayed by 5 years but they're still making babies.

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.

    My bias could be from living in Florida, particularly central, we’ve got a deadly combination of some of the nation’s Highest Divorce rates, a very irreligious population, and some of the largest metros with the lowest % of white Millennials with degrees (51.3% of national white births where to degree holders, 29% to associates degrees or some college, 19.7% to high school or less)

    The largest fertility decline since 04 has been Hispanics. Which is easiest to have when you’re the clear winner in fertility and still are

    Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 – below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.

    However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 – below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.

    However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.
     
    Something has got to be done about the cost of living. Obviously, immigration is the major factor, but I wonder if the anti-teleworking boomer die-off will result in more opportunities for couples to live cheaply on one income in lower COL areas.
  35. @216
    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel "Coach Red Pill" had a good video on this.

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.

    So Woke is both a way to market, reduce labor costs, and deter lawsuits. Additionally, it provides the "cheap grace" versus the much more expensive "going green". This is what happened in the recent Amazon 1-day strike, the white collar employees protesting were concerned with getting the company to stop taking DoD contracts and committ to more environmentalism.

    Its accepted wisdom that racial diversity reduces indicence of unionization and effectiveness of a union. I'm not sure if gender diversity has the same effect.

    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel “Coach Red Pill” had a good video on this.

    Right, the evidence is overwhelming that the “private sector” at best conforms to the prevailing values of the day (even if they are destructive), and at worst, aggressively pushes destabilizing things before a lot of normies wish to have them. E.g., Americans actually were fairly trusting of banks in the 1970’s, but by the late 70’s it was becoming clear that many in the business sector wanted to de-regulate banking even though we’d suppressed massive booms and busts from the 1930’s-70’s.

    “The profit motive” is not culturally conservative or wholesome*. Regardless of what the “free-market” idolaters would have you believe. A society works best with a “mixed” approach that prioritizes to some degree fairness and equitable distribution of money, assets, and bargaining rights. Neither Reaganite union busting and merger happy crony capitalism nor pure communism is the way to go.

    *Making money should not come at the expense of ethics.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    See, this is where we "diverge" in views. I'm getting to the bottom of it now. Your definition of capitalism and the private sector, Feryl, appears to be Big Business. That is just wrong. It's not just that modern Big Business has government in it's pocket, so is not capitalist any more. It's also that the private sector includes small business, and going back a few decades, small business was the bulk of it, and the driver of the amazing American economy of yesteryear.

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these "capitalists" of the "private sector" that has been ruining the nation? Every time you bring this weird dichotomy that there is just Big Business vs. Socialism, you bring up only the financial sector. That is made up of the worst of Big Business, as they are part of the F.I.R.E. "industries" that are not actually industries by definition, as they don't do anything productive.

    If I substitute "Big Business" for "business" anytime I see it in your comments, they make much more sense.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Regulatory capture is important here. So are the prohibitive nature of compliance costs. Sarbox is something I'm intimately familiar with. It has been great for large caps, bad for small caps, and terrible for small private companies.
  36. @BengaliCanadianDude

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.
     
    Got any graphs for Canada by ethnic group?

    I don’t have anything based on ethnic groups. However, I calculated TFR for Ontario. The whiter the health region, the higher the TFR. Of course, a TFR of 1.6 vs 1.4 makes really no difference when there’s hundreds of thousands of non white immigrants flooding in per year.

    TFR by white% health region ontario 2017

    You can also look at the BC Total Fertility rates by zone, and basically greater Vancouver is very low, while the mountains and other places are higher.

  37. @216
    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel "Coach Red Pill" had a good video on this.

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.

    So Woke is both a way to market, reduce labor costs, and deter lawsuits. Additionally, it provides the "cheap grace" versus the much more expensive "going green". This is what happened in the recent Amazon 1-day strike, the white collar employees protesting were concerned with getting the company to stop taking DoD contracts and committ to more environmentalism.

    Its accepted wisdom that racial diversity reduces indicence of unionization and effectiveness of a union. I'm not sure if gender diversity has the same effect.

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.

    This also would’ve had the effect of getting a neutered workforce. Why? Women are less apt to fight for unions, and less apt to ask for a raise. They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.

    The private sector nurturing the “liberation” of women was, indeed, a great way to enhance profits. The turn towards women in the work-force has coincided with diminished wages, weakening unions, and the rise in value of many assets and living expenses, which “forces” Mom and Dad to work in order to be to afford a lot of things. Ironically, however, when men did most of the work that meant reduced consumerism and less competition, which kept things affordable. Think also of the demand for housing rising exponentially beginning in the 1970’s due to all the suddenly single Silent and Boomer women who no longer shared housing with a man.

    So in the 70’s, we suddenly had a massive wave of competition for jobs and housing between men and women. Wages go down, housing costs go up.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    I strongly suspect they've forced women on the military for similar reasons: neutered, pliant, coup-proved force which will (in the Establishment's minds at least) remain combat effective owing to overwhelming technological advantage. Except, apparently that advantage isn't so overwhelming these days after all. Whoops.
    , @216

    This also would’ve had the effect of getting a neutered workforce. Why? Women are less apt to fight for unions, and less apt to ask for a raise. They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.
     
    I had some reservations about saying that women were resistant to unionization, because there was a large amount of unionization in the textile industry after something called the "Triangle Fire" where a large number of women died. Textiles was historically almost all female, presumably for pliability.

    It would seem to me that the more "collective" nature of women would incline them more, not less toward unionization. But the aforesaid experience of Walton would tend to discount this, though otoh he was starting out with rural Southern women.

    A long-term weakness of the Right is its bases attraction to middle-class striving. When the Right doesn't call the cultural shots, well...we end up with Turning Point.
    , @Rosie

    They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.
     
    I've been thinking about some discussions we've had on this site about sexbots and sleep deprivation. 216 was wondering how feminists would rationalize any objection to the coming of the Stepford Wives. I think that is the answer: Sexbots don't need sleep and don't get cranky from lack thereof, that is, they are more "pliable."

    The more I think about it, that is rather problematic. I don't claim to know how many men would avail themselves of this technology. I am optimistic that it would be relatively few.
  38. @Feryl

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.
     
    This also would've had the effect of getting a neutered workforce. Why? Women are less apt to fight for unions, and less apt to ask for a raise. They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.

    The private sector nurturing the "liberation" of women was, indeed, a great way to enhance profits. The turn towards women in the work-force has coincided with diminished wages, weakening unions, and the rise in value of many assets and living expenses, which "forces" Mom and Dad to work in order to be to afford a lot of things. Ironically, however, when men did most of the work that meant reduced consumerism and less competition, which kept things affordable. Think also of the demand for housing rising exponentially beginning in the 1970's due to all the suddenly single Silent and Boomer women who no longer shared housing with a man.

    So in the 70's, we suddenly had a massive wave of competition for jobs and housing between men and women. Wages go down, housing costs go up.

    I strongly suspect they’ve forced women on the military for similar reasons: neutered, pliant, coup-proved force which will (in the Establishment’s minds at least) remain combat effective owing to overwhelming technological advantage. Except, apparently that advantage isn’t so overwhelming these days after all. Whoops.

  39. The shift is almost entirely explained by Democrats becoming more anti-restriction. (In case anybody was wondering.)

    On the other hand, even if there was still broad support for lower immigration levels, would it matter? Public policy on immigration at least in the U.S. is driven by elite opinion, not public opinion. Even when there was no desire to increase immigration (Gallup in the mid-1960s suggested that only 6-7% wanted to increase immigration) it got increased. Similarly when there was a desire to reduce it (in the early 1990s 65% wanted it decreased) it stayed the same. (See the link for the poll data.) Elite opinion prevailed over public opinion in both cases.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    When there was broad opposition to it, we could at least hold the legal line. They tried and tried to pass amnesties but they never could get them through congress. With a (D) in the WH in 2021, even if the GOP marginally holds onto the Senate, open borders will be legislatively written into official existence.
  40. @Feryl
    What I always role my eyes about is the idea that Capital is lacking the balls to get what they want. Uh, hello, back in the early 20th century they literally shot labor activists!

    All variants of the Right (except, of course, the dissident post-Boomer Right) have historically made excuses for the business owner class, blaming big labor, big law, and big government for various ills, and taking big Capital off the hook.

    The evidence suggests that, save for some exceptionally peaceful periods (like most of the New Deal era), Capital tends to do whatever they feel is in the interests of stock/share holders, even if the public well-being is compromised. Around 1920, that included violent strike breaking. Around 1970, that included feminism. We can also tell that Capital will follow every dumb trend that comes down the pike, lest they not adapt to the cultural mores of the day.

    It would take a while for me to find the pertinent sections, but if you poke around on Domhoff's website there's lots of fascinating stuff about the give and take between the government, business, and labor. Labor historically is the red-headed step-child of the three, and only during times of unusually high public sentiment and elite cooperation is Labor granted all that many concessions. A major reason old-school Leftists refuse to accept the modern era as "Left-wing" is because Labor has experienced one set back after another since the late 70's.

    I am a boomer, and old school trade unionist. I worked as a business agent for over 30 years. What most people fail to understand is that union staff do essentially the same job as human resources departments, just for a different employer, with some different interests. Union members are conservative in many ways For example, they don’t (or at least didn’t) like change for the sake of change, they like predictability.
    We were always against immigration, legal or illegal. We understood that immigration produces an excess pool of labor, which reduced demand and therefore suppressed wages. What people mis-interpreted as “pro-immigrant” or “pro Black rights” was our requirement to defend all employees’ rights under a collective agreement, which includes due process for discipline and dismissal. Union members are like citizens, all have the same rights under the law of the workplace – a collective agreement.
    We weren’t anti-employer. There is no benefit to members to have a company move, go bankrupt or be in financial difficulty. The real breakdown in relations started with the offshoring of jobs in the 70s, and the new concept of “Human Resources”, which treats employees like they can be replaced by one waiting on a shelf, replacing Personnel Departments, who dealt with employees as people. Discussions and consultation became diktats. Employee loyalty disappeared as employees discovered the change.

    Funny how the “new” left and “new” trade unionists forget all about Cesar Chavez sending his members, mostly immigrants, out to patrol the border for illegal aliens. They understood the consequences of illegal immigration. Apparently today’s union members don’t.

    • Replies: @216
    In the US there is no practice, let alone legal requirement, that workers are represented on the board of directors. (Interestingly, some blue states are requiring female representation, but not worker)

    So in this country management and labor have tended to "go to the mattresses" during many labor disputes that reach a strike.

    In many ways we should be surprised there aren't more strikes, at least among the lower-income workers. We can tie that in part to high-debt and an inability to miss even a single day's worth of pay; additionally to rapid turnover.
    , @WorkingClass
    We went from customers to consumers. From personnel to human resources. From citizens to deplorables. Our younger countrymen know nothing of dignity. Nothing of prosperity. They will never own anything.

    Saker has a piece up in which he postulates that what he calls the Anglo/Zionist Empire is the last European empire. Not the latest. The last. Western Imperialism began according to Saker with the First Crusade. Thus, what is now dying is a thousand years old. Today's so called left wants to destroy something already dying of natural causes. Entropy. Old age.

    I too am a former Union Man. All that remains standing between the working classes and eternal serfdom under Global Capitalism is Westphalia. We must become Nationalists.
  41. I don’t pay much attention to these polls. The average American knows little about immigration numbers and laws. They just parrot back what they see in the media. They need to see different narratives.

  42. @Feryl

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.
     
    This also would've had the effect of getting a neutered workforce. Why? Women are less apt to fight for unions, and less apt to ask for a raise. They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.

    The private sector nurturing the "liberation" of women was, indeed, a great way to enhance profits. The turn towards women in the work-force has coincided with diminished wages, weakening unions, and the rise in value of many assets and living expenses, which "forces" Mom and Dad to work in order to be to afford a lot of things. Ironically, however, when men did most of the work that meant reduced consumerism and less competition, which kept things affordable. Think also of the demand for housing rising exponentially beginning in the 1970's due to all the suddenly single Silent and Boomer women who no longer shared housing with a man.

    So in the 70's, we suddenly had a massive wave of competition for jobs and housing between men and women. Wages go down, housing costs go up.

    This also would’ve had the effect of getting a neutered workforce. Why? Women are less apt to fight for unions, and less apt to ask for a raise. They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.

    I had some reservations about saying that women were resistant to unionization, because there was a large amount of unionization in the textile industry after something called the “Triangle Fire” where a large number of women died. Textiles was historically almost all female, presumably for pliability.

    It would seem to me that the more “collective” nature of women would incline them more, not less toward unionization. But the aforesaid experience of Walton would tend to discount this, though otoh he was starting out with rural Southern women.

    A long-term weakness of the Right is its bases attraction to middle-class striving. When the Right doesn’t call the cultural shots, well…we end up with Turning Point.

  43. @Curmudgeon
    I am a boomer, and old school trade unionist. I worked as a business agent for over 30 years. What most people fail to understand is that union staff do essentially the same job as human resources departments, just for a different employer, with some different interests. Union members are conservative in many ways For example, they don't (or at least didn't) like change for the sake of change, they like predictability.
    We were always against immigration, legal or illegal. We understood that immigration produces an excess pool of labor, which reduced demand and therefore suppressed wages. What people mis-interpreted as "pro-immigrant" or "pro Black rights" was our requirement to defend all employees' rights under a collective agreement, which includes due process for discipline and dismissal. Union members are like citizens, all have the same rights under the law of the workplace - a collective agreement.
    We weren't anti-employer. There is no benefit to members to have a company move, go bankrupt or be in financial difficulty. The real breakdown in relations started with the offshoring of jobs in the 70s, and the new concept of "Human Resources", which treats employees like they can be replaced by one waiting on a shelf, replacing Personnel Departments, who dealt with employees as people. Discussions and consultation became diktats. Employee loyalty disappeared as employees discovered the change.

    Funny how the "new" left and "new" trade unionists forget all about Cesar Chavez sending his members, mostly immigrants, out to patrol the border for illegal aliens. They understood the consequences of illegal immigration. Apparently today's union members don't.

    In the US there is no practice, let alone legal requirement, that workers are represented on the board of directors. (Interestingly, some blue states are requiring female representation, but not worker)

    So in this country management and labor have tended to “go to the mattresses” during many labor disputes that reach a strike.

    In many ways we should be surprised there aren’t more strikes, at least among the lower-income workers. We can tie that in part to high-debt and an inability to miss even a single day’s worth of pay; additionally to rapid turnover.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    (Interestingly, some blue states are requiring female representation, but not worker)
     
    My surmise is that greater "female" (I really do hate that word) representation will redound to the workers' benefit. It certainly couldn't get any worse.
  44. The US had a great run

    The best country, all things considered, in the last 200 years. Though the last 20 have been pretty disastrous. All success breeds jealousy and parasites. Unfortunately the US could not shield itself from the (((latter))), as its power got redirected towards Israel’s goals abroad and domestically the historic majority were diluted by third worlders and subjected to endless racism and demonisation.

    I suppose my only surprise is how gently the white majority went along with it all.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    The white majority conflates cowardice with virtue.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    It is surprising, but sort of understandable.

    Whites went from the great depression, to world war 2, to unimaginable levels of wealth within 20 years. We got soft. Nobody would have pulled bussing shit in the 1930s because whites were hardscrabble and had nothing to lose. Our (((opponents))) were also very sneaky but at the end of the day, the vast majority of whites chose to believe those lies.

    Alot of white people are perfectly happy with how things are going, even today.

    I do believe the situation for whites will actually improve as we become more marginalized. We have been uncontested, and have not struggled, for too long. It's made us weak.
  45. @Thulean Friend

    The US had a great run
     
    The best country, all things considered, in the last 200 years. Though the last 20 have been pretty disastrous. All success breeds jealousy and parasites. Unfortunately the US could not shield itself from the (((latter))), as its power got redirected towards Israel's goals abroad and domestically the historic majority were diluted by third worlders and subjected to endless racism and demonisation.

    I suppose my only surprise is how gently the white majority went along with it all.

    The white majority conflates cowardice with virtue.

  46. “The US had a great run.”

    Blame white progressives for its demise.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Irrelevant.

    From the Turner diaries: it doesnt matter WHY or HOW the white race died. History doesn't care about excuses. We either survive or we don't.
    , @notanon
    nah

    blame the banking mafia and cultural Marxists manipulating white progressives.
  47. @Thulean Friend

    The US had a great run
     
    The best country, all things considered, in the last 200 years. Though the last 20 have been pretty disastrous. All success breeds jealousy and parasites. Unfortunately the US could not shield itself from the (((latter))), as its power got redirected towards Israel's goals abroad and domestically the historic majority were diluted by third worlders and subjected to endless racism and demonisation.

    I suppose my only surprise is how gently the white majority went along with it all.

    It is surprising, but sort of understandable.

    Whites went from the great depression, to world war 2, to unimaginable levels of wealth within 20 years. We got soft. Nobody would have pulled bussing shit in the 1930s because whites were hardscrabble and had nothing to lose. Our (((opponents))) were also very sneaky but at the end of the day, the vast majority of whites chose to believe those lies.

    Alot of white people are perfectly happy with how things are going, even today.

    I do believe the situation for whites will actually improve as we become more marginalized. We have been uncontested, and have not struggled, for too long. It’s made us weak.

  48. @SunBakedSuburb
    "The US had a great run."

    Blame white progressives for its demise.

    Irrelevant.

    From the Turner diaries: it doesnt matter WHY or HOW the white race died. History doesn’t care about excuses. We either survive or we don’t.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Favorably referencing an absurd work of fiction days after two high-profile mass shootings, one by a person who probably also likes said absurd work of fiction, is imprudent.
  49. @216
    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel "Coach Red Pill" had a good video on this.

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.

    So Woke is both a way to market, reduce labor costs, and deter lawsuits. Additionally, it provides the "cheap grace" versus the much more expensive "going green". This is what happened in the recent Amazon 1-day strike, the white collar employees protesting were concerned with getting the company to stop taking DoD contracts and committ to more environmentalism.

    Its accepted wisdom that racial diversity reduces indicence of unionization and effectiveness of a union. I'm not sure if gender diversity has the same effect.

    Woke Capital is why this revolutionary cycle will be much more effective than the one which tore through the country in the late 60s-early 70s. After eight years of Obama the Federal government has been thoroughly penetrated by operatives of subversion. The DOJ is the most obvious example of this process. Woke Capital has also infected education and culture with its virus. We’ll be lucky if we manage to avoid an authoritarian regime based on the Chinese (Google) model.

  50. @Oblivionrecurs
    My bias could be from living in Florida, particularly central, we've got a deadly combination of some of the nation's Highest Divorce rates, a very irreligious population, and some of the largest metros with the lowest % of white Millennials with degrees (51.3% of national white births where to degree holders, 29% to associates degrees or some college, 19.7% to high school or less)

    The largest fertility decline since 04 has been Hispanics. Which is easiest to have when you're the clear winner in fertility and still are

    Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 - below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.

    However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.

    Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 – below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.

    However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.

    Something has got to be done about the cost of living. Obviously, immigration is the major factor, but I wonder if the anti-teleworking boomer die-off will result in more opportunities for couples to live cheaply on one income in lower COL areas.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    If we get a handle on immigration then yes, it will. Where already past saturation on existing housing stock. Absent the fed artificially keeping rates absurdly low for more than a decade now, there'd be millions of fewer homes than there are now. The upshot of this is that when the boomers pass on and the population begins declining in absolute terms, it will be a buyer's market the likes of which haven't been seen since the days of Levitown.
  51. @Feryl

    In the autobiography of Sam Walton, he mentions mostly hiring women to work in stores. But large amounts of lawsuits claim that the company was biased against their promotion to management, and hostile to them having children.
     
    This also would've had the effect of getting a neutered workforce. Why? Women are less apt to fight for unions, and less apt to ask for a raise. They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.

    The private sector nurturing the "liberation" of women was, indeed, a great way to enhance profits. The turn towards women in the work-force has coincided with diminished wages, weakening unions, and the rise in value of many assets and living expenses, which "forces" Mom and Dad to work in order to be to afford a lot of things. Ironically, however, when men did most of the work that meant reduced consumerism and less competition, which kept things affordable. Think also of the demand for housing rising exponentially beginning in the 1970's due to all the suddenly single Silent and Boomer women who no longer shared housing with a man.

    So in the 70's, we suddenly had a massive wave of competition for jobs and housing between men and women. Wages go down, housing costs go up.

    They are also less likely to lose their temper and punch their boss in the face.

    I’ve been thinking about some discussions we’ve had on this site about sexbots and sleep deprivation. 216 was wondering how feminists would rationalize any objection to the coming of the Stepford Wives. I think that is the answer: Sexbots don’t need sleep and don’t get cranky from lack thereof, that is, they are more “pliable.”

    The more I think about it, that is rather problematic. I don’t claim to know how many men would avail themselves of this technology. I am optimistic that it would be relatively few.

  52. @216
    In the US there is no practice, let alone legal requirement, that workers are represented on the board of directors. (Interestingly, some blue states are requiring female representation, but not worker)

    So in this country management and labor have tended to "go to the mattresses" during many labor disputes that reach a strike.

    In many ways we should be surprised there aren't more strikes, at least among the lower-income workers. We can tie that in part to high-debt and an inability to miss even a single day's worth of pay; additionally to rapid turnover.

    (Interestingly, some blue states are requiring female representation, but not worker)

    My surmise is that greater “female” (I really do hate that word) representation will redound to the workers’ benefit. It certainly couldn’t get any worse.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    My surmise is that greater “female” (I really do hate that word) representation will redound to the workers’ benefit. It certainly couldn’t get any worse.
     
    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/FT_19.08.30_MinimumWage_Large-majorities-women-blacks-Hispanics-favor-raising-minimum-wage_2.png?resize=640,823
  53. @Feryl
    In the Progressive era (circa 1900-1930), we had many prominent individuals publicly inveighing against immigrants for contributing to crime, over-crowding, and over all cultural dissolution. The public grew so fed up with the chaos that even some of the cuckier elites realized it was in their best interest to halt immigration, which we did in 1924 with relatively little fuss (in comparison to the ideological conflict that beset us during the Civil War, and is currently plaguing us right now).

    I just don't foresee our leadership being able to reach a consensus that will enhance the social and political security of America, even if many people want it as desperately as they now do.

    It wasn’t just the public getting fed up back 100 years ago. I wish I could easily find the VDare article on this (not sure exactly what keywords to use) – it related the story of how the elites of the early part of the 20th century got fed up with immigrants and their bombings and assassination (attempts?) on Presidents, etc. I’m sure a lot of the capitalist elites were well aware that some of the new crowd were pro-Communist too. It was time to shut it down, and they did it, with a signature by one of my favorite Presidents, “Silent Cal” Coolidge.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    All strata of Americans were less globalist back then. Elites got carried away with loose borders in the late 19th century, and come the 20th century were beginning to realize how much they'd screwed up. It was nice having so many warm bodies to shove into the factories, but who expected them to eventually resent the dominant culture?

    Nowadays elites are trying to steer foreigners against the native working class. And it seems to be working, since today's foreign"radicals" (and their white liberal handlers) aren't actually targeting Capital, even though they often talk a good game about being "socialist". In fact, global Capital is heavily involved in funding "anti-fascism" and immigrant rights efforts.

    It's hard to find a parallel to this sort of situation in political history, although there's always the go-to comparison of previous empires giving rising populations of foreigners more and more rights/responsibilities. But did Roman or Egyptian (or Ottoman, or whatever) elites deliberately encourage foreigners to be so hostile to much of the native born population?
  54. @Feryl

    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel “Coach Red Pill” had a good video on this.
     
    Right, the evidence is overwhelming that the "private sector" at best conforms to the prevailing values of the day (even if they are destructive), and at worst, aggressively pushes destabilizing things before a lot of normies wish to have them. E.g., Americans actually were fairly trusting of banks in the 1970's, but by the late 70's it was becoming clear that many in the business sector wanted to de-regulate banking even though we'd suppressed massive booms and busts from the 1930's-70's.

    "The profit motive" is not culturally conservative or wholesome*. Regardless of what the "free-market" idolaters would have you believe. A society works best with a "mixed" approach that prioritizes to some degree fairness and equitable distribution of money, assets, and bargaining rights. Neither Reaganite union busting and merger happy crony capitalism nor pure communism is the way to go.

    *Making money should not come at the expense of ethics.

    See, this is where we “diverge” in views. I’m getting to the bottom of it now. Your definition of capitalism and the private sector, Feryl, appears to be Big Business. That is just wrong. It’s not just that modern Big Business has government in it’s pocket, so is not capitalist any more. It’s also that the private sector includes small business, and going back a few decades, small business was the bulk of it, and the driver of the amazing American economy of yesteryear.

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation? Every time you bring this weird dichotomy that there is just Big Business vs. Socialism, you bring up only the financial sector. That is made up of the worst of Big Business, as they are part of the F.I.R.E. “industries” that are not actually industries by definition, as they don’t do anything productive.

    If I substitute “Big Business” for “business” anytime I see it in your comments, they make much more sense.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation?
     
    He's very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won't have to pay his employees decent wages.

    Small business is just as bad as big business. There's the same greed, the same nastiness, the same short-sightedness. The problem with capitalism isn't the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.
  55. @Rosie

    (Interestingly, some blue states are requiring female representation, but not worker)
     
    My surmise is that greater "female" (I really do hate that word) representation will redound to the workers' benefit. It certainly couldn't get any worse.

    My surmise is that greater “female” (I really do hate that word) representation will redound to the workers’ benefit. It certainly couldn’t get any worse.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/FT_19.08.30_MinimumWage_Large-majorities-women-blacks-Hispanics-favor-raising-minimum-wage_2.png?resize=640,823

  56. @EliteCommInc.
    Hmmmmm . . . several years ago there was a bill proposed by the then called "gang of eight" the public response was fairly clear and while they an that bill remain in the wings, i don't think the mood of the country has changed much on immigration. If anything more than likely it is even more restrictionist.


    The current problem is staying keen to how manipulative polling data presents the issues via the questions they ask.


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


    "If the rich . . . that supposedly are behind the Conservative . . ."


    Conservative is just not what it used to be.

    “Conservative is just not what it used to be.”

    Quite so.

    William F. Buckley was rather a bore…which was why his lot in life was to sit on “Firing Line” and sniff his disapproval as the vulgar Marxist hordes remade the world outside his quaint little studio.

    He may have been Hell on Wheels to cite at Faculty Lounge arguments, but out on the streets?

  57. Would be interesting to see this broken down by sex; also re those who had pursued or were pursuing higher education, by field of study (eg STEM vs non-STEM).

    The politically correct position of ‘Increased’ has grown, while ‘Decreased’ has fallen — so more people are apparently ready to give the expected opinion — this seems roughly analogous to politics today, where politicians seem far more concerned about proving their moral fitness to lead (by having politically correct/expected views) than making sure government does only what’s in the common interest while strip-mining citizens via the coercive tax system — it is my impression that society/the education establishment is producing more absolutely useless people than ever (see New Real Peer Review) — so it would not be a surprise if this need to justify one’s existence morally has now infected the general public.

    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/AmirSariaslan/status/1158133549129707520
  58. @eah
    Would be interesting to see this broken down by sex; also re those who had pursued or were pursuing higher education, by field of study (eg STEM vs non-STEM).

    The politically correct position of 'Increased' has grown, while 'Decreased' has fallen -- so more people are apparently ready to give the expected opinion -- this seems roughly analogous to politics today, where politicians seem far more concerned about proving their moral fitness to lead (by having politically correct/expected views) than making sure government does only what's in the common interest while strip-mining citizens via the coercive tax system -- it is my impression that society/the education establishment is producing more absolutely useless people than ever (see New Real Peer Review) -- so it would not be a surprise if this need to justify one's existence morally has now infected the general public.

    https://i1.wp.com/fabiusmaximus.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/20090602-female-male-graduates.png

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hmmm...interesting. Seems Mr. Aslan is accusing Ivanka of taqiyyah.

    I’d think he would know that is not a good route to take; if he simply dismisses the denunciation by Whites of other White’s crimes as insincere, well - how will he respond if people do the same to Muslims condemning terrorism at the hands of Muslims.

    These people really need to think things through before shouting something to the world.

    Peace.
  59. @SunBakedSuburb
    "The US had a great run."

    Blame white progressives for its demise.

    nah

    blame the banking mafia and cultural Marxists manipulating white progressives.

  60. @Feryl
    Perhaps what is really happening is that since Obama took office, America has seen a surge in partisanship and division. And this is causing many Americans to no longer have any interest in looking out for each other. So a lot of Americans feel so much animosity and contempt for each other that it raises the reputation of immigrants.

    It's also quite clear that the modern Left absolutely loathes the traditional white lower middle class majority population of historically white countries, thinks that they are ungrateful dinosaurs who need to go extinct. And this viewpoint has been spread primarily by upper class, and wannabe upper class, white liberals (as per countless studies which indicate that well-educated white liberals are the most ideologically extreme demographic, exceeding even "minorities" on how far to the SJW Left they are).

    So being "pro-immigrant" is essentially the same thing as being anti-lower class white native. This attitude basically did not exist before Obama was in office, since people of all strata in the past placed the needs of Americans first.

    So being “pro-immigrant” is essentially the same thing as being anti-lower class white native.

    Yes. An important point.

    Again it gets back to the unavoidable truth that we are in the middle of a very nasty class war, and the upper and upper-middle classes are the aggressors.

    • Replies: @eah
    a very nasty class war

    To think that, you have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white -- which means it's also, perhaps more than anything else, a mad scramble to prove how non-racist you are by endorsing it.

    That said, there can be little doubt that establishment elites at best feel little or no concern, at worst absolutely despise, the working class, especially working class Whites -- that they would let ideological trade and economic policy destroy their livelihoods ('Rust Belt'), and then ignore the consequences for decades ('opioid epidemic'), is proof enough of that.

    But I think their enthusiasm for and their reluctance to oppose immigration would both be significantly lower if the immigrants were white.
  61. @JohnnyWalker123
    Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech. Those who express "taboo" opinions are often punished very harshly. So people are more hesistant to speak their minds. When pollsters ask them their thoughts, Americans often give the socially desirable answer to avoid getting into "trouble."

    Support for cutting immigration has likely been stable (or even increased), but people fear the consequences of saying what they really think.

    People only feel truly secure in the ballot box. Which is why Trump became the nominee and remains popular.

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump's various comments would've resulted in his support falling. Instead, after he made his latest controversial comments, his support actually increased.

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump’s various comments would’ve resulted in his support falling.

    But Trump is pro-immigration. This is the guy who wants more immigration than ever before. He’s not just pro-immigration, he’s a pro-immigration zealot.

    His support remains strong because cucks are A-OK with being replaced as long as they get replaced legally.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    Amerimutts are fine with mongrelization. This has been the case since the Irish were allowed in instead of deported and barred from entry.
  62. I can’t take this that seriously as it’s almost entirely the result of white democrats diving deep into self hatred.

    Guess which group doesn’t breed?

  63. @Feryl
    Gee, who thought that corporate globalism could ever be a threat to Free Speech, huh?

    Where I've always diverged from the Reagan Right is in not believing, as they do, that academic Marxists and big gov. are entirely responsible for stifling speech and dissent. Since the 70's it's been apparent that Corporate America will buckle to every latest PC development lest they "offend" a possible customer.

    William Domhoff (https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/), who has studied "elite" dynamics in America since the 70's, has in his research been able to gather the evidence that Corporate America essentially put up zero resistance to affirmative action and women's lib, once these ideas went mainstream in the 70's. Whereas market de-regulation and union-breaking gathered steam after 1970.

    Where I’ve always diverged from the Reagan Right is in not believing, as they do, that academic Marxists and big gov. are entirely responsible for stifling speech and dissent. Since the 70’s it’s been apparent that Corporate America will buckle to every latest PC development lest they “offend” a possible customer.

    I agree but I’d go further. Corporate America has not buckled to pressure. Corporate America has been the driving force behind these destructive developments.

    • Replies: @Talha
    This is a brilliant take by one of the brothers I keep up with on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/dimashqee/status/1154286147469754369

    These guys know about dynasties, they know about secret societies, they can trace their lineages back plenty of generations. Why should one expect them to have any more concern (due to associated Whiteness) as some Earl/Duke of so-and-so that sneered at (also) White peasants toiling in his fields a long time ago?

    Ultimately, in survival-of-the-fittest, what does it matter to White elites if they throw generations of Whites into a meat grinder as long as the success of their progeny and genetic lines are secured? Should we assume them to be altruistic beyond that? Why? Ever hear the song "Fortunate Son'?

    This is the time to come through and have the wherewithal to wither the storm and become the founders of new dynastic lines. Dynastic lines are established in multiple ways; there are martial ones, there are mercantile ones, there are spiritual ones (one of my main ancestors came into India from Kerman in Persia as a Sufi-scholar and an entire city in Uttar Pradesh is chock full of his descendants) and I'm sure there are other paths if there is a desire.

    One must be wise; do not play the game according to their rules and do not expect any help from them.

    Peace.
  64. @Curmudgeon
    I am a boomer, and old school trade unionist. I worked as a business agent for over 30 years. What most people fail to understand is that union staff do essentially the same job as human resources departments, just for a different employer, with some different interests. Union members are conservative in many ways For example, they don't (or at least didn't) like change for the sake of change, they like predictability.
    We were always against immigration, legal or illegal. We understood that immigration produces an excess pool of labor, which reduced demand and therefore suppressed wages. What people mis-interpreted as "pro-immigrant" or "pro Black rights" was our requirement to defend all employees' rights under a collective agreement, which includes due process for discipline and dismissal. Union members are like citizens, all have the same rights under the law of the workplace - a collective agreement.
    We weren't anti-employer. There is no benefit to members to have a company move, go bankrupt or be in financial difficulty. The real breakdown in relations started with the offshoring of jobs in the 70s, and the new concept of "Human Resources", which treats employees like they can be replaced by one waiting on a shelf, replacing Personnel Departments, who dealt with employees as people. Discussions and consultation became diktats. Employee loyalty disappeared as employees discovered the change.

    Funny how the "new" left and "new" trade unionists forget all about Cesar Chavez sending his members, mostly immigrants, out to patrol the border for illegal aliens. They understood the consequences of illegal immigration. Apparently today's union members don't.

    We went from customers to consumers. From personnel to human resources. From citizens to deplorables. Our younger countrymen know nothing of dignity. Nothing of prosperity. They will never own anything.

    Saker has a piece up in which he postulates that what he calls the Anglo/Zionist Empire is the last European empire. Not the latest. The last. Western Imperialism began according to Saker with the First Crusade. Thus, what is now dying is a thousand years old. Today’s so called left wants to destroy something already dying of natural causes. Entropy. Old age.

    I too am a former Union Man. All that remains standing between the working classes and eternal serfdom under Global Capitalism is Westphalia. We must become Nationalists.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  65. @Achmed E. Newman
    See, this is where we "diverge" in views. I'm getting to the bottom of it now. Your definition of capitalism and the private sector, Feryl, appears to be Big Business. That is just wrong. It's not just that modern Big Business has government in it's pocket, so is not capitalist any more. It's also that the private sector includes small business, and going back a few decades, small business was the bulk of it, and the driver of the amazing American economy of yesteryear.

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these "capitalists" of the "private sector" that has been ruining the nation? Every time you bring this weird dichotomy that there is just Big Business vs. Socialism, you bring up only the financial sector. That is made up of the worst of Big Business, as they are part of the F.I.R.E. "industries" that are not actually industries by definition, as they don't do anything productive.

    If I substitute "Big Business" for "business" anytime I see it in your comments, they make much more sense.

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation?

    He’s very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won’t have to pay his employees decent wages.

    Small business is just as bad as big business. There’s the same greed, the same nastiness, the same short-sightedness. The problem with capitalism isn’t the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    He’s very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won’t have to pay his employees decent wages.
     
    True. But if he thought about it he might realize that he wants his customers to have a decent wage.
    , @iffen
    The problem with capitalism isn’t the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    Greed is a human trait so it cannot be described as dehumanizing. The problem is that its place in culture has evolved from being a vice to a being a near virtue. The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.
    , @L Woods
    Probably true, although lower-middle class shopkeeper types were a significant constituency for fascism afaik.
    , @Mark G.
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren't disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office. This means they'll reward those who help them in doing this and punish those who don't. So the alternative to the profit motive is to have your ability to continue to live to be based on the whim of some government official. You can only hope that he decides someone else is less important in keeping him in power than you.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of internet commenters get every thing they (think they) know off of the internet and just haven't been out in the real world. You, Feryl, 216, and lots of the Socialists I read from on-line are missing some experience from the world I think. I believe that it's because you are young people. I don't want to impugn a "generation" (per my discussions above), but man, young people need to get out more. At least the Boomers didn't spend their lives in front of 3 x 5" pieces of glass.

    Listen, a big portion of small businesses are single-man operations. There often is family involved, but they DON'T HAVE employees. It's a lot of trouble to have employees. Why is that? Maybe excessive regulations, the most recently Øb☭ma-care ones being the latest massive blow, have taught them that it's not worth it. It's hard to expand to compete with the big admittedly-terrible BigBiz companies when you can't hire people.

    House developers are one part of the private sector that do indeed hire lots of illegal aliens. One could ask himself why, perhaps. Is it that he'll lose the bid to another company if he hires Americans and has to deal with paperwork, as the next guy has all illegals? (BTW, I had one big job done on my place, and I made it a point to hire a crew of 3 white guys? Do you all do the same?) When the rules are made by Big Biz in concert with their butt-buddies in Big Feral Gov, the small guy is stuck.

    I get the feeling you all have never been involved in any small business. I've had my own, for a short while, but worked at companies ranging from 4 employees to > 100,000. I can tell you that the small ones work more efficiently, work harder, allow the use of common sense, and best of all, don't have the scourge of the BigBiz world, the HR Ladies*.

    .

    * Part 2 and Part 3 and Exhibit A: Toby Flenderson.
  66. @dfordoom

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation?
     
    He's very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won't have to pay his employees decent wages.

    Small business is just as bad as big business. There's the same greed, the same nastiness, the same short-sightedness. The problem with capitalism isn't the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    He’s very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won’t have to pay his employees decent wages.

    True. But if he thought about it he might realize that he wants his customers to have a decent wage.

  67. @dfordoom

    So being “pro-immigrant” is essentially the same thing as being anti-lower class white native.
     
    Yes. An important point.

    Again it gets back to the unavoidable truth that we are in the middle of a very nasty class war, and the upper and upper-middle classes are the aggressors.

    a very nasty class war

    To think that, you have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white — which means it’s also, perhaps more than anything else, a mad scramble to prove how non-racist you are by endorsing it.

    That said, there can be little doubt that establishment elites at best feel little or no concern, at worst absolutely despise, the working class, especially working class Whites — that they would let ideological trade and economic policy destroy their livelihoods (‘Rust Belt’), and then ignore the consequences for decades (‘opioid epidemic’), is proof enough of that.

    But I think their enthusiasm for and their reluctance to oppose immigration would both be significantly lower if the immigrants were white.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    a very nasty class war
     
    To think that, you have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white — which means it’s also, perhaps more than anything else, a mad scramble to prove how non-racist you are by endorsing it.
     
    The fact that, as you say, the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white is further evidence that this is a class war. The idea of non-white immigration is to destroy working-class culture and to demoralise the working class. Bringing in white immigrants would serve the capitalists' purpose of depressing wages and undermining working conditions but bringing in non-whites does all that and as a bonus destroys the culture and morale of the working class.
    , @eah
    https://twitter.com/AnechoicMedia_/status/1158365408476454913
  68. @JohnnyWalker123
    Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech. Those who express "taboo" opinions are often punished very harshly. So people are more hesistant to speak their minds. When pollsters ask them their thoughts, Americans often give the socially desirable answer to avoid getting into "trouble."

    Support for cutting immigration has likely been stable (or even increased), but people fear the consequences of saying what they really think.

    People only feel truly secure in the ballot box. Which is why Trump became the nominee and remains popular.

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump's various comments would've resulted in his support falling. Instead, after he made his latest controversial comments, his support actually increased.

    Richard Baris finds this is his biggest problem phone polling, you have to tease their true opinion out, the internet is more accurate.

    The US is more polarised so lefties say they support immigration now to prove their credentials, the other issue is that the US doesn’t have enough whites to sustain high support levels for restrictionism.

  69. The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Probably no accident.  Maybe they're coming for UR sooner than we thought.
    , @Twinkie

    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.
     
    There is someone quoting “The Turner Diaries” right here on this thread... not exactly in disapproval.
    , @L Woods
    Guess you’d better piss off before the Bad Person cooties rub off on you then.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment

     

    Lets see...Ctrl-f jew...nothing.

    "White nationalist" who doesn't care about Jews.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Yeah, this guy is full on 1488. Some of the more shocking bits of his Nazi screed/manifesto:

    unchecked corporations

    Republican Party are pro-corporation

    America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty

    The lower the unemployment rate, the better

    They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees

    Corporations need to ... keep wages down

    a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market

    American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life

    our lifestyle is destroying the environment

    this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”

    Fresh water is being polluted from ...oil drilling operations

    Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities

    We even use...many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands

    the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle

     

    Excessive paper towel usage. Main Nazi concern.
  70. @iffen
    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.

    Probably no accident.  Maybe they’re coming for UR sooner than we thought.

    • Replies: @iffen
    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn't bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them. Of course the SJWs think immigration restriction is for practical purposes WN anyway.
    , @iffen
    Internet services provider Cloudflare to drop 8chan after El Paso shooting

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/network-provider-cloudflare-drop-8chan-after-el-paso-shooting-n1039151

    Maybe they’re coming for UR sooner than we thought.

    tick-tock?

  71. @Mr. Rational
    Probably no accident.  Maybe they're coming for UR sooner than we thought.

    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn’t bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them. Of course the SJWs think immigration restriction is for practical purposes WN anyway.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn’t bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them.
     
    Unfortunately there are likely to be lots more such incidents. It can't be denied that the white nationalist cause does attract some very crazy, very dumb, very dangerous people. So if the PTB want excuses for extreme measures of repression they're going to get those excuses.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Of course the SJWs think immigration restriction is for practical purposes WN anyway.

     

    Technically they are right.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The floodgates have opened with blue checkmarks calling Trump--and all his supporters--"white supremacists".
  72. So being “pro-immigrant” is essentially the same thing as being anti-lower class white native. This attitude basically did not exist before Obama was in office, since people of all strata in the past placed the needs of Americans first.

    I think the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire never, ever put the needs of America nor Americans first.

    I think the JEW/WASP ruling class has been involved in a smash and grab job from the get-go. The JEW/WASP ruling class has used the power structure of the US government to ramp up their opportunity to plunder the Hell out of the USA and other parts of the globe and to pauperize regular Whites in the USA.

    LBJ’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to flood Third Worlders into the USA. That rancid warmonger scumbag LBJ was born in 1908.

    Reagan was a treasonous rat who pushed mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. Reagan’s 1986 amnesty for illegal alien invaders was an attack upon the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    George HW Bush was another treasonous rat who pushed mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. George HW Bush’s 1990 Immigration Act opened the floodgates to more mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    LBJ’s 1965 Immigration Act and Reagan’s 1986 amnesty for illegal alien invaders and George HW Bush’s 1990 Immigration Act were attacks on White Core America and American sovereignty.

    LBJ and Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush are roasting and rotting in the hottest pits of fiery Hell.

    I won’t blame Obama — who is half old stocker himself — for what the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire has been doing for a hundred years or more.

  73. Restrictionism in Retreat

    I disagree and refuse to make restrictionism the argument.

    I think the answer to mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration is MASS DEPORTATIONISM.

    Immigration restrictionism is a given. What must happen in the USA and many other European Christian nations is mass deportation.

    Th USA could start with the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and then use inducements to deport many of the other foreigners in the USA. The US military could then recover deportation costs by taking gold and oil and mineral resources and other assets from the foreign governments that have sent illegal alien invaders to the USA.

    Tweet from 2015:

    Tweet from 2014:

  74. @dfordoom

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation?
     
    He's very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won't have to pay his employees decent wages.

    Small business is just as bad as big business. There's the same greed, the same nastiness, the same short-sightedness. The problem with capitalism isn't the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    The problem with capitalism isn’t the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    Greed is a human trait so it cannot be described as dehumanizing. The problem is that its place in culture has evolved from being a vice to a being a near virtue. The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.
     
    The corporate sector doesn't have to be destroyed. But it does need to be controlled. It needs to get its head kicked when it steps out of line. And small business sometimes needs its head kicked just as much as big business. If capitalism won't serve society voluntarily (and it won't) then it will have to be forced to do so.

    The tricky question is whether there is any way you can stop capitalism from becoming uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic and plutocratic. And is there any other actor other than the state capable of keeping capitalism under control? I'm damned if I can think of one.

    One way might be the method adopted with Hollywood in the 30s - scare the living daylights out of them that they're about to be subjected to savage government control so that fear drives them to self-regulate. I don't think it would work today though. The Hollywood moguls of the 30s were appalling but they were angels compared to the scum running the corporate sector today.
    , @Feryl
    In practice, this mythical "pure" form of capitalism has scarcely ever existed. It's been observed, throughout history, that power and wealth tend to seek more of the same in the absence of of a restraining force. So in practice, "free" capitalism tends to produce feudalism, monopolies, and social Darwinism.

    Instead of letting either capitalist or communist lords create a two-tier society of a handful of have-lots and many have-littles, we instead need the "mixed" model of Capital having to answer to public interest protecting regulators, which prevents monopolies, cronyism, fraud, and abuse by those who run businesses and own many assets.
  75. @Mr. Rational
    Probably no accident.  Maybe they're coming for UR sooner than we thought.

    Internet services provider Cloudflare to drop 8chan after El Paso shooting

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/network-provider-cloudflare-drop-8chan-after-el-paso-shooting-n1039151

    Maybe they’re coming for UR sooner than we thought.

    tick-tock?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it's important to keep a lid on the irresponsible rhetoric.

    The provider may not drop UR, but it may demand an end to the comments section to continue to provide service.
  76. @iffen
    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.

    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.

    There is someone quoting “The Turner Diaries” right here on this thread… not exactly in disapproval.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    All kinds of books get quoted. You can quote the old testament and it's full of violence.

    Simply, that is a good idea and that book is where I came across the idea.
  77. @Twinkie

    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.
     
    There is someone quoting “The Turner Diaries” right here on this thread... not exactly in disapproval.

    All kinds of books get quoted. You can quote the old testament and it’s full of violence.

    Simply, that is a good idea and that book is where I came across the idea.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    I've read The Turner Diaries. It's bad pulp fiction; it's Nazi porn. If you feel strongly about white identity, Nordic pride, however you want to phrase it, stay away from Nazi mythology. It makes fools out of white men.
  78. anon[762] • Disclaimer says:

    “when reparations hits, and it will, immigration of white people might drop. finally, immigration of one group will voluntarily decline.”

    I expect white emigration to become a thing within the next few decades. How long until China realizes they can destroy the US by simply importing a mere 10 million white guys? Goodbye US military. Goodbye US cultural cohesion. Goodbye many scientists, airline pilots, civil engineers, electrical line workers etc etc etc. Goodbye self-less patriots. Goodbye all the best artists and purveyors of Western culture, what remains of it.

    “Maybe they’re coming for UR sooner than we thought.”

    They will. The US is a police state. Don’t think otherwise. As the empire spirals down, expect authoritarian impulses to increase in a vain attempt to keep it all together. Within the next 15 years, 80 million Boomers – disproportionately white – will retire, and many of the immigrants they’ve imported tend to peter out below the white level of academic achievement by the second generation. Combine that with a falling white TFR and the democrats opening up the floodgates to African immigration and the POC coalition voting to cut military spending in favor of free social services (and they will) and you can kiss US primacy goodbye.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The US is a police state.
     
    It's a new type of police state. The repression is left mostly to private corporations rather than being done by the state itself. Many of the functions of government are in the hands of the corporate sector. The corporate sector doesn't just wield influence, it's in control. There's no need for a secret police apparatus. The functions of the secret police have been privatised.

    And were discovering that corporate repression is more total and more ruthless, and more effective, than state repression.
  79. Conservative voices probably barely dot the landscape of the most important fields of the future

    educational environments.

  80. @eah
    a very nasty class war

    To think that, you have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white -- which means it's also, perhaps more than anything else, a mad scramble to prove how non-racist you are by endorsing it.

    That said, there can be little doubt that establishment elites at best feel little or no concern, at worst absolutely despise, the working class, especially working class Whites -- that they would let ideological trade and economic policy destroy their livelihoods ('Rust Belt'), and then ignore the consequences for decades ('opioid epidemic'), is proof enough of that.

    But I think their enthusiasm for and their reluctance to oppose immigration would both be significantly lower if the immigrants were white.

    a very nasty class war

    To think that, you have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white — which means it’s also, perhaps more than anything else, a mad scramble to prove how non-racist you are by endorsing it.

    The fact that, as you say, the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white is further evidence that this is a class war. The idea of non-white immigration is to destroy working-class culture and to demoralise the working class. Bringing in white immigrants would serve the capitalists’ purpose of depressing wages and undermining working conditions but bringing in non-whites does all that and as a bonus destroys the culture and morale of the working class.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It also makes criticizing immigration impossible without bringing on accusations of "racism" and "white supremacy".
  81. @dfordoom

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation?
     
    He's very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won't have to pay his employees decent wages.

    Small business is just as bad as big business. There's the same greed, the same nastiness, the same short-sightedness. The problem with capitalism isn't the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    Probably true, although lower-middle class shopkeeper types were a significant constituency for fascism afaik.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Probably true, although lower-middle class shopkeeper types were a significant constituency for fascism afaik.
     
    Yes, because they were terrified the communists would take power. There were plenty of big business types prepared to play ball with fascism for the same reason.
  82. @iffen
    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.

    Guess you’d better piss off before the Bad Person cooties rub off on you then.

  83. @iffen
    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn't bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them. Of course the SJWs think immigration restriction is for practical purposes WN anyway.

    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn’t bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them.

    Unfortunately there are likely to be lots more such incidents. It can’t be denied that the white nationalist cause does attract some very crazy, very dumb, very dangerous people. So if the PTB want excuses for extreme measures of repression they’re going to get those excuses.

    • Replies: @Talha

    It can’t be denied that the white nationalist cause does attract some very crazy, very dumb, very dangerous people.
     
    Yup. We’ve been dealing with this kind of nonsense with Muslim nut-heads for a while, looks like Whites aren’t immune to extremism for their causes either.

    James Ellsworth (retired military intelligence - https://www.ausa.org/people/james-b-ellsworth) called the phenomenon IncelQaeda where the shooter psychological profiles seem to dovetail together.

    Peace.

  84. @dfordoom

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation?
     
    He's very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won't have to pay his employees decent wages.

    Small business is just as bad as big business. There's the same greed, the same nastiness, the same short-sightedness. The problem with capitalism isn't the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren’t disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office. This means they’ll reward those who help them in doing this and punish those who don’t. So the alternative to the profit motive is to have your ability to continue to live to be based on the whim of some government official. You can only hope that he decides someone else is less important in keeping him in power than you.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren’t disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office.
     
    That's the problem with democracy. It's inherently corrupt. Democracy is no more sacred than capitalism. Both cause major problems. The Chinese are trying to avoid the worst excesses of capitalism and the dangers of democracy. It seems to be working pretty well.
    , @iffen
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man

    ROFLMAO
    , @Feryl

    The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians.
     
    False dichotomy. Ethical and long-term oriented leaders in business and government can opt to run a system in which private sector enterprises are afforded a certain latitude as long as certain ethical and legal norms are obeyed. This is the "mixed" model that Western countries employed to increasing success from the 1930's-early 1970's. When the economy began to slowdown in the 70's, that became the excuse to strip out many social and legal norms which had prevented economic inequality, frenzied speculation and booms, spectacular busts, and toxic reliance on usurious practices by finance, insurance, and real estate. The removal of these restraints caused an initial boom, that seemed fairly healthy, in the 80's and 90's. However, the end result of this free-for-all is that by the late 2000's a massive chunk of the populace was engulfed in debt, with mounting living expenses, and many of the available jobs paying like crap and not providing benefits or pensions.

    Micheal Lind is an interesting guy. I believe he started out with conventional "pro-market" views that became trendy in the 70's, but after the New Deal was destroyed in the 80's and 90's, he became a New Deal proponent, and is one of the few academics in economics who has been sounding the alarm loudly about the trap we set for ourselves after Reagan was elected. Most of the others are still clinging to the view that FDR corrupted the system, and it's not the government's job to interfere with trade or how a bank uses it's costumer's money. So if want to understand this stuff better, I suggest reading Lind's stuff. Most people since the 70's have to some degree bought into the mythology that less government is always better, not understanding that "private actors" in the total absence of public regulators will often succumb to reckless greed and fraud.
    , @silviosilver
    The bottom line is a country with a non-existent public sector is a worse country to live in than a country with a sizable public sector. The data is in: a mixed economy works. No amount of libertardian economic flapdoodle is ever going to change that reality.
  85. @iffen
    The problem with capitalism isn’t the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    Greed is a human trait so it cannot be described as dehumanizing. The problem is that its place in culture has evolved from being a vice to a being a near virtue. The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.

    The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.

    The corporate sector doesn’t have to be destroyed. But it does need to be controlled. It needs to get its head kicked when it steps out of line. And small business sometimes needs its head kicked just as much as big business. If capitalism won’t serve society voluntarily (and it won’t) then it will have to be forced to do so.

    The tricky question is whether there is any way you can stop capitalism from becoming uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic and plutocratic. And is there any other actor other than the state capable of keeping capitalism under control? I’m damned if I can think of one.

    One way might be the method adopted with Hollywood in the 30s – scare the living daylights out of them that they’re about to be subjected to savage government control so that fear drives them to self-regulate. I don’t think it would work today though. The Hollywood moguls of the 30s were appalling but they were angels compared to the scum running the corporate sector today.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound here. Big Biz will not be controlled by the Feral Government. They run the thing. The only threats to the big corporate world that you and I hate will come from below, individuals who buck the system and do their own thing, and small business, supported by people who don't like the Big Box, Amazonian, Goolag world, and put their money where their big internet keyboard fingers are.

    I'm starting to agree more with our commenter Thomm. If you people are in any way white nationalists, and you think Socialism is the answer, with no clue in your heads of what the "Great" part of MAGA was based on, then I don't expect anything worthwhile out of you all. No, there are no WN Whiggers (I truly don't get where Thomm gets that bit), and I don't think your IQs are low at all. You all write well, but with no background in reality. My man Ronnie had something to say about this too: "It isn't so much that liberals [ Socialists ] are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.
    , @Feryl

    One way might be the method adopted with Hollywood in the 30s – scare the living daylights out of them that they’re about to be subjected to savage government control so that fear drives them to self-regulate. I don’t think it would work today though. The Hollywood moguls of the 30s were appalling but they were angels compared to the scum running the corporate sector today.
     
    Elites back then were more populist. Instead of saying "fuck you" to the tastes of conservatives, which is what many people were back then, they gave them what they wanted. Contrast that with how Hollywood elites now openly hurl contempt at much of the mass audience today.
  86. @L Woods
    Probably true, although lower-middle class shopkeeper types were a significant constituency for fascism afaik.

    Probably true, although lower-middle class shopkeeper types were a significant constituency for fascism afaik.

    Yes, because they were terrified the communists would take power. There were plenty of big business types prepared to play ball with fascism for the same reason.

  87. @Mark G.
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren't disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office. This means they'll reward those who help them in doing this and punish those who don't. So the alternative to the profit motive is to have your ability to continue to live to be based on the whim of some government official. You can only hope that he decides someone else is less important in keeping him in power than you.

    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren’t disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office.

    That’s the problem with democracy. It’s inherently corrupt. Democracy is no more sacred than capitalism. Both cause major problems. The Chinese are trying to avoid the worst excesses of capitalism and the dangers of democracy. It seems to be working pretty well.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    The government of a country usually reflects the people who live there. If the people who live in a country are immoral and corrupt then most likely the government will be immoral and corrupt too. Otherwise, they would either vote it out if the country is a democracy or rise up and overthrow it if it is not a democracy. The exception would be if the ruler had the backing of a heavily armed army and a disarmed populace. This is why the founders of this country didn't believe in a large peacetime standing army. If a tyrant ever rose to power, they wanted to make sure it would be possible to dislodge him. They would consider dislodging him to be moral since he was no longer ruling with the consent of the governed. The founders were believers in democracy but they were aware that democracy could degenerate into mob rule that could be as bad as the worst dictator which is why they added a bill of rights to the Constitution. Ultimately, though, a bill of rights won't act as protection when most people don't believe in those rights. Importing large numbers of people from countries where most people don't believe in things like freedom of speech or freedom of press is bound to lead to a decline in the protection of those rights and any unpopular position one might take being relabeled as "hate speech" that needs to be banned.
  88. @Feryl
    The US largely gathered strength and camaraderie from it's founding through the 1950's, with some obvious missteps along the way (The Civil War and Reconstruction being the obvious ones, and the civil unrest of the early 20th century being another, this included gangland warfare, bloody labor disputes, and terrorism by anarchists and communists).

    But since circa 1960, it's been a gradual downhill slide.

    - The Civil Rights act of 1964 was very divisive, and we still have lingering bitterness from it
    - Vietnam was hated by a lot of people
    - Reaganomics helped create another Gilded Age
    - Reagan and Clinton oversaw mass incarceration
    - The government has since the 80's done a poor job of protecting the first amendment (campus speech codes began in the late 80's, and as far as I know the government has never went to great lengths to prosecute campus officials who forbid free speech).
    - Off-shoring of increasing amounts of industry started in the 60's-80's, then dramatically increased after NAFTA was implemented in 1993
    - The neo-cons deceived America into unnecessary and toxic wars under GW Bush.
    - Obama bailed out the big banks that have warped our economy and defrauded many people.
    - Trump is, if anything, bringing America even closer to Israel and Saudi Arabia than previous presidents did (if that's possible). Most Americans do not have a flattering opinion of both countries.

    So yes, if you suppose that America's "empire" began with it's founding (or given our ties to the Brit Empire, one could say that our "empire" is an extension of Britain and thus began with the arrival of the English in America), we are now over 200 years into it. So it would seem that we aren't too far away from the collapse occuring; the frightening number of Americans who are pro-invader is in itself very strong proof that we can't sustain much longer (compare this sentiment to the increasing nativism of the Progressive and New Deal era).

    A good summation of what’s gone wrong politically. But, as the current saying has it, politics is downstream from culture. Our culture has been warped by idiocracy and perversion.

    It’s hard to foresee the dawn at midnight. But I won’t give in to despair. Not yet.

  89. @eah
    https://twitter.com/AmirSariaslan/status/1158133549129707520

    Hmmm…interesting. Seems Mr. Aslan is accusing Ivanka of taqiyyah.

    I’d think he would know that is not a good route to take; if he simply dismisses the denunciation by Whites of other White’s crimes as insincere, well – how will he respond if people do the same to Muslims condemning terrorism at the hands of Muslims.

    These people really need to think things through before shouting something to the world.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @eah
    I’d think he would know that is not a good route to take;...

    I'm not aware of any downside to criticizing Trump, or any member of his family (with the possible exception of Barron Trump, who is 13 y/o), even in vile terms.

    ...how will he respond if people do the same to Muslims condemning terrorism at the hands of Muslims.

    Similar to black-on-black violence (eg how many where shot in Chicago last weekend?), I don't think anyone really cares about (sectarian) muslim violence, which for all practical purposes does not happen in the US -- and I have no idea what this nobody would say about it, or the reaction of other muslims to it -- however in this scenario, I assume: criticism by other muslims would be editorially encouraged; any lack of actual criticism ignored; any criticism would of course be praised -- in general, the only constant in the media's reaction to muslim terrorism in white countries is concern about a "backlash" against muslims by racist Whites (somewhat redundant perhaps).
  90. @dfordoom

    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn’t bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them.
     
    Unfortunately there are likely to be lots more such incidents. It can't be denied that the white nationalist cause does attract some very crazy, very dumb, very dangerous people. So if the PTB want excuses for extreme measures of repression they're going to get those excuses.

    It can’t be denied that the white nationalist cause does attract some very crazy, very dumb, very dangerous people.

    Yup. We’ve been dealing with this kind of nonsense with Muslim nut-heads for a while, looks like Whites aren’t immune to extremism for their causes either.

    James Ellsworth (retired military intelligence – https://www.ausa.org/people/james-b-ellsworth) called the phenomenon IncelQaeda where the shooter psychological profiles seem to dovetail together.

    Peace.

  91. @dfordoom

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump’s various comments would’ve resulted in his support falling.
     
    But Trump is pro-immigration. This is the guy who wants more immigration than ever before. He's not just pro-immigration, he's a pro-immigration zealot.

    His support remains strong because cucks are A-OK with being replaced as long as they get replaced legally.

    Amerimutts are fine with mongrelization. This has been the case since the Irish were allowed in instead of deported and barred from entry.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Well the French generally didn’t have a huge problem hooking up with local women wherever they went around the world. Spanish also. And since the US was really a grab bag for multiple colonial-settler empires, it’s kind of baked in the cake.

    Obsession with racial purity seems only to have arisen from a strictly monogamous society. And specifically those feeling to be under siege or on the defensive. Both of these factors are now present in certain Western countries, thus the sentiment makes sense.

    Polygamous (whether infrequent or frequent) societies are more concerned with patrilineal lineage. Same with alpha-conquering societies.

    The male founder of a line has zero incentive not to confer the benefits accrued from his lineage to all his offspring from his various wives (or concubines as the case may be) whether they issue from his partners of the same stock as himself or a different one.

    Marriage between European nobles and aristocracy of various backgrounds is a good example of how, even in Europe, mixing between various European groups occurred publicly. Certainly the Greeks didn’t care much when they went into Persia as conquerors:
    “On an unknown date in 324 BC, the Macedonian (Greek) King Alexander the Great arranged about 80 weddings in the Persian city of Susa between the daughters of Persian nobles and Greeks of high office.”
    https://www.historyandheadlines.com/history-324-bc-alexander-great-arranges-mass-wedding/

    Peace.
  92. @dfordoom

    Really, is that guy that runs the laundry business, or the small machine shop, or the used tire store one of these “capitalists” of the “private sector” that has been ruining the nation?
     
    He's very likely to be one of the people enthusiastically clamouring for open borders so he won't have to pay his employees decent wages.

    Small business is just as bad as big business. There's the same greed, the same nastiness, the same short-sightedness. The problem with capitalism isn't the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of internet commenters get every thing they (think they) know off of the internet and just haven’t been out in the real world. You, Feryl, 216, and lots of the Socialists I read from on-line are missing some experience from the world I think. I believe that it’s because you are young people. I don’t want to impugn a “generation” (per my discussions above), but man, young people need to get out more. At least the Boomers didn’t spend their lives in front of 3 x 5″ pieces of glass.

    Listen, a big portion of small businesses are single-man operations. There often is family involved, but they DON’T HAVE employees. It’s a lot of trouble to have employees. Why is that? Maybe excessive regulations, the most recently Øb☭ma-care ones being the latest massive blow, have taught them that it’s not worth it. It’s hard to expand to compete with the big admittedly-terrible BigBiz companies when you can’t hire people.

    House developers are one part of the private sector that do indeed hire lots of illegal aliens. One could ask himself why, perhaps. Is it that he’ll lose the bid to another company if he hires Americans and has to deal with paperwork, as the next guy has all illegals? (BTW, I had one big job done on my place, and I made it a point to hire a crew of 3 white guys? Do you all do the same?) When the rules are made by Big Biz in concert with their butt-buddies in Big Feral Gov, the small guy is stuck.

    I get the feeling you all have never been involved in any small business. I’ve had my own, for a short while, but worked at companies ranging from 4 employees to > 100,000. I can tell you that the small ones work more efficiently, work harder, allow the use of common sense, and best of all, don’t have the scourge of the BigBiz world, the HR Ladies*.

    .

    * Part 2 and Part 3 and Exhibit A: Toby Flenderson.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    House developers are one part of the private sector that do indeed hire lots of illegal aliens. One could ask himself why, perhaps. Is it that he’ll lose the bid to another company if he hires Americans and has to deal with paperwork, as the next guy has all illegals? (BTW, I had one big job done on my place, and I made it a point to hire a crew of 3 white guys? Do you all do the same?) When the rules are made by Big Biz in concert with their butt-buddies in Big Feral Gov, the small guy is stuck.
     
    Well, here's the thing: if you have to stoop to hiring illegals (which is legally and morally questionable from a number of angles) when their are native workers capable of doing the job, then just close up shop. Don't sacrifice ethics/integrity/virtue/loyalty just to make money. Also, it's called "the race to the bottom". Back in the New Deal era, many accepted lower profit margins in return for keeping their conscience intact. Workers and customers were treated better, even if that meant that more time and money would have to be spent to achieve it. That was in important part of keeping the social fabric intact. But once enough people say "fuck it", I just want more money and convenience , then ethics quickly erode and alienation throughout society grows.

    I mean, I dunno how many times I have to say that my patience for many sectors of neo-liberal society has worn thin. Everything, and everyone, has failed. And it took a decline in ethics among many for this condition to be possible.
  93. @dfordoom

    The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.
     
    The corporate sector doesn't have to be destroyed. But it does need to be controlled. It needs to get its head kicked when it steps out of line. And small business sometimes needs its head kicked just as much as big business. If capitalism won't serve society voluntarily (and it won't) then it will have to be forced to do so.

    The tricky question is whether there is any way you can stop capitalism from becoming uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic and plutocratic. And is there any other actor other than the state capable of keeping capitalism under control? I'm damned if I can think of one.

    One way might be the method adopted with Hollywood in the 30s - scare the living daylights out of them that they're about to be subjected to savage government control so that fear drives them to self-regulate. I don't think it would work today though. The Hollywood moguls of the 30s were appalling but they were angels compared to the scum running the corporate sector today.

    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound here. Big Biz will not be controlled by the Feral Government. They run the thing. The only threats to the big corporate world that you and I hate will come from below, individuals who buck the system and do their own thing, and small business, supported by people who don’t like the Big Box, Amazonian, Goolag world, and put their money where their big internet keyboard fingers are.

    I’m starting to agree more with our commenter Thomm. If you people are in any way white nationalists, and you think Socialism is the answer, with no clue in your heads of what the “Great” part of MAGA was based on, then I don’t expect anything worthwhile out of you all. No, there are no WN Whiggers (I truly don’t get where Thomm gets that bit), and I don’t think your IQs are low at all. You all write well, but with no background in reality. My man Ronnie had something to say about this too: “It isn’t so much that liberals [ Socialists ] are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

     

    Ronald Reagan is roasting and rotting in the hottest pits of fiery Hell for his treason against the USA!

    Ron Unz strongly suggested -- or perhaps hinted -- that Reagan was just a stooge whore for some mobbed up bastards from Illinois.

    Ron Unz:

    Pat Brown reached the governorship in an upset against Chotiner’s Republican candidate in 1958, and then won reelection against Nixon in 1962, but lost in 1966 to newcomer Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s own political rise had been orchestrated by Hollywood mogul Lew Wasserman of MCA, yet another Chicago transplant. Wasserman together with his mentor Jules Stein also had decades of mob-ties stretching back to Al Capone himself, having regularly employed gangster muscle to strong-arm their business partners and suppress their competitors.

     

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-power-of-organized-crime/

    Ronald Reagan was from Illinois and Reagan was a frigging fraudulent treasonous whore!

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.

    Reagan welcomed those Neo-Conservative rodent shysters into the GOP.

    This comment is turning into the Susquehanna Hat Company bit from Abbott and Costello.

    Every time some person praises Ronald Reagan I feel like the people do in this Abbbott and Costello comedy bit when they hear the words Susquehanna Hat Company:

    https://youtu.be/THZV5g1CNZM
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    "RIP, Ronald Reagan."

    Amiable chap, Ronnie was. One of J.Edgar's best pets. The intelligence agencies under his reign -- eight years in California, eight years in DC -- ran wild. When Ronnie ruled in Sacramento the Golden State was fertile ground for deep state cults.
    , @dfordoom

    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound
     
    OK, I see. The problems with capitalism don't count because capitalism in the real world isn't "real" capitalism.

    That's very similar to the argument that the problems with communism don't count because communism as it has been practised in the real world isn't "real" communism. In both cases we're asked to believe that an idealised imaginary pure version of the ideology in question would perfectly.

    Of course an idealised imaginary version of any ideology works wonderfully well, in theory.
  94. @Anounder
    Amerimutts are fine with mongrelization. This has been the case since the Irish were allowed in instead of deported and barred from entry.

    Well the French generally didn’t have a huge problem hooking up with local women wherever they went around the world. Spanish also. And since the US was really a grab bag for multiple colonial-settler empires, it’s kind of baked in the cake.

    Obsession with racial purity seems only to have arisen from a strictly monogamous society. And specifically those feeling to be under siege or on the defensive. Both of these factors are now present in certain Western countries, thus the sentiment makes sense.

    Polygamous (whether infrequent or frequent) societies are more concerned with patrilineal lineage. Same with alpha-conquering societies.

    The male founder of a line has zero incentive not to confer the benefits accrued from his lineage to all his offspring from his various wives (or concubines as the case may be) whether they issue from his partners of the same stock as himself or a different one.

    Marriage between European nobles and aristocracy of various backgrounds is a good example of how, even in Europe, mixing between various European groups occurred publicly. Certainly the Greeks didn’t care much when they went into Persia as conquerors:
    “On an unknown date in 324 BC, the Macedonian (Greek) King Alexander the Great arranged about 80 weddings in the Persian city of Susa between the daughters of Persian nobles and Greeks of high office.”
    https://www.historyandheadlines.com/history-324-bc-alexander-great-arranges-mass-wedding/

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    There is enough evidence from both studies on miscegenation (such as one recording disgust towards interracial couples) and on interracial relations (such as one with findings that interracial marriages are more dysfunctional than proper ones) to support regulations of miscegenation. Even among Injuns there is contempt towards those who racemixed.

    Polygamy is dysfunctional by design so I won't use it to support me. I will however point out the obvious example of South Asia with its castes in regards to regulations.

    Also, the point with the Irish is to show that Murica has long been dysfunctional on the Racial/Immigrant Question. Compromise who can squat in your country even once and you make future attempts at regulation extra dead in the water.

  95. @Mark G.
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren't disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office. This means they'll reward those who help them in doing this and punish those who don't. So the alternative to the profit motive is to have your ability to continue to live to be based on the whim of some government official. You can only hope that he decides someone else is less important in keeping him in power than you.

    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man

    ROFLMAO

    • Replies: @Talha
    Everything seems to come back to religion.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    You remember that Twilight Zone episode; “To Serve Man”?

    Peace.
  96. @Achmed E. Newman
    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound here. Big Biz will not be controlled by the Feral Government. They run the thing. The only threats to the big corporate world that you and I hate will come from below, individuals who buck the system and do their own thing, and small business, supported by people who don't like the Big Box, Amazonian, Goolag world, and put their money where their big internet keyboard fingers are.

    I'm starting to agree more with our commenter Thomm. If you people are in any way white nationalists, and you think Socialism is the answer, with no clue in your heads of what the "Great" part of MAGA was based on, then I don't expect anything worthwhile out of you all. No, there are no WN Whiggers (I truly don't get where Thomm gets that bit), and I don't think your IQs are low at all. You all write well, but with no background in reality. My man Ronnie had something to say about this too: "It isn't so much that liberals [ Socialists ] are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

    Ronald Reagan is roasting and rotting in the hottest pits of fiery Hell for his treason against the USA!

    Ron Unz strongly suggested — or perhaps hinted — that Reagan was just a stooge whore for some mobbed up bastards from Illinois.

    Ron Unz:

    Pat Brown reached the governorship in an upset against Chotiner’s Republican candidate in 1958, and then won reelection against Nixon in 1962, but lost in 1966 to newcomer Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s own political rise had been orchestrated by Hollywood mogul Lew Wasserman of MCA, yet another Chicago transplant. Wasserman together with his mentor Jules Stein also had decades of mob-ties stretching back to Al Capone himself, having regularly employed gangster muscle to strong-arm their business partners and suppress their competitors.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-power-of-organized-crime/

    Ronald Reagan was from Illinois and Reagan was a frigging fraudulent treasonous whore!

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.

    Reagan welcomed those Neo-Conservative rodent shysters into the GOP.

    This comment is turning into the Susquehanna Hat Company bit from Abbott and Costello.

    Every time some person praises Ronald Reagan I feel like the people do in this Abbbott and Costello comedy bit when they hear the words Susquehanna Hat Company:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

     
    Got evidence on these 2, Charles? NAFTA was discussed in the early 1990's. I don't remember if Reagan himself was involved.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.
     
    That was due to his trusting soul, and he regretted having signed it, trusting the US Congress to pass the restrictions that were to go along with that.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats
     
    Good. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme, the people in that era hadn't paid near into it what they were getting out, and people don't die at average age 65 anymore. We've passed Peak Rich Old People, Charles.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.
     
    I know you understand that the US Congress makes the budget. You are too knowledgable on politics not to know this.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.
     
    Good point. I don't know all the politics behind that one. It sounds a lot like Trump's picking of Pence.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I did watch your Abbot and Costello. At 3:05: "He ain't dead lady, he's hiding."
  97. “Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man.”

    For those who attempt to cling to what Dr. Smith explicated that is correct, it certainly had that as one of its ends

    absolutely.

  98. @iffen
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man

    ROFLMAO

    Everything seems to come back to religion.

    Peace.

  99. @eah
    a very nasty class war

    To think that, you have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white -- which means it's also, perhaps more than anything else, a mad scramble to prove how non-racist you are by endorsing it.

    That said, there can be little doubt that establishment elites at best feel little or no concern, at worst absolutely despise, the working class, especially working class Whites -- that they would let ideological trade and economic policy destroy their livelihoods ('Rust Belt'), and then ignore the consequences for decades ('opioid epidemic'), is proof enough of that.

    But I think their enthusiasm for and their reluctance to oppose immigration would both be significantly lower if the immigrants were white.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Reductio ad hitlerum.
    , @Feryl
    America may have been "founded on immigration", but objective reality is that the country tends to do better after a sustained immigration stoppage. Furthermore, beyond a certain point increased pop. growth via any method, including immigration, becomes negative for the well-being and security of society, as it causes competition to reach dangerous levels, worsens over-crowding, and corrodes social trust and camaraderie.
  100. @eah
    https://twitter.com/AnechoicMedia_/status/1158365408476454913

    Reductio ad hitlerum.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @eah
    Many people know about Godwin's law --> "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds" -- or even if they don't, they are familiar with the phenomenon -- with '"it's OK to punch a Nazi", it was verified in record time during the Trump campaign, and there's been no let up since -- they even describe the holding facilities for asylum seekers as "concentration camps".
  101. @Charles Pewitt

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

     

    Ronald Reagan is roasting and rotting in the hottest pits of fiery Hell for his treason against the USA!

    Ron Unz strongly suggested -- or perhaps hinted -- that Reagan was just a stooge whore for some mobbed up bastards from Illinois.

    Ron Unz:

    Pat Brown reached the governorship in an upset against Chotiner’s Republican candidate in 1958, and then won reelection against Nixon in 1962, but lost in 1966 to newcomer Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s own political rise had been orchestrated by Hollywood mogul Lew Wasserman of MCA, yet another Chicago transplant. Wasserman together with his mentor Jules Stein also had decades of mob-ties stretching back to Al Capone himself, having regularly employed gangster muscle to strong-arm their business partners and suppress their competitors.

     

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-power-of-organized-crime/

    Ronald Reagan was from Illinois and Reagan was a frigging fraudulent treasonous whore!

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.

    Reagan welcomed those Neo-Conservative rodent shysters into the GOP.

    This comment is turning into the Susquehanna Hat Company bit from Abbott and Costello.

    Every time some person praises Ronald Reagan I feel like the people do in this Abbbott and Costello comedy bit when they hear the words Susquehanna Hat Company:

    https://youtu.be/THZV5g1CNZM

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

    Got evidence on these 2, Charles? NAFTA was discussed in the early 1990’s. I don’t remember if Reagan himself was involved.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.

    That was due to his trusting soul, and he regretted having signed it, trusting the US Congress to pass the restrictions that were to go along with that.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats

    Good. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme, the people in that era hadn’t paid near into it what they were getting out, and people don’t die at average age 65 anymore. We’ve passed Peak Rich Old People, Charles.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    I know you understand that the US Congress makes the budget. You are too knowledgable on politics not to know this.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.

    Good point. I don’t know all the politics behind that one. It sounds a lot like Trump’s picking of Pence.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    You will never find non-Whites who'll support Libertarianism. What does that tell you?
    , @Feryl

    Got evidence on these 2, Charles? NAFTA was discussed in the early 1990’s. I don’t remember if Reagan himself was involved.
     
    According to Wiki, the push to "modernize" trade policy within North America dates back to 1979, and the Reaganites laid the ground-work for what would become NAFTA. By 1988, a new agreement with Canada was reached, and once GHW Bush took over the White House, Mexico approached the US to negotiate a new deal. By late 1992, all three countries agreed on the terms of NAFTA (the 1988 agreement with Canada would be superseded by NAFTA), pending the final vote of each country.

    Once Clinton was in office, he didn't oppose the agreement (after all, he came into office as a committed anti-New Dealer) although he added a couple amendments to the terms in order to win over skeptics. Alot of Southern Democrats voted to pass NAFTA. NAFTA had the support of most Republican officials, but still needed some Dem votes to pass. Most Northeastern and Midwestern Dems voted against it (even Chuck Schumer!). It passed by a slim 34 vote margin in the house (if we were free of the South like we ought to be, it wouldn't have passed). The Senate, no surprise, passed it rather easily (by 61-38).

    In the 1930's-1980's, the Left-wing and it's political leadership were on guard against "free trade", which they knew was corporate welfare. The Right, on the other hand, developed a new generation of thinkers in the 60's and 70's who would make bolder and bolder claims regarding trade, and this new mentality would only get more popular in subsequent decades.

    However, what has happened in the 2010's is that both the establishment Left and Right are now fully on board with free trade, while the Left rank and file becomes more free trade and the Right base becomes more anti-free trade. So unlike the 1930's-1980's, it is now clear that the establishment of one side is totally out of touch with it's base.

    Openly boasting about "free trade" is becoming increasingly toxic to Republicans, even as their major donor class and constellation of "think tanks" clings to the very ideology which they developed in the 60's and 70's, and popularized in the 80's and 90's.

  102. @Charles Pewitt

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

     

    Ronald Reagan is roasting and rotting in the hottest pits of fiery Hell for his treason against the USA!

    Ron Unz strongly suggested -- or perhaps hinted -- that Reagan was just a stooge whore for some mobbed up bastards from Illinois.

    Ron Unz:

    Pat Brown reached the governorship in an upset against Chotiner’s Republican candidate in 1958, and then won reelection against Nixon in 1962, but lost in 1966 to newcomer Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s own political rise had been orchestrated by Hollywood mogul Lew Wasserman of MCA, yet another Chicago transplant. Wasserman together with his mentor Jules Stein also had decades of mob-ties stretching back to Al Capone himself, having regularly employed gangster muscle to strong-arm their business partners and suppress their competitors.

     

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-power-of-organized-crime/

    Ronald Reagan was from Illinois and Reagan was a frigging fraudulent treasonous whore!

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.

    Reagan welcomed those Neo-Conservative rodent shysters into the GOP.

    This comment is turning into the Susquehanna Hat Company bit from Abbott and Costello.

    Every time some person praises Ronald Reagan I feel like the people do in this Abbbott and Costello comedy bit when they hear the words Susquehanna Hat Company:

    https://youtu.be/THZV5g1CNZM

    I did watch your Abbot and Costello. At 3:05: “He ain’t dead lady, he’s hiding.”

    • LOL: Charles Pewitt
  103. @Talha
    Hmmm...interesting. Seems Mr. Aslan is accusing Ivanka of taqiyyah.

    I’d think he would know that is not a good route to take; if he simply dismisses the denunciation by Whites of other White’s crimes as insincere, well - how will he respond if people do the same to Muslims condemning terrorism at the hands of Muslims.

    These people really need to think things through before shouting something to the world.

    Peace.

    I’d think he would know that is not a good route to take;…

    I’m not aware of any downside to criticizing Trump, or any member of his family (with the possible exception of Barron Trump, who is 13 y/o), even in vile terms.

    …how will he respond if people do the same to Muslims condemning terrorism at the hands of Muslims.

    Similar to black-on-black violence (eg how many where shot in Chicago last weekend?), I don’t think anyone really cares about (sectarian) muslim violence, which for all practical purposes does not happen in the US — and I have no idea what this nobody would say about it, or the reaction of other muslims to it — however in this scenario, I assume: criticism by other muslims would be editorially encouraged; any lack of actual criticism ignored; any criticism would of course be praised — in general, the only constant in the media’s reaction to muslim terrorism in white countries is concern about a “backlash” against muslims by racist Whites (somewhat redundant perhaps).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMyKGNy3CI4
  104. @Twinkie
    Reductio ad hitlerum.

    Many people know about Godwin’s law –> “if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds” — or even if they don’t, they are familiar with the phenomenon — with ‘”it’s OK to punch a Nazi”, it was verified in record time during the Trump campaign, and there’s been no let up since — they even describe the holding facilities for asylum seekers as “concentration camps”.

  105. @iffen
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man

    ROFLMAO

    You remember that Twilight Zone episode; “To Serve Man”?

    Peace.

  106. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Non-Hispanic White Fertility is going to be in freefall soon. Gen Z places no importance in children
     
    Meh. I can see it sort of going two ways.

    I'm quite impressed, the vast majority of white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships. I kind of see it as white retreat; as we are chased out of the media and basically everything else, we have nothing left but our families. We retreat and are kind of pressed into family formation because there is nothing else!

    However, you also have the climate strike crazies. I don't know how that will turn out. It's possible that the TFR will plummet due to that, but it certainly won't be a disaster since the more sane-minded people will continue to produce babies.

    Maybe Canada is unique, I don't know. (because it's so boring to start with). But I'm not seeing any kind of impending white fertility disaster. It's obviously still way too low (1.5) but it's not going to plummet to East Asian levels.

    Even in the US, I went to trendy white areas and you see lots of young couples with a child. Maybe they're delayed by 5 years but they're still making babies.

    I predict a non-white fertility collapse, which is already happening.

    white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships.

    have you quizzed them on their ideal mate choices?
    Would it by any chance be something like
    ” 7ft tall bodybuilder handyman who runs his own business worth millions – oh and who can take time off to mind the kids, anytime I want to go and find myself on a trip to Europe/Africa with my girlfriends. On his yacht. ” ???

    tl;dr if they weren’t hanging out for an Apex Alpha (20%:80%) they’d already be married. 50% of guys are above average, but will never be good enough for her even if she looks like the back end of a bus and chews with her mouth open.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @L Woods
    White woman apologists are indefensible -- they know damned well what they say is bullshit, but they simply can't help themselves: they have to keep posturing. By signalling their apparent ignorance, what they're implying is that, being big swinging dick winners and all, they've never had the occasion to learn that Women Are (not) Wonderful. Only a loser could know that! You're not a loser, are you?
  107. @dfordoom

    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren’t disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office.
     
    That's the problem with democracy. It's inherently corrupt. Democracy is no more sacred than capitalism. Both cause major problems. The Chinese are trying to avoid the worst excesses of capitalism and the dangers of democracy. It seems to be working pretty well.

    The government of a country usually reflects the people who live there. If the people who live in a country are immoral and corrupt then most likely the government will be immoral and corrupt too. Otherwise, they would either vote it out if the country is a democracy or rise up and overthrow it if it is not a democracy. The exception would be if the ruler had the backing of a heavily armed army and a disarmed populace. This is why the founders of this country didn’t believe in a large peacetime standing army. If a tyrant ever rose to power, they wanted to make sure it would be possible to dislodge him. They would consider dislodging him to be moral since he was no longer ruling with the consent of the governed. The founders were believers in democracy but they were aware that democracy could degenerate into mob rule that could be as bad as the worst dictator which is why they added a bill of rights to the Constitution. Ultimately, though, a bill of rights won’t act as protection when most people don’t believe in those rights. Importing large numbers of people from countries where most people don’t believe in things like freedom of speech or freedom of press is bound to lead to a decline in the protection of those rights and any unpopular position one might take being relabeled as “hate speech” that needs to be banned.

  108. @Talha
    Well the French generally didn’t have a huge problem hooking up with local women wherever they went around the world. Spanish also. And since the US was really a grab bag for multiple colonial-settler empires, it’s kind of baked in the cake.

    Obsession with racial purity seems only to have arisen from a strictly monogamous society. And specifically those feeling to be under siege or on the defensive. Both of these factors are now present in certain Western countries, thus the sentiment makes sense.

    Polygamous (whether infrequent or frequent) societies are more concerned with patrilineal lineage. Same with alpha-conquering societies.

    The male founder of a line has zero incentive not to confer the benefits accrued from his lineage to all his offspring from his various wives (or concubines as the case may be) whether they issue from his partners of the same stock as himself or a different one.

    Marriage between European nobles and aristocracy of various backgrounds is a good example of how, even in Europe, mixing between various European groups occurred publicly. Certainly the Greeks didn’t care much when they went into Persia as conquerors:
    “On an unknown date in 324 BC, the Macedonian (Greek) King Alexander the Great arranged about 80 weddings in the Persian city of Susa between the daughters of Persian nobles and Greeks of high office.”
    https://www.historyandheadlines.com/history-324-bc-alexander-great-arranges-mass-wedding/

    Peace.

    There is enough evidence from both studies on miscegenation (such as one recording disgust towards interracial couples) and on interracial relations (such as one with findings that interracial marriages are more dysfunctional than proper ones) to support regulations of miscegenation. Even among Injuns there is contempt towards those who racemixed.

    Polygamy is dysfunctional by design so I won’t use it to support me. I will however point out the obvious example of South Asia with its castes in regards to regulations.

    Also, the point with the Irish is to show that Murica has long been dysfunctional on the Racial/Immigrant Question. Compromise who can squat in your country even once and you make future attempts at regulation extra dead in the water.

    • Replies: @Talha

    such as one recording disgust towards interracial couples
     
    Where was this done? What was the sample size? I can show societies where people show disgust at eating cats and others find it mouth-watering.

    such as one with findings that interracial marriages are more dysfunctional than proper ones
     
    Depends on which ones. I can cite evidence that White-male/Black-female marriages are stronger and less prone to divorce than White-male/White-female. The case that defeated anti-miscegenation laws (Loving vs. Virginia) in the US was on behalf of a White man/Colored woman couple.

    example of South Asia
     
    Well, there's plenty dysfunctional in South Asia to be honest.

    Polygamy is dysfunctional by design
     
    This statement seems blind to the dysfunctions in strictly monogamous societies. Polygamous societies aren't currently in retro-grade fertility numbers nor finding themselves confused about gender. And polygamous societies run the spectrum from being highly polygamous (like where one tribal chief marries like 50 women in the surrounding villages) to occasional polygamy (which is usually a way to deal with exceptional circumstances like widows or usually only practiced by alpha-male elites) so it's not easy to pin it down to one kind of practice.

    in regards to regulations.
     
    Well, I certainly do not mind people wanting to bring back anti-miscegenation laws if that is what the society wishes. In Muslim lands we have laws allowing us to interdict an attempted marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man.

    I took my kids to a water park over the weekend. There was a younger White man there, solid guy - built like a tank, who had two mixed-looking little Black kids with him - I would assume his children though I didn't actually ask. He was looking after them like any other father, slopping on the sunscreen, drying them off and what not. Anti-miscegenation laws tend to butt heads with a patriarchal model; if a White man decided to marry a Black woman and her father had no qualms about it (this is an agreement between two males, one passing off the guardian/caretaker role to another), where exactly does your authority come in to prevent the marriage? I mean, we have our authority; God says non-Muslim men are not lawful for our women and vice versa - simple, done.

    Compromise who can squat in your country even once and you make future attempts at regulation extra dead in the water.

     

    I agree here; very difficult to roll back these kinds of things. My point was that the Irish were later additions; plenty of French and Spanish were already on the continent and mixing it up with Native women.

    Peace.
  109. @dfordoom

    Where I’ve always diverged from the Reagan Right is in not believing, as they do, that academic Marxists and big gov. are entirely responsible for stifling speech and dissent. Since the 70’s it’s been apparent that Corporate America will buckle to every latest PC development lest they “offend” a possible customer.
     
    I agree but I'd go further. Corporate America has not buckled to pressure. Corporate America has been the driving force behind these destructive developments.

    This is a brilliant take by one of the brothers I keep up with on Twitter:

    These guys know about dynasties, they know about secret societies, they can trace their lineages back plenty of generations. Why should one expect them to have any more concern (due to associated Whiteness) as some Earl/Duke of so-and-so that sneered at (also) White peasants toiling in his fields a long time ago?

    Ultimately, in survival-of-the-fittest, what does it matter to White elites if they throw generations of Whites into a meat grinder as long as the success of their progeny and genetic lines are secured? Should we assume them to be altruistic beyond that? Why? Ever hear the song “Fortunate Son’?

    This is the time to come through and have the wherewithal to wither the storm and become the founders of new dynastic lines. Dynastic lines are established in multiple ways; there are martial ones, there are mercantile ones, there are spiritual ones (one of my main ancestors came into India from Kerman in Persia as a Sufi-scholar and an entire city in Uttar Pradesh is chock full of his descendants) and I’m sure there are other paths if there is a desire.

    One must be wise; do not play the game according to their rules and do not expect any help from them.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Talha, great comments on this thread. Much appreciated.
  110. @Achmed E. Newman

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

     
    Got evidence on these 2, Charles? NAFTA was discussed in the early 1990's. I don't remember if Reagan himself was involved.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.
     
    That was due to his trusting soul, and he regretted having signed it, trusting the US Congress to pass the restrictions that were to go along with that.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats
     
    Good. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme, the people in that era hadn't paid near into it what they were getting out, and people don't die at average age 65 anymore. We've passed Peak Rich Old People, Charles.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.
     
    I know you understand that the US Congress makes the budget. You are too knowledgable on politics not to know this.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.
     
    Good point. I don't know all the politics behind that one. It sounds a lot like Trump's picking of Pence.

    You will never find non-Whites who’ll support Libertarianism. What does that tell you?

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    I'll have you know in North Carolina 1-2% of blacks are registered libertarian. Truly remarkable
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    What does that tell you?
     
    It tells me something I already know, Anounder. (I realize no one can follow all these commenters' stuff, but I've been writing that on here for quite some time.) The Reason magazine open-borders Libertards really ought to be told that maybe one in 500,000 of the illegal Mexicans that come in (that's about, what? 1/2 years worth?) will EVER get a subscription to their magazine.

    I wish Ron Paul had come to this realization back in '12. I told him in person that if he wanted to win my state in the GOP primary, he'd better talk about illegal immigration. He politely demurred. He lost after that.
  111. @Anounder
    You will never find non-Whites who'll support Libertarianism. What does that tell you?

    I’ll have you know in North Carolina 1-2% of blacks are registered libertarian. Truly remarkable

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’ll have you know in North Carolina 1-2% of blacks are registered libertarian. Truly remarkable
     
    Because there are blacks as well as whites who want legalised dope?
  112. Me! Me! Me!

    • Replies: @Talha
    Well, if this trend of White IncelQaeda attacks continues, learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny. And get ready for the; "Why don't we ever hear from the moderates?" no matter what you do.

    Peace.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Uh

    Well, white is a skin colour (born into it, can't change it), while Islam is a "religion" that is actually a political and ideological system.

    Either way. The more that whites as a whole get demonized and attacked, the more redpilled we will become. We are already getting better. We got soft because there were no struggles for so long. So I hope the anti-white rhetoric keeps heating up!
  113. @Anounder
    There is enough evidence from both studies on miscegenation (such as one recording disgust towards interracial couples) and on interracial relations (such as one with findings that interracial marriages are more dysfunctional than proper ones) to support regulations of miscegenation. Even among Injuns there is contempt towards those who racemixed.

    Polygamy is dysfunctional by design so I won't use it to support me. I will however point out the obvious example of South Asia with its castes in regards to regulations.

    Also, the point with the Irish is to show that Murica has long been dysfunctional on the Racial/Immigrant Question. Compromise who can squat in your country even once and you make future attempts at regulation extra dead in the water.

    such as one recording disgust towards interracial couples

    Where was this done? What was the sample size? I can show societies where people show disgust at eating cats and others find it mouth-watering.

    such as one with findings that interracial marriages are more dysfunctional than proper ones

    Depends on which ones. I can cite evidence that White-male/Black-female marriages are stronger and less prone to divorce than White-male/White-female. The case that defeated anti-miscegenation laws (Loving vs. Virginia) in the US was on behalf of a White man/Colored woman couple.

    example of South Asia

    Well, there’s plenty dysfunctional in South Asia to be honest.

    Polygamy is dysfunctional by design

    This statement seems blind to the dysfunctions in strictly monogamous societies. Polygamous societies aren’t currently in retro-grade fertility numbers nor finding themselves confused about gender. And polygamous societies run the spectrum from being highly polygamous (like where one tribal chief marries like 50 women in the surrounding villages) to occasional polygamy (which is usually a way to deal with exceptional circumstances like widows or usually only practiced by alpha-male elites) so it’s not easy to pin it down to one kind of practice.

    in regards to regulations.

    Well, I certainly do not mind people wanting to bring back anti-miscegenation laws if that is what the society wishes. In Muslim lands we have laws allowing us to interdict an attempted marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man.

    I took my kids to a water park over the weekend. There was a younger White man there, solid guy – built like a tank, who had two mixed-looking little Black kids with him – I would assume his children though I didn’t actually ask. He was looking after them like any other father, slopping on the sunscreen, drying them off and what not. Anti-miscegenation laws tend to butt heads with a patriarchal model; if a White man decided to marry a Black woman and her father had no qualms about it (this is an agreement between two males, one passing off the guardian/caretaker role to another), where exactly does your authority come in to prevent the marriage? I mean, we have our authority; God says non-Muslim men are not lawful for our women and vice versa – simple, done.

    Compromise who can squat in your country even once and you make future attempts at regulation extra dead in the water.

    I agree here; very difficult to roll back these kinds of things. My point was that the Irish were later additions; plenty of French and Spanish were already on the continent and mixing it up with Native women.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anounder

    Where was this done? What was the sample size? I can show societies where people show disgust at eating cats and others find it mouth-watering.
     
    https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/08/17/study-finds-bias-disgust-toward-mixed-race-couples/

    >Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans. That suggests that interracial couples are more likely to be dehumanized than same-race couples, the researchers write, and previous studies have shown that people tend to exhibit more antisocial behavior and are more likely to use aggression and even violence toward dehumanized targets.

    There wouldn't be such a use of cuck as insult if there wasn't about a man permitting enemy races to breed with his children that was revolting.

    Depends on which ones. I can cite evidence that White-male/Black-female marriages are stronger and less prone to divorce than White-male/White-female. The case that defeated anti-miscegenation laws (Loving vs. Virginia) in the US was on behalf of a White man/Colored woman couple.
     
    https://i.imgur.com/PACrRul.png

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699190057I

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/25/three-quarters-of-whites-dont-have-any-non-white-friends/

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/08/many-u-s-congregations-are-still-racially-segregated-but-things-are-changing-2/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/abstract

    https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html

    Among other studies.

    Well, there’s plenty dysfunctional in South Asia to be honest.
     
    The point of listing them was to show they too regulated miscegenation.

    This statement seems blind to the dysfunctions in strictly monogamous societies. Polygamous societies aren’t currently in retro-grade fertility numbers nor finding themselves confused about gender. And polygamous societies run the spectrum from being highly polygamous (like where one tribal chief marries like 50 women in the surrounding villages) to occasional polygamy (which is usually a way to deal with exceptional circumstances like widows or usually only practiced by alpha-male elites) so it’s not easy to pin it down to one kind of practice.
     
    The degeneracy you speak of is traces to the failure to maintain monogamy. Read Jim for more:

    https://blog.jim.com/culture/marriage/

    who had two mixed-looking little Black kids with him
     
    Those will grow up hating Whtey ala Coline Kaepernick.
  114. @216
    https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1158437892483624961

    Me! Me! Me!

    Well, if this trend of White IncelQaeda attacks continues, learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny. And get ready for the; “Why don’t we ever hear from the moderates?” no matter what you do.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny

    I keep saying that the only way forward for immigration reform (any meaningful reform in any area) is to separate from the WNs. Naturally the WNs are against this because they want to drag as many down with them as they can.

    , @216
    More likely is that we will be banned without apology.

    The use of "terrorism" has a certain rhetorical edge, it is meant to evoke what was called "insurrection" at the time the Constitution was written.

    Terrorism is therefore an escape clause that allows peacetime Constitutional provisions to be ignored.

    The policy of "military commissions" wasn't invented for Al-Qaeda, it was invented during the 1990s to be used against militias; then laying dormant until 2001.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I remember seeing lefties mocking "Yall-Quada" a few years ago. Now that it's actually becoming a thing they seem a little scared.

    I almost enjoy it, I almost like that all these stupid foreigners in my life might be scared of me due to media brainwashing. Lord knows, if you only watched the MSM (and most non-whites do), every white male is a potential mass shooting threat.
  115. @Talha
    Well, if this trend of White IncelQaeda attacks continues, learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny. And get ready for the; "Why don't we ever hear from the moderates?" no matter what you do.

    Peace.

    learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny

    I keep saying that the only way forward for immigration reform (any meaningful reform in any area) is to separate from the WNs. Naturally the WNs are against this because they want to drag as many down with them as they can.

    • Agree: 216, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Talha

    separate from the WNs.
     
    Or get them to understand proper strategy and pipe down a bit about some of their ultimate goals (you can't run until you've learned to walk). And it would help if some of the black-pilled ones didn't go postal in a Walmart or, for God's sake, in a Black church - not much to ask.

    Peace.

    , @L Woods
    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters. They see you as no different from any other "Nazi," an unfair characterization indeed as "Nazis" at least have some spine in stark contrast to a decrepit coward like yourself.
  116. @iffen
    learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny

    I keep saying that the only way forward for immigration reform (any meaningful reform in any area) is to separate from the WNs. Naturally the WNs are against this because they want to drag as many down with them as they can.

    separate from the WNs.

    Or get them to understand proper strategy and pipe down a bit about some of their ultimate goals (you can’t run until you’ve learned to walk). And it would help if some of the black-pilled ones didn’t go postal in a Walmart or, for God’s sake, in a Black church – not much to ask.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @216
    These movements cannot in any sense be described as genuinely seeking power, its just a continual fantasy of violence that sometimes spills over into reality.

    Only inside prisons has this system become reality, but the last time I checked prisoners are not adept at political organizing in the civilian world.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yeah,it's not a bunch of random Mexican's fault at Wal-Mart that the USA has open borders. It would be slightly less stupid to go after the people who actually make the decisions (bankers, politicians, refugee resettlement agencies, etc).

    WN Victims:

    - 100 year old Jews at a Synagogue
    - Muslims praying in NZ (peacefully)
    - More random Muslims (in Quebec City)
    - Cross-border Mexican shoppers at Wal-Mart
    - Nice black ladies at Church (this is especially painful, since blacks who are devout Christians are the only functional subset of blacks I know).

    THIS DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.

    These shootings achieve nothing, because the victims have nothing to do with causing the problems.
  117. @Talha

    separate from the WNs.
     
    Or get them to understand proper strategy and pipe down a bit about some of their ultimate goals (you can't run until you've learned to walk). And it would help if some of the black-pilled ones didn't go postal in a Walmart or, for God's sake, in a Black church - not much to ask.

    Peace.

    These movements cannot in any sense be described as genuinely seeking power, its just a continual fantasy of violence that sometimes spills over into reality.

    Only inside prisons has this system become reality, but the last time I checked prisoners are not adept at political organizing in the civilian world.

    • Agree: iffen, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha

    continual fantasy of violence
     
    Certainly the continual usage of memes and video-game language among the users of the various 'chans would lend itself to this theory:
    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-paso-shooting-and-the-gamification-of-terror/

    Only inside prisons has this system become reality, but the last time I checked prisoners are not adept at political organizing in the civilian world.
     
    I hadn't thought much about this before, but it is well known that a good amount of Daesh was organized within prisons (either Saddam's or run by the US or allies in Iraq). Their ineptitude in getting the electricity to work, but proficiency in slaughtering unarmed Yazidis was quite apparent when put into action.

    Makes sense when you think about it.

    Peace.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Eh, I think reality is feeling like a prison to alot of these guys. Might explain some things.
  118. @Talha
    Well, if this trend of White IncelQaeda attacks continues, learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny. And get ready for the; "Why don't we ever hear from the moderates?" no matter what you do.

    Peace.

    More likely is that we will be banned without apology.

    The use of “terrorism” has a certain rhetorical edge, it is meant to evoke what was called “insurrection” at the time the Constitution was written.

    Terrorism is therefore an escape clause that allows peacetime Constitutional provisions to be ignored.

    The policy of “military commissions” wasn’t invented for Al-Qaeda, it was invented during the 1990s to be used against militias; then laying dormant until 2001.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Good points.

    Peace.
  119. @216
    More likely is that we will be banned without apology.

    The use of "terrorism" has a certain rhetorical edge, it is meant to evoke what was called "insurrection" at the time the Constitution was written.

    Terrorism is therefore an escape clause that allows peacetime Constitutional provisions to be ignored.

    The policy of "military commissions" wasn't invented for Al-Qaeda, it was invented during the 1990s to be used against militias; then laying dormant until 2001.

    Good points.

    Peace.

  120. @216
    These movements cannot in any sense be described as genuinely seeking power, its just a continual fantasy of violence that sometimes spills over into reality.

    Only inside prisons has this system become reality, but the last time I checked prisoners are not adept at political organizing in the civilian world.

    continual fantasy of violence

    Certainly the continual usage of memes and video-game language among the users of the various ‘chans would lend itself to this theory:
    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-paso-shooting-and-the-gamification-of-terror/

    Only inside prisons has this system become reality, but the last time I checked prisoners are not adept at political organizing in the civilian world.

    I hadn’t thought much about this before, but it is well known that a good amount of Daesh was organized within prisons (either Saddam’s or run by the US or allies in Iraq). Their ineptitude in getting the electricity to work, but proficiency in slaughtering unarmed Yazidis was quite apparent when put into action.

    Makes sense when you think about it.

    Peace.

  121. @iffen
    learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny

    I keep saying that the only way forward for immigration reform (any meaningful reform in any area) is to separate from the WNs. Naturally the WNs are against this because they want to drag as many down with them as they can.

    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters. They see you as no different from any other “Nazi,” an unfair characterization indeed as “Nazis” at least have some spine in stark contrast to a decrepit coward like yourself.

    • Replies: @216
    IIRC, iffen is a leftist

    The left is currently "reactive" not "hunter-killer", we dread the day they become the latter, but I digress.

    The typical leftjourno is adept at sniffing out anything problematic or a "dog whistle", and then signalling to concerned moderates that such-and-such is to be excised from polite society.

    In order for this to work, you actually have to blow the dog whistle.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to racial slurs, yes.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to useage of flags of defeated govt's, yes

    Can we accomplish our activity without attracting or provoking a leftist reaction, yes.

    What does the left do when everything to the right of Bin Shapiro is banned as "Nazi" ?

    Answer: they have to call Shapiro a Nazi

    As we slip towards demographic irrelevancy, the use of the "Tony Leon" strategy should explored.
    , @silviosilver

    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters.
     
    How the left sees us is less important than how the non-left sees us. Not everyone who might want to restrict immigration has an interest in going full nazi (they might even have severe reservations about it). This is just elementary.

    "The left's gonna call me a nazi no matter what I do, so I may as well be a nazi" is just braindead, shit-tier, blackpilled WN logic.

    , @notanon

    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters.
     
    yes - concern about "optics" is a debatable issue but crawling to the media whenever they call you names is not debatable - it's always pathetic and bad.
  122. @Expletive Deleted

    white women I know, aged under 25, do want to get married and have children. Many are looking for serious relationships.
     
    have you quizzed them on their ideal mate choices?
    Would it by any chance be something like
    " 7ft tall bodybuilder handyman who runs his own business worth millions - oh and who can take time off to mind the kids, anytime I want to go and find myself on a trip to Europe/Africa with my girlfriends. On his yacht. " ???

    tl;dr if they weren't hanging out for an Apex Alpha (20%:80%) they'd already be married. 50% of guys are above average, but will never be good enough for her even if she looks like the back end of a bus and chews with her mouth open.

    White woman apologists are indefensible — they know damned well what they say is bullshit, but they simply can’t help themselves: they have to keep posturing. By signalling their apparent ignorance, what they’re implying is that, being big swinging dick winners and all, they’ve never had the occasion to learn that Women Are (not) Wonderful. Only a loser could know that! You’re not a loser, are you?

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I don't think you're a loser, but I do think that you're suffering from depression and maybe other illnesses which severely curtail one's ability to get women.

    You have talked yourself into a spot where it will not be possible to get a girlfriend. Spewing out bitter hatred against white women does not help.

    Remember that woman are excellent at seeing what's going on underneath. They know what you're thinking even if you're trying to hide it.

    Solutions to depression:

    - Working out
    - Praying
    - Getting a routine
    - Challenge your brain (read, cook, join a club, learn a new skill, fix your car etc.)
  123. @L Woods
    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters. They see you as no different from any other "Nazi," an unfair characterization indeed as "Nazis" at least have some spine in stark contrast to a decrepit coward like yourself.

    IIRC, iffen is a leftist

    The left is currently “reactive” not “hunter-killer”, we dread the day they become the latter, but I digress.

    The typical leftjourno is adept at sniffing out anything problematic or a “dog whistle”, and then signalling to concerned moderates that such-and-such is to be excised from polite society.

    In order for this to work, you actually have to blow the dog whistle.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to racial slurs, yes.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to useage of flags of defeated govt’s, yes

    Can we accomplish our activity without attracting or provoking a leftist reaction, yes.

    What does the left do when everything to the right of Bin Shapiro is banned as “Nazi” ?

    Answer: they have to call Shapiro a Nazi

    As we slip towards demographic irrelevancy, the use of the “Tony Leon” strategy should explored.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Like...yeah? Surely a good leftist should hold the old "first they came for..." saw close to heart? Oh wait, that doesn't apply to Bad People. How foolish of me.
    , @dfordoom

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to racial slurs, yes.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to useage of flags of defeated govt’s, yes
     
    In theory, yes. In practice there's a lunatic fringe of white nationalists that you can't reason with. The ones who think it's cool to welcome being called a Nazi. Any immigration restrictionist movement that allies itself with white nationalists is going to be perceived as, and portrayed as, being associated with those idiots. In practice white nationalists are probably not going to be useful allies.
    , @dfordoom

    IIRC, iffen is a leftist

    The left is currently “reactive” not “hunter-killer”, we dread the day they become the latter, but I digress.

    The typical leftjourno is adept at sniffing out anything problematic or a “dog whistle”
     
    iffen is old school Left (at least that's how he strikes me). The typical leftjourno is New Left. Totally different animals. The New Left worships bankers and billionaires and obsesses over identity politics (because identity politics is good for bankers and billionaires). Old school leftists have no interest in identity politics and are decidedly suspicious of capitalism.

    You can't make sense of the world today unless you always keep in mind the differences between Old Left and New Left.
  124. @216
    IIRC, iffen is a leftist

    The left is currently "reactive" not "hunter-killer", we dread the day they become the latter, but I digress.

    The typical leftjourno is adept at sniffing out anything problematic or a "dog whistle", and then signalling to concerned moderates that such-and-such is to be excised from polite society.

    In order for this to work, you actually have to blow the dog whistle.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to racial slurs, yes.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to useage of flags of defeated govt's, yes

    Can we accomplish our activity without attracting or provoking a leftist reaction, yes.

    What does the left do when everything to the right of Bin Shapiro is banned as "Nazi" ?

    Answer: they have to call Shapiro a Nazi

    As we slip towards demographic irrelevancy, the use of the "Tony Leon" strategy should explored.

    Like…yeah? Surely a good leftist should hold the old “first they came for…” saw close to heart? Oh wait, that doesn’t apply to Bad People. How foolish of me.

    • Replies: @216
    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism. That was a tactical posture in the 1970s to get pron decriminalized. If the law must tolerate Neo-Nazis, then it can surely tolerate hardcore pron.

    Now that pron is normalized, along with GayPride, they no longer need free speech absolutism.
  125. @L Woods
    Like...yeah? Surely a good leftist should hold the old "first they came for..." saw close to heart? Oh wait, that doesn't apply to Bad People. How foolish of me.

    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism. That was a tactical posture in the 1970s to get pron decriminalized. If the law must tolerate Neo-Nazis, then it can surely tolerate hardcore pron.

    Now that pron is normalized, along with GayPride, they no longer need free speech absolutism.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Of course, I know this. I just never quite cease to be galled at their utter hypocrisy.
    , @dfordoom

    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism.
     
    Free speech is a weapon, not a principle. And not just for the Left. Free speech is useful when you don't have actual power. Dissident rightists today love free speech because they have no actual power. If they gained power they would lose interest in free speech. The purpose of free speech is to undermine authority.

    Just as the purpose of freedom of religion is to undermine religion.
  126. @216
    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism. That was a tactical posture in the 1970s to get pron decriminalized. If the law must tolerate Neo-Nazis, then it can surely tolerate hardcore pron.

    Now that pron is normalized, along with GayPride, they no longer need free speech absolutism.

    Of course, I know this. I just never quite cease to be galled at their utter hypocrisy.

  127. AE,

    I suggest you read this if you haven’t already:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-american-race-war-of-1968

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Opened in the next tab.
  128. o/t

    The sentiment is nice, but the facts are not.

    Men have a very hard time using victimhood politics.

    A fitness regimen is an option, sir.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Young men need fitness, camraderie, religion, and a sense of belonging. War used to satisfy all 4.

    Productive action: going to a gym, getting involved in the martial arts community
    Pros: fitness, community, self defense skills, testosterone, future potential with women. Improving the white race starting with yourself

    Un-productive action: Going to Wal-Mart and shooting Mexicans.
    Cons: spending life in prison, no potential for white children, beta, cowardly

    Productive action: going to church and getting involved
    Unproductive: the same as above


    etc.

    , @L Woods

    Men have a very hard time using victimhood politics.
     
    An irony, as low status white men are just about the only one's for whom it could be honestly applied.
    , @216
    https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1158539586311806978
  129. @216
    https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1158437892483624961

    Me! Me! Me!

    Uh

    Well, white is a skin colour (born into it, can’t change it), while Islam is a “religion” that is actually a political and ideological system.

    Either way. The more that whites as a whole get demonized and attacked, the more redpilled we will become. We are already getting better. We got soft because there were no struggles for so long. So I hope the anti-white rhetoric keeps heating up!

  130. @Achmed E. Newman
    It wasn't just the public getting fed up back 100 years ago. I wish I could easily find the VDare article on this (not sure exactly what keywords to use) - it related the story of how the elites of the early part of the 20th century got fed up with immigrants and their bombings and assassination (attempts?) on Presidents, etc. I'm sure a lot of the capitalist elites were well aware that some of the new crowd were pro-Communist too. It was time to shut it down, and they did it, with a signature by one of my favorite Presidents, "Silent Cal" Coolidge.

    All strata of Americans were less globalist back then. Elites got carried away with loose borders in the late 19th century, and come the 20th century were beginning to realize how much they’d screwed up. It was nice having so many warm bodies to shove into the factories, but who expected them to eventually resent the dominant culture?

    Nowadays elites are trying to steer foreigners against the native working class. And it seems to be working, since today’s foreign”radicals” (and their white liberal handlers) aren’t actually targeting Capital, even though they often talk a good game about being “socialist”. In fact, global Capital is heavily involved in funding “anti-fascism” and immigrant rights efforts.

    It’s hard to find a parallel to this sort of situation in political history, although there’s always the go-to comparison of previous empires giving rising populations of foreigners more and more rights/responsibilities. But did Roman or Egyptian (or Ottoman, or whatever) elites deliberately encourage foreigners to be so hostile to much of the native born population?

  131. @Talha
    Well, if this trend of White IncelQaeda attacks continues, learn to practice your denunciations and polish your disavowals till they are shiny. And get ready for the; "Why don't we ever hear from the moderates?" no matter what you do.

    Peace.

    I remember seeing lefties mocking “Yall-Quada” a few years ago. Now that it’s actually becoming a thing they seem a little scared.

    I almost enjoy it, I almost like that all these stupid foreigners in my life might be scared of me due to media brainwashing. Lord knows, if you only watched the MSM (and most non-whites do), every white male is a potential mass shooting threat.

    • Replies: @216
    When the budget for "informers" is massively hiked, you won't be laughing as people are hauled away on "sting operations".

    IRL groups were routed by Antifa, and never managed to adapt their tactics; or move to favorable terrain.

    Anitfa can't be realistically described as even semi-pro, its mostly amateurs.

    Now imagine going up against FBI and RCMP special agents, the professionals.

    We won't last more than a couple weeks.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The elites are not scared, though. They are happy to manufacture fear and then leverage that manufactured fear to do whatever the hell they want to.
  132. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I remember seeing lefties mocking "Yall-Quada" a few years ago. Now that it's actually becoming a thing they seem a little scared.

    I almost enjoy it, I almost like that all these stupid foreigners in my life might be scared of me due to media brainwashing. Lord knows, if you only watched the MSM (and most non-whites do), every white male is a potential mass shooting threat.

    When the budget for “informers” is massively hiked, you won’t be laughing as people are hauled away on “sting operations”.

    IRL groups were routed by Antifa, and never managed to adapt their tactics; or move to favorable terrain.

    Anitfa can’t be realistically described as even semi-pro, its mostly amateurs.

    Now imagine going up against FBI and RCMP special agents, the professionals.

    We won’t last more than a couple weeks.

    • Replies: @notanon

    IRL groups were routed by Antifa
     
    IRL groups beat antifa on the streets - that's why the courts stepped in to lock people up for self-defense.

    Anitfa can’t be realistically described as even semi-pro, its mostly amateurs. Now imagine going up against FBI and RCMP special agents, the professionals. We won’t last more than a couple weeks.
     
    "we"

    if boomerwaffen takes off it won't be the alt-right - it'll be 40-something veteran normiecons mad at not being allowed any avenue for redress of grievances.
  133. @Talha

    separate from the WNs.
     
    Or get them to understand proper strategy and pipe down a bit about some of their ultimate goals (you can't run until you've learned to walk). And it would help if some of the black-pilled ones didn't go postal in a Walmart or, for God's sake, in a Black church - not much to ask.

    Peace.

    Yeah,it’s not a bunch of random Mexican’s fault at Wal-Mart that the USA has open borders. It would be slightly less stupid to go after the people who actually make the decisions (bankers, politicians, refugee resettlement agencies, etc).

    WN Victims:

    – 100 year old Jews at a Synagogue
    – Muslims praying in NZ (peacefully)
    – More random Muslims (in Quebec City)
    – Cross-border Mexican shoppers at Wal-Mart
    – Nice black ladies at Church (this is especially painful, since blacks who are devout Christians are the only functional subset of blacks I know).

    THIS DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. IT’S NOT THEIR FAULT.

    These shootings achieve nothing, because the victims have nothing to do with causing the problems.

    • Replies: @Talha

    These shootings achieve nothing, because the victims have nothing to do with causing the problems.
     
    Other than put you in the cross hairs of government agencies (who will justify their budget increases based on these occurrences - that’s right, you will pay more money for the (White) privilege of being monitored more closely).

    Peace.

    , @Feryl
    It's strange how infrequently they target government or notable corporate locations*. I really do wonder if the "divide and conquer" strategy is being pursued to good effect by the globalist cultural commie elite. By dwelling non-stop on ID politics since the Obama era, they've caused economic issues and government corruption issues to be over-looked in favor of ethnic and "cultural" ones.

    *A sustained campaign by violent radicals against the government or corporate America could very well lead to a 1920's style elite movement to clean up our society, which is the opposite of what we are going through now, where CNN anchors egg on Left-wing brown-shirts.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    They achieve less than nothing--it's almost as if they are intended to be entirely counterproductive.
  134. @216
    These movements cannot in any sense be described as genuinely seeking power, its just a continual fantasy of violence that sometimes spills over into reality.

    Only inside prisons has this system become reality, but the last time I checked prisoners are not adept at political organizing in the civilian world.

    Eh, I think reality is feeling like a prison to alot of these guys. Might explain some things.

    • Replies: @216
    That is going to smack of entitlement to a large number of people.

    We need to stop making excuses for inceldom and the resultant violence, the responsible choice of being a volcel and accepting reality is what needs to be promoted instead.
  135. @L Woods
    White woman apologists are indefensible -- they know damned well what they say is bullshit, but they simply can't help themselves: they have to keep posturing. By signalling their apparent ignorance, what they're implying is that, being big swinging dick winners and all, they've never had the occasion to learn that Women Are (not) Wonderful. Only a loser could know that! You're not a loser, are you?

    I don’t think you’re a loser, but I do think that you’re suffering from depression and maybe other illnesses which severely curtail one’s ability to get women.

    You have talked yourself into a spot where it will not be possible to get a girlfriend. Spewing out bitter hatred against white women does not help.

    Remember that woman are excellent at seeing what’s going on underneath. They know what you’re thinking even if you’re trying to hide it.

    Solutions to depression:

    – Working out
    – Praying
    – Getting a routine
    – Challenge your brain (read, cook, join a club, learn a new skill, fix your car etc.)

    • Replies: @L Woods

    You have talked yourself into a spot where it will not be possible to get a girlfriend.
     
    Rarely been without some kind of "girlfriend" since I escaped State U hell (you know, that time that was supposed to be "the best years of your life"). Inevitably, I do end up dating far down.

    Spewing out bitter hatred against white women does not help.
     
    I'm compelled to blurt the truth: I am a "sperg," after all. Would I have a better opinion of white women if they hadn't so often treated me like shit? Sure. I'd also have a better opinion of a guy if he weren't kicking in my teeth -- that doesn't make him an objectively good person if he only does it to others. And modern white women are, in all earnest, probably the most debased women that have ever lived -- and that is saying a very great deal.

    Remember that woman are excellent at seeing what’s going on underneath. They know what you’re thinking even if you’re trying to hide it.
     
    Ha. That's what polygraphers say. While they can sense emotions in a nebulous way, I don't think they're really as accurate in their vague perceptions as you (or they) think they are. What they do seem to be able to sense inevitably is that I Do Not Belong -- never have found a work around for that one.
  136. @216
    o/t

    https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1158508726422257680

    The sentiment is nice, but the facts are not.

    Men have a very hard time using victimhood politics.

    A fitness regimen is an option, sir.

    Young men need fitness, camraderie, religion, and a sense of belonging. War used to satisfy all 4.

    Productive action: going to a gym, getting involved in the martial arts community
    Pros: fitness, community, self defense skills, testosterone, future potential with women. Improving the white race starting with yourself

    Un-productive action: Going to Wal-Mart and shooting Mexicans.
    Cons: spending life in prison, no potential for white children, beta, cowardly

    Productive action: going to church and getting involved
    Unproductive: the same as above

    etc.

    • Agree: 216, Talha
    • Replies: @L Woods
    “Self-improvement” is masturbation. In any case, women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.
  137. @Talha
    This is a brilliant take by one of the brothers I keep up with on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/dimashqee/status/1154286147469754369

    These guys know about dynasties, they know about secret societies, they can trace their lineages back plenty of generations. Why should one expect them to have any more concern (due to associated Whiteness) as some Earl/Duke of so-and-so that sneered at (also) White peasants toiling in his fields a long time ago?

    Ultimately, in survival-of-the-fittest, what does it matter to White elites if they throw generations of Whites into a meat grinder as long as the success of their progeny and genetic lines are secured? Should we assume them to be altruistic beyond that? Why? Ever hear the song "Fortunate Son'?

    This is the time to come through and have the wherewithal to wither the storm and become the founders of new dynastic lines. Dynastic lines are established in multiple ways; there are martial ones, there are mercantile ones, there are spiritual ones (one of my main ancestors came into India from Kerman in Persia as a Sufi-scholar and an entire city in Uttar Pradesh is chock full of his descendants) and I'm sure there are other paths if there is a desire.

    One must be wise; do not play the game according to their rules and do not expect any help from them.

    Peace.

    Talha, great comments on this thread. Much appreciated.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Most welcome, thanks for taking the time to read them. Big hat tip to AE and Mr. Unz for providing a great forum to discuss these topics.

    Peace.
  138. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Eh, I think reality is feeling like a prison to alot of these guys. Might explain some things.

    That is going to smack of entitlement to a large number of people.

    We need to stop making excuses for inceldom and the resultant violence, the responsible choice of being a volcel and accepting reality is what needs to be promoted instead.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I'm not saying it should be some official narrative, I'm just saying that a white guy, with lower IQ, lower T and lower attractiveness really does have no hope for his future and it feels to him like a prison.

    No excuses for mass murder. I outlined some positive steps above.
    , @L Woods
    Yeah right, let’s all accept a gross injustice that was far less wisespread within living memory to signal to our moral betters. Bullshit. There is nothing inherently bad about “entitlement.” Nothing at all. Of course you simply take for granted that the Worthy People really are entitled — it’s only the havenots to whom you apply that threadbare scare word.
  139. @216
    That is going to smack of entitlement to a large number of people.

    We need to stop making excuses for inceldom and the resultant violence, the responsible choice of being a volcel and accepting reality is what needs to be promoted instead.

    I’m not saying it should be some official narrative, I’m just saying that a white guy, with lower IQ, lower T and lower attractiveness really does have no hope for his future and it feels to him like a prison.

    No excuses for mass murder. I outlined some positive steps above.

  140. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Young men need fitness, camraderie, religion, and a sense of belonging. War used to satisfy all 4.

    Productive action: going to a gym, getting involved in the martial arts community
    Pros: fitness, community, self defense skills, testosterone, future potential with women. Improving the white race starting with yourself

    Un-productive action: Going to Wal-Mart and shooting Mexicans.
    Cons: spending life in prison, no potential for white children, beta, cowardly

    Productive action: going to church and getting involved
    Unproductive: the same as above


    etc.

    “Self-improvement” is masturbation. In any case, women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    " 'Self-improvement' is masturbation."

    So is masturbation.
    , @216
    Self-improvement is good not because it delivers results (I have doubts as to whether TRP is actually effective for most men). It is good because it gets your mind in a better place, and provides healthy distractions from toxicity in everyday life. Certain gyms are also male-centric, and should be sought out for camaraderie.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

    I think this is exactly backwards.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    https://www.tribute.ca/news/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/steven-seagal.jpg
  141. @216
    That is going to smack of entitlement to a large number of people.

    We need to stop making excuses for inceldom and the resultant violence, the responsible choice of being a volcel and accepting reality is what needs to be promoted instead.

    Yeah right, let’s all accept a gross injustice that was far less wisespread within living memory to signal to our moral betters. Bullshit. There is nothing inherently bad about “entitlement.” Nothing at all. Of course you simply take for granted that the Worthy People really are entitled — it’s only the havenots to whom you apply that threadbare scare word.

  142. @t
    How much of the shift was due to the radical shift that blacks have had in recent years?

    More to come on this variable, one that I’d overlooked previously (and inexcusably!).

  143. @MikeP
    Can you show the results also for non-Hispanic Whites only?

    Yes, will do.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Also, please do Jews as well.
  144. @indocon
    Audacious, don't be so pessimistic. At that time of the previous recession, immigration was at the bottom of the list of top issues, now it is at the top, just imagine what will happen when you couple that with the next recession, which will happen at some point soon.

    That immigration has gone from a distant 4th or 5th among Republicans a decade ago to the top issue today is encouraging. Otoh, many (non-elite) white liberals used to be reasonable about immigration. Now they are nearly all open borders zealots.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    That immigration has gone from a distant 4th or 5th among Republicans a decade ago to the top issue today is encouraging.
     
    Ah yes, but how many of those Republicans will assure you that they're only concerned by illegal immigration and that legal immigration is of course A-OK?

    Just like Trump. Reduce illegal immigration and massively increase legal immigration. You still get replaced but it's done in a nice orderly manner.
  145. @Achmed E. Newman
    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound here. Big Biz will not be controlled by the Feral Government. They run the thing. The only threats to the big corporate world that you and I hate will come from below, individuals who buck the system and do their own thing, and small business, supported by people who don't like the Big Box, Amazonian, Goolag world, and put their money where their big internet keyboard fingers are.

    I'm starting to agree more with our commenter Thomm. If you people are in any way white nationalists, and you think Socialism is the answer, with no clue in your heads of what the "Great" part of MAGA was based on, then I don't expect anything worthwhile out of you all. No, there are no WN Whiggers (I truly don't get where Thomm gets that bit), and I don't think your IQs are low at all. You all write well, but with no background in reality. My man Ronnie had something to say about this too: "It isn't so much that liberals [ Socialists ] are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

    “RIP, Ronald Reagan.”

    Amiable chap, Ronnie was. One of J.Edgar’s best pets. The intelligence agencies under his reign — eight years in California, eight years in DC — ran wild. When Ronnie ruled in Sacramento the Golden State was fertile ground for deep state cults.

  146. @Jeffotos
    The easiest defense argument to reverse that trend is mentioning: we don’t need more cheap labor as Robots and automation gain ground in near future. Do millennials and snowflakes like to struggle making a living?

    Andrew Yang lets smart listeners figure this out but he’s afraid to spell it out explicitly. Instead, he says “immigrants are scapegoated for jobs robots are stealing!”–which is partially true, of course, but also partially false.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The "they steal our jobs" argument isn't without merit, however there are an abundance of problems associated with high immigration levels, some more "sensitive" then others"

    1)It leads to depressed native birth rates
    2) It causes urban over-crowding and suburban sprawl (insofar as an area can accommodate the demand for "growth")
    3) It jacks up housing costs
    4) The rapid population growth results in not enough jobs being created in the first place to meet demand, which actually affects everyone, native and foreign born.
    5) Ethnic "affinity" networks become a much greater problem
    6) Social trust levels rapidly drop because natives, and various groups of immigrants, feel little camaraderie between the different groups.
    7) Immigrants, and their immediate descendants, are historically associated with radical politics and grievances against the dominant culture of the host country.
  147. @L Woods
    “Self-improvement” is masturbation. In any case, women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

    ” ‘Self-improvement’ is masturbation.”

    So is masturbation.

  148. @Achmed E. Newman

    Ronald Reagan was the treasonous rat who started the sovereignty-sapping, job-killing NAFTA negotiations and George HW Bush and Bill Clinton finished the NAFTA crap.

    Ronald Reagan pushed nation-wrecking mass legal immigration.

     
    Got evidence on these 2, Charles? NAFTA was discussed in the early 1990's. I don't remember if Reagan himself was involved.

    Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal alien invaders in 1986.
     
    That was due to his trusting soul, and he regretted having signed it, trusting the US Congress to pass the restrictions that were to go along with that.

    Ronald Reagan raised the eligibility age for Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats
     
    Good. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme, the people in that era hadn't paid near into it what they were getting out, and people don't die at average age 65 anymore. We've passed Peak Rich Old People, Charles.

    Ronald Reagan borrowed all kinds of money to pay for tax cuts for the plutocrats.
     
    I know you understand that the US Congress makes the budget. You are too knowledgable on politics not to know this.

    Reagan made that treasonous rat George HW Bush his VP.
     
    Good point. I don't know all the politics behind that one. It sounds a lot like Trump's picking of Pence.

    Got evidence on these 2, Charles? NAFTA was discussed in the early 1990’s. I don’t remember if Reagan himself was involved.

    According to Wiki, the push to “modernize” trade policy within North America dates back to 1979, and the Reaganites laid the ground-work for what would become NAFTA. By 1988, a new agreement with Canada was reached, and once GHW Bush took over the White House, Mexico approached the US to negotiate a new deal. By late 1992, all three countries agreed on the terms of NAFTA (the 1988 agreement with Canada would be superseded by NAFTA), pending the final vote of each country.

    Once Clinton was in office, he didn’t oppose the agreement (after all, he came into office as a committed anti-New Dealer) although he added a couple amendments to the terms in order to win over skeptics. Alot of Southern Democrats voted to pass NAFTA. NAFTA had the support of most Republican officials, but still needed some Dem votes to pass. Most Northeastern and Midwestern Dems voted against it (even Chuck Schumer!). It passed by a slim 34 vote margin in the house (if we were free of the South like we ought to be, it wouldn’t have passed). The Senate, no surprise, passed it rather easily (by 61-38).

    In the 1930’s-1980’s, the Left-wing and it’s political leadership were on guard against “free trade”, which they knew was corporate welfare. The Right, on the other hand, developed a new generation of thinkers in the 60’s and 70’s who would make bolder and bolder claims regarding trade, and this new mentality would only get more popular in subsequent decades.

    However, what has happened in the 2010’s is that both the establishment Left and Right are now fully on board with free trade, while the Left rank and file becomes more free trade and the Right base becomes more anti-free trade. So unlike the 1930’s-1980’s, it is now clear that the establishment of one side is totally out of touch with it’s base.

    Openly boasting about “free trade” is becoming increasingly toxic to Republicans, even as their major donor class and constellation of “think tanks” clings to the very ideology which they developed in the 60’s and 70’s, and popularized in the 80’s and 90’s.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Your last paragraph is spot-on. People are (hopefully) becoming wise to the magical market fairy dust sprinkled liberally throughout the 80s and 90s. Capitalism works great with a splash of socialism. We need to consider the current state of capitalism, and the Chinese model that Woke capitalists are gravitating towards. This is not a good development.
  149. @L Woods
    “Self-improvement” is masturbation. In any case, women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

    Self-improvement is good not because it delivers results (I have doubts as to whether TRP is actually effective for most men). It is good because it gets your mind in a better place, and provides healthy distractions from toxicity in everyday life. Certain gyms are also male-centric, and should be sought out for camaraderie.

  150. @JohnnyWalker123
    Over the last decade, significant restrictions have been placed on the freedom of speech. Those who express "taboo" opinions are often punished very harshly. So people are more hesistant to speak their minds. When pollsters ask them their thoughts, Americans often give the socially desirable answer to avoid getting into "trouble."

    Support for cutting immigration has likely been stable (or even increased), but people fear the consequences of saying what they really think.

    People only feel truly secure in the ballot box. Which is why Trump became the nominee and remains popular.

    If Americans were increasingly pro-immigration, Trump's various comments would've resulted in his support falling. Instead, after he made his latest controversial comments, his support actually increased.

    That’s a glass-half-full reading of the situation. My glass-half-empty reading is that immigration restrictionism was low-hanging fruit that other pols could’ve picked up and run with after 2001, but no Republicans would pick it because of fear from donors and media. Trump finally walked up and grabbed the fruit just as it was being raised up out of reach.

    • Replies: @James Bowery
    If people keep going on about "civic nationalist cucks", "muh Constitution Boomers" and "individualists" as the problem rather than plumbing the depths of European culture of individual integrity, they'll miss out on the invincible power of such a culture when individuals of integrity deliberately come to a conscious consensus that war must be declared, and waged, against a supremacist mob aggressing against individual consent.

    When white nationalists realize the reason they're characterized as "white supremacists" is projective preemption by the supremacist mob -- capable only of instinctive mob behavior -- and that there are far worse sins than isolated individuals being cowed by a zombie apocalypse, that's when America will stand a fighting chance.

    The vast majority of "civic nationalist cucks", "muh Constitution Boomers" and "individualists" are not only white, they'd fight to the death if the declaration of war were to recognize that individual men, in a state of nature, have a fighting chance, against other individual men, to acquire the necessities of life, including quality mates -- and that legitimate government must compensate its able-bodied young men before it can expect them to sign on to any so-called "non-aggression principle".

    In my estimation, the so-called Libertarians may well have been cooked up in a Soviet, or more likely, Maoist think tank (if not a CIA corrupted by Frankfurt School agents).

    Don't take the bait.
  151. @iffen
    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.

    manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment

    Lets see…Ctrl-f jew…nothing.

    “White nationalist” who doesn’t care about Jews.

  152. @Feryl

    Corporations have been aligned with feminism since the 1960s, as they view it as a way of controlling labor costs. The questionable YouTube channel “Coach Red Pill” had a good video on this.
     
    Right, the evidence is overwhelming that the "private sector" at best conforms to the prevailing values of the day (even if they are destructive), and at worst, aggressively pushes destabilizing things before a lot of normies wish to have them. E.g., Americans actually were fairly trusting of banks in the 1970's, but by the late 70's it was becoming clear that many in the business sector wanted to de-regulate banking even though we'd suppressed massive booms and busts from the 1930's-70's.

    "The profit motive" is not culturally conservative or wholesome*. Regardless of what the "free-market" idolaters would have you believe. A society works best with a "mixed" approach that prioritizes to some degree fairness and equitable distribution of money, assets, and bargaining rights. Neither Reaganite union busting and merger happy crony capitalism nor pure communism is the way to go.

    *Making money should not come at the expense of ethics.

    Regulatory capture is important here. So are the prohibitive nature of compliance costs. Sarbox is something I’m intimately familiar with. It has been great for large caps, bad for small caps, and terrible for small private companies.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Back in the 80's, businesses of all types signed up for the Reagan Revolution. That it would, in practice, create massive levels of cronyism is something that many people neither considered, or seemed to care about. As usual, it's all a mirage. The New Deal era meant smaller profits, but at least it created stability and reduced corruption.
  153. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    All kinds of books get quoted. You can quote the old testament and it's full of violence.

    Simply, that is a good idea and that book is where I came across the idea.

    I’ve read The Turner Diaries. It’s bad pulp fiction; it’s Nazi porn. If you feel strongly about white identity, Nordic pride, however you want to phrase it, stay away from Nazi mythology. It makes fools out of white men.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Jeez.

    Y'all need to relax. It's a quote that I really thought was good, from that book. Nothing else.
  154. @Mike P.
    The shift is almost entirely explained by Democrats becoming more anti-restriction. (In case anybody was wondering.)

    On the other hand, even if there was still broad support for lower immigration levels, would it matter? Public policy on immigration at least in the U.S. is driven by elite opinion, not public opinion. Even when there was no desire to increase immigration (Gallup in the mid-1960s suggested that only 6-7% wanted to increase immigration) it got increased. Similarly when there was a desire to reduce it (in the early 1990s 65% wanted it decreased) it stayed the same. (See the link for the poll data.) Elite opinion prevailed over public opinion in both cases.

    When there was broad opposition to it, we could at least hold the legal line. They tried and tried to pass amnesties but they never could get them through congress. With a (D) in the WH in 2021, even if the GOP marginally holds onto the Senate, open borders will be legislatively written into official existence.

  155. @Audacious Epigone
    Andrew Yang lets smart listeners figure this out but he's afraid to spell it out explicitly. Instead, he says "immigrants are scapegoated for jobs robots are stealing!"--which is partially true, of course, but also partially false.

    The “they steal our jobs” argument isn’t without merit, however there are an abundance of problems associated with high immigration levels, some more “sensitive” then others”

    1)It leads to depressed native birth rates
    2) It causes urban over-crowding and suburban sprawl (insofar as an area can accommodate the demand for “growth”)
    3) It jacks up housing costs
    4) The rapid population growth results in not enough jobs being created in the first place to meet demand, which actually affects everyone, native and foreign born.
    5) Ethnic “affinity” networks become a much greater problem
    6) Social trust levels rapidly drop because natives, and various groups of immigrants, feel little camaraderie between the different groups.
    7) Immigrants, and their immediate descendants, are historically associated with radical politics and grievances against the dominant culture of the host country.

    • Replies: @216
    One problem with this is Canuckophilia among Bluestanis.

    Canada hasn't witnessed the major drawbacks of diversity, such as its most visible: race riots.

    The anti-immigration position in Canada is far lower than in the US, with this myth of their system being "merit based".

    Otoh, geographically Canada is one of the worst places to have rioting because it is much colder than the US.
  156. @216
    o/t

    https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1158508726422257680

    The sentiment is nice, but the facts are not.

    Men have a very hard time using victimhood politics.

    A fitness regimen is an option, sir.

    Men have a very hard time using victimhood politics.

    An irony, as low status white men are just about the only one’s for whom it could be honestly applied.

    • Replies: @216
    Low status white men in the US still have higher living standards than most residents of Central America.
  157. @Feryl
    The "they steal our jobs" argument isn't without merit, however there are an abundance of problems associated with high immigration levels, some more "sensitive" then others"

    1)It leads to depressed native birth rates
    2) It causes urban over-crowding and suburban sprawl (insofar as an area can accommodate the demand for "growth")
    3) It jacks up housing costs
    4) The rapid population growth results in not enough jobs being created in the first place to meet demand, which actually affects everyone, native and foreign born.
    5) Ethnic "affinity" networks become a much greater problem
    6) Social trust levels rapidly drop because natives, and various groups of immigrants, feel little camaraderie between the different groups.
    7) Immigrants, and their immediate descendants, are historically associated with radical politics and grievances against the dominant culture of the host country.

    One problem with this is Canuckophilia among Bluestanis.

    Canada hasn’t witnessed the major drawbacks of diversity, such as its most visible: race riots.

    The anti-immigration position in Canada is far lower than in the US, with this myth of their system being “merit based”.

    Otoh, geographically Canada is one of the worst places to have rioting because it is much colder than the US.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    White Canadians and immigrants have always gotten along pretty well.

    In the past 4 years, since Trudeau came in, that has started to change and now we are seeing random Africans, Somalians and also a change in attitude amongst East and South Asians, who now resent whites.

    But overall, most Canadians are still in the firmly cucked stage with respect to race. However, more and more are waking up. It's like we're still in 2010 USA or something.

    There is a new party, the PPC, which will slash legal immigration by 50%. We shall see how he performs in the October election.
  158. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yeah,it's not a bunch of random Mexican's fault at Wal-Mart that the USA has open borders. It would be slightly less stupid to go after the people who actually make the decisions (bankers, politicians, refugee resettlement agencies, etc).

    WN Victims:

    - 100 year old Jews at a Synagogue
    - Muslims praying in NZ (peacefully)
    - More random Muslims (in Quebec City)
    - Cross-border Mexican shoppers at Wal-Mart
    - Nice black ladies at Church (this is especially painful, since blacks who are devout Christians are the only functional subset of blacks I know).

    THIS DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.

    These shootings achieve nothing, because the victims have nothing to do with causing the problems.

    These shootings achieve nothing, because the victims have nothing to do with causing the problems.

    Other than put you in the cross hairs of government agencies (who will justify their budget increases based on these occurrences – that’s right, you will pay more money for the (White) privilege of being monitored more closely).

    Peace.

  159. @L Woods

    Men have a very hard time using victimhood politics.
     
    An irony, as low status white men are just about the only one's for whom it could be honestly applied.

    Low status white men in the US still have higher living standards than most residents of Central America.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Of course, I meant within the US (or the developed world). Still, I'd contend that even Central American peasants are in many non-material respects 'richer' than nearly all white American males. The argument that you can't complain because gee, look at how filthy rich the country is, doesn't really fly. It's like saying your car should run fine when it's out of oil because the gas tank is full.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Low status white men in the US still have higher living standards than most residents of Central America.
     
    And are the ones with the most legitimate grievance, as their living standards are far below what their productivity merits.
  160. @Feryl

    Got evidence on these 2, Charles? NAFTA was discussed in the early 1990’s. I don’t remember if Reagan himself was involved.
     
    According to Wiki, the push to "modernize" trade policy within North America dates back to 1979, and the Reaganites laid the ground-work for what would become NAFTA. By 1988, a new agreement with Canada was reached, and once GHW Bush took over the White House, Mexico approached the US to negotiate a new deal. By late 1992, all three countries agreed on the terms of NAFTA (the 1988 agreement with Canada would be superseded by NAFTA), pending the final vote of each country.

    Once Clinton was in office, he didn't oppose the agreement (after all, he came into office as a committed anti-New Dealer) although he added a couple amendments to the terms in order to win over skeptics. Alot of Southern Democrats voted to pass NAFTA. NAFTA had the support of most Republican officials, but still needed some Dem votes to pass. Most Northeastern and Midwestern Dems voted against it (even Chuck Schumer!). It passed by a slim 34 vote margin in the house (if we were free of the South like we ought to be, it wouldn't have passed). The Senate, no surprise, passed it rather easily (by 61-38).

    In the 1930's-1980's, the Left-wing and it's political leadership were on guard against "free trade", which they knew was corporate welfare. The Right, on the other hand, developed a new generation of thinkers in the 60's and 70's who would make bolder and bolder claims regarding trade, and this new mentality would only get more popular in subsequent decades.

    However, what has happened in the 2010's is that both the establishment Left and Right are now fully on board with free trade, while the Left rank and file becomes more free trade and the Right base becomes more anti-free trade. So unlike the 1930's-1980's, it is now clear that the establishment of one side is totally out of touch with it's base.

    Openly boasting about "free trade" is becoming increasingly toxic to Republicans, even as their major donor class and constellation of "think tanks" clings to the very ideology which they developed in the 60's and 70's, and popularized in the 80's and 90's.

    Your last paragraph is spot-on. People are (hopefully) becoming wise to the magical market fairy dust sprinkled liberally throughout the 80s and 90s. Capitalism works great with a splash of socialism. We need to consider the current state of capitalism, and the Chinese model that Woke capitalists are gravitating towards. This is not a good development.

  161. Microcosm

    Will the Boomercons rise up and send this grifter packing?

    Or be hooked into the political equivalent of the reverse mortgage?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Nobody cares about these dingleberries. It's not 1995 anymore. Guys like him need to get lost. Current libs are statist on behalf of climate regulation and 3rd world gibs; current Republicans want protectionism and strong defense of native inhabitants. There's only a small, generally over the age of 50 and affluent, number of these "centrist" weasels left. Who cares what they think?

    Besides, it's smug grandstanding anyway. "Oh, I'm not one of the big government liberals, but I'm not a dinosaur stuck in the 50's either".
  162. @iffen
    The manifesto of the El Paso shooter reads like it could have been copied and pasted from a UR comment with no need of alterations or additions.

    Yeah, this guy is full on 1488. Some of the more shocking bits of his Nazi screed/manifesto:

    [MORE]

    unchecked corporations

    Republican Party are pro-corporation

    America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty

    The lower the unemployment rate, the better

    They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees

    Corporations need to … keep wages down

    a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market

    American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life

    our lifestyle is destroying the environment

    this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”

    Fresh water is being polluted from …oil drilling operations

    Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities

    We even use…many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands

    the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle

    Excessive paper towel usage. Main Nazi concern.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    There's literally nothing wrong with his manifesto. He is 100% accurate in everything except his path forward, which involves needlessly slaughtering 20 random Mexicans.
    , @iffen
    You are going to need to work out your differences with other WNs on your own without my help.

    It's not the fact that he wasn't entitled to his political views; it's the fact that he killed a lot of innocent people.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Has Andrew Yang disavowed yet?
  163. @SunBakedSuburb
    I've read The Turner Diaries. It's bad pulp fiction; it's Nazi porn. If you feel strongly about white identity, Nordic pride, however you want to phrase it, stay away from Nazi mythology. It makes fools out of white men.

    Jeez.

    Y’all need to relax. It’s a quote that I really thought was good, from that book. Nothing else.

  164. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I don't think you're a loser, but I do think that you're suffering from depression and maybe other illnesses which severely curtail one's ability to get women.

    You have talked yourself into a spot where it will not be possible to get a girlfriend. Spewing out bitter hatred against white women does not help.

    Remember that woman are excellent at seeing what's going on underneath. They know what you're thinking even if you're trying to hide it.

    Solutions to depression:

    - Working out
    - Praying
    - Getting a routine
    - Challenge your brain (read, cook, join a club, learn a new skill, fix your car etc.)

    You have talked yourself into a spot where it will not be possible to get a girlfriend.

    Rarely been without some kind of “girlfriend” since I escaped State U hell (you know, that time that was supposed to be “the best years of your life”). Inevitably, I do end up dating far down.

    Spewing out bitter hatred against white women does not help.

    I’m compelled to blurt the truth: I am a “sperg,” after all. Would I have a better opinion of white women if they hadn’t so often treated me like shit? Sure. I’d also have a better opinion of a guy if he weren’t kicking in my teeth — that doesn’t make him an objectively good person if he only does it to others. And modern white women are, in all earnest, probably the most debased women that have ever lived — and that is saying a very great deal.

    Remember that woman are excellent at seeing what’s going on underneath. They know what you’re thinking even if you’re trying to hide it.

    Ha. That’s what polygraphers say. While they can sense emotions in a nebulous way, I don’t think they’re really as accurate in their vague perceptions as you (or they) think they are. What they do seem to be able to sense inevitably is that I Do Not Belong — never have found a work around for that one.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    since I escaped State U hell (you know, that time that was supposed to be “the best years of your life”)
     
    One of the most massive Boomer lies ever, is that University is the best part of your life. God damn, I regret listening to those cocksuckers. From what I was told, once you go to uni, everyone became open minded, friendly, the girls became easy and there were wild parties every night (all while still learning the rigorous curriculum).

    WRONG. The few white people that I'm around are just as shitty as they were in High School. I've learned about how much white people are hated by Indians, Chinamen, Ayrabs, Negroes, and Latins, and to never trust them. Haven't learned much of anything else.

    And modern white women are, in all earnest, probably the most debased women that have ever lived
     
    Many are, but not all. Modern white men are also pretty shitty.
    , @Rosie

    Would I have a better opinion of white women if they hadn’t so often treated me like shit?
     
    Precisely the same excuse feminists use for hating men.
  165. @216
    Low status white men in the US still have higher living standards than most residents of Central America.

    Of course, I meant within the US (or the developed world). Still, I’d contend that even Central American peasants are in many non-material respects ‘richer’ than nearly all white American males. The argument that you can’t complain because gee, look at how filthy rich the country is, doesn’t really fly. It’s like saying your car should run fine when it’s out of oil because the gas tank is full.

  166. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Yeah, this guy is full on 1488. Some of the more shocking bits of his Nazi screed/manifesto:

    unchecked corporations

    Republican Party are pro-corporation

    America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty

    The lower the unemployment rate, the better

    They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees

    Corporations need to ... keep wages down

    a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market

    American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life

    our lifestyle is destroying the environment

    this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”

    Fresh water is being polluted from ...oil drilling operations

    Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities

    We even use...many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands

    the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle

     

    Excessive paper towel usage. Main Nazi concern.

    There’s literally nothing wrong with his manifesto. He is 100% accurate in everything except his path forward, which involves needlessly slaughtering 20 random Mexicans.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    His manifesto talks about the weapons and the act. It is literally disastrous for people who actually care about national sovereignty and living in a functional country, because he's poisoning the intellectual well by associating some perceptive observations with the slaughtering of innocents.
  167. @iffen
    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn't bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them. Of course the SJWs think immigration restriction is for practical purposes WN anyway.

    Of course the SJWs think immigration restriction is for practical purposes WN anyway.

    Technically they are right.

  168. @216
    One problem with this is Canuckophilia among Bluestanis.

    Canada hasn't witnessed the major drawbacks of diversity, such as its most visible: race riots.

    The anti-immigration position in Canada is far lower than in the US, with this myth of their system being "merit based".

    Otoh, geographically Canada is one of the worst places to have rioting because it is much colder than the US.

    White Canadians and immigrants have always gotten along pretty well.

    In the past 4 years, since Trudeau came in, that has started to change and now we are seeing random Africans, Somalians and also a change in attitude amongst East and South Asians, who now resent whites.

    But overall, most Canadians are still in the firmly cucked stage with respect to race. However, more and more are waking up. It’s like we’re still in 2010 USA or something.

    There is a new party, the PPC, which will slash legal immigration by 50%. We shall see how he performs in the October election.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    If the PPC achieves power and doesn't slash immigration by 95% (if not 99.5%) it will be a failure.
    , @BengaliCanadianDude

    and South Asians, who now resent whites
     
    I don't see the change in attitude you're talking about, we get along quite well with whites, and our relationship is quite amicable.
  169. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Yeah, this guy is full on 1488. Some of the more shocking bits of his Nazi screed/manifesto:

    unchecked corporations

    Republican Party are pro-corporation

    America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty

    The lower the unemployment rate, the better

    They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees

    Corporations need to ... keep wages down

    a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market

    American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life

    our lifestyle is destroying the environment

    this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”

    Fresh water is being polluted from ...oil drilling operations

    Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities

    We even use...many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands

    the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle

     

    Excessive paper towel usage. Main Nazi concern.

    You are going to need to work out your differences with other WNs on your own without my help.

    It’s not the fact that he wasn’t entitled to his political views; it’s the fact that he killed a lot of innocent people.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    it’s the fact that he killed a lot of innocent people.
     
    If Whites in formerly-White cities (that are now no-go zones) are not innocent, not one single Mexican on American soil is innocent.
  170. @L Woods

    You have talked yourself into a spot where it will not be possible to get a girlfriend.
     
    Rarely been without some kind of "girlfriend" since I escaped State U hell (you know, that time that was supposed to be "the best years of your life"). Inevitably, I do end up dating far down.

    Spewing out bitter hatred against white women does not help.
     
    I'm compelled to blurt the truth: I am a "sperg," after all. Would I have a better opinion of white women if they hadn't so often treated me like shit? Sure. I'd also have a better opinion of a guy if he weren't kicking in my teeth -- that doesn't make him an objectively good person if he only does it to others. And modern white women are, in all earnest, probably the most debased women that have ever lived -- and that is saying a very great deal.

    Remember that woman are excellent at seeing what’s going on underneath. They know what you’re thinking even if you’re trying to hide it.
     
    Ha. That's what polygraphers say. While they can sense emotions in a nebulous way, I don't think they're really as accurate in their vague perceptions as you (or they) think they are. What they do seem to be able to sense inevitably is that I Do Not Belong -- never have found a work around for that one.

    since I escaped State U hell (you know, that time that was supposed to be “the best years of your life”)

    One of the most massive Boomer lies ever, is that University is the best part of your life. God damn, I regret listening to those cocksuckers. From what I was told, once you go to uni, everyone became open minded, friendly, the girls became easy and there were wild parties every night (all while still learning the rigorous curriculum).

    WRONG. The few white people that I’m around are just as shitty as they were in High School. I’ve learned about how much white people are hated by Indians, Chinamen, Ayrabs, Negroes, and Latins, and to never trust them. Haven’t learned much of anything else.

    And modern white women are, in all earnest, probably the most debased women that have ever lived

    Many are, but not all. Modern white men are also pretty shitty.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    WRONG. The few white people that I’m around are just as shitty as they were in High School.
     
    Much of that is what you make of it. If you focus too much on the negatives, you'll miss opportunities to meet new people and to grow as a person. And really, what are the chances that everyone around you is an asshole and you are the only good person in the rooms? Come on.
  171. Modern white men are also pretty shitty

    You got me there. In fact, I fling invective at white women largely because it so scandalizes useless white men — how better to show contempt for them than to profane their stupid idol.

    And yeah, I actually preferred the people at my (private Evangelical) high school to the mouth breathers I came across at State U. That said of course, I fucked up royally while there — things will only get worse afterwards, so do everything you can to claw your way into those strategic social network nodes. There won’t be another chance.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I actually preferred the people at my high school to the mouth breathers I came across at State U
     
    same

    so do everything you can to claw your way into those strategic social network nodes
     
    what do you mean? Are you talking about with respect to friendships, or career networks?

    There won’t be another chance.
     
    i will be moving far away once I graduate, guess you're saying I'm fucked. But it sounds like you really don't do anything that can make connections. Sports and church is a big one.

    Of course, the WN movement is not quite known for its social scene.
  172. @Anounder
    You will never find non-Whites who'll support Libertarianism. What does that tell you?

    What does that tell you?

    It tells me something I already know, Anounder. (I realize no one can follow all these commenters’ stuff, but I’ve been writing that on here for quite some time.) The Reason magazine open-borders Libertards really ought to be told that maybe one in 500,000 of the illegal Mexicans that come in (that’s about, what? 1/2 years worth?) will EVER get a subscription to their magazine.

    I wish Ron Paul had come to this realization back in ’12. I told him in person that if he wanted to win my state in the GOP primary, he’d better talk about illegal immigration. He politely demurred. He lost after that.

  173. @Audacious Epigone
    Regulatory capture is important here. So are the prohibitive nature of compliance costs. Sarbox is something I'm intimately familiar with. It has been great for large caps, bad for small caps, and terrible for small private companies.

    Back in the 80’s, businesses of all types signed up for the Reagan Revolution. That it would, in practice, create massive levels of cronyism is something that many people neither considered, or seemed to care about. As usual, it’s all a mirage. The New Deal era meant smaller profits, but at least it created stability and reduced corruption.

  174. @SunBakedSuburb
    Talha, great comments on this thread. Much appreciated.

    Most welcome, thanks for taking the time to read them. Big hat tip to AE and Mr. Unz for providing a great forum to discuss these topics.

    Peace.

  175. @L Woods

    You have talked yourself into a spot where it will not be possible to get a girlfriend.
     
    Rarely been without some kind of "girlfriend" since I escaped State U hell (you know, that time that was supposed to be "the best years of your life"). Inevitably, I do end up dating far down.

    Spewing out bitter hatred against white women does not help.
     
    I'm compelled to blurt the truth: I am a "sperg," after all. Would I have a better opinion of white women if they hadn't so often treated me like shit? Sure. I'd also have a better opinion of a guy if he weren't kicking in my teeth -- that doesn't make him an objectively good person if he only does it to others. And modern white women are, in all earnest, probably the most debased women that have ever lived -- and that is saying a very great deal.

    Remember that woman are excellent at seeing what’s going on underneath. They know what you’re thinking even if you’re trying to hide it.
     
    Ha. That's what polygraphers say. While they can sense emotions in a nebulous way, I don't think they're really as accurate in their vague perceptions as you (or they) think they are. What they do seem to be able to sense inevitably is that I Do Not Belong -- never have found a work around for that one.

    Would I have a better opinion of white women if they hadn’t so often treated me like shit?

    Precisely the same excuse feminists use for hating men.

  176. @216
    Microcosm

    https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1158541701532831745

    Will the Boomercons rise up and send this grifter packing?

    Or be hooked into the political equivalent of the reverse mortgage?

    Nobody cares about these dingleberries. It’s not 1995 anymore. Guys like him need to get lost. Current libs are statist on behalf of climate regulation and 3rd world gibs; current Republicans want protectionism and strong defense of native inhabitants. There’s only a small, generally over the age of 50 and affluent, number of these “centrist” weasels left. Who cares what they think?

    Besides, it’s smug grandstanding anyway. “Oh, I’m not one of the big government liberals, but I’m not a dinosaur stuck in the 50’s either”.

  177. @216
    o/t

    https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1158508726422257680

    The sentiment is nice, but the facts are not.

    Men have a very hard time using victimhood politics.

    A fitness regimen is an option, sir.

  178. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yeah,it's not a bunch of random Mexican's fault at Wal-Mart that the USA has open borders. It would be slightly less stupid to go after the people who actually make the decisions (bankers, politicians, refugee resettlement agencies, etc).

    WN Victims:

    - 100 year old Jews at a Synagogue
    - Muslims praying in NZ (peacefully)
    - More random Muslims (in Quebec City)
    - Cross-border Mexican shoppers at Wal-Mart
    - Nice black ladies at Church (this is especially painful, since blacks who are devout Christians are the only functional subset of blacks I know).

    THIS DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.

    These shootings achieve nothing, because the victims have nothing to do with causing the problems.

    It’s strange how infrequently they target government or notable corporate locations*. I really do wonder if the “divide and conquer” strategy is being pursued to good effect by the globalist cultural commie elite. By dwelling non-stop on ID politics since the Obama era, they’ve caused economic issues and government corruption issues to be over-looked in favor of ethnic and “cultural” ones.

    *A sustained campaign by violent radicals against the government or corporate America could very well lead to a 1920’s style elite movement to clean up our society, which is the opposite of what we are going through now, where CNN anchors egg on Left-wing brown-shirts.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    CNN is surreal to behold: it really is the most naked and relentless sort of propaganda. I don't remember it being this bad even just a few years ago (or maybe I'm just even more estranged from the mainstream than I was then).
    , @notanon

    It’s strange how infrequently they target government or notable corporate locations
     
    most of these shooters aren't WN.

    the ruling class have created a multi-ethnic pressure cooker which no one is adapted to (except the people doing it) so certain particularly susceptible individuals are cooking off - mostly mental health issues and mostly mixed ancestry (which i assume makes them more sensitive to these issues?) - and hugely magnified by a toxic media who *want* these attacks to take place as an excuse for getting rid of the #1A and #2A.

    they're more media shootings than anything else.

    if they were more consciously ideological they'd be more targeted and more hit and run.
  179. @Feryl
    It's strange how infrequently they target government or notable corporate locations*. I really do wonder if the "divide and conquer" strategy is being pursued to good effect by the globalist cultural commie elite. By dwelling non-stop on ID politics since the Obama era, they've caused economic issues and government corruption issues to be over-looked in favor of ethnic and "cultural" ones.

    *A sustained campaign by violent radicals against the government or corporate America could very well lead to a 1920's style elite movement to clean up our society, which is the opposite of what we are going through now, where CNN anchors egg on Left-wing brown-shirts.

    CNN is surreal to behold: it really is the most naked and relentless sort of propaganda. I don’t remember it being this bad even just a few years ago (or maybe I’m just even more estranged from the mainstream than I was then).

    • Replies: @Feryl
    CNN actually had some of the best election coverage in 2015 and much of 2016, but as we got to the last couple months of that campaign season their coverage and analysis got much worse, and has only been getting worse ever since. The Mainstream media is under increasing pressure from the Left to not "normalize" anything or anyone who is pro-Trump, which translates to non-stop bashing of the Trumpian Right, and repeating mantras about the rise of "white supremacy".

    My hunch is that Trump winning the GOP nomination, and then winning the whole thing, robbed the Left of it's confidence and arrogant sense of superiority, and they've since been desperately exaggerating any tactic they can think of to boot Trump out and snuff out the movement that inspired him. Prior to Trump gaining serious momentum, they just assumed that he was a joke (or a criminal) who would be voted against (or busted), and then would go back to his reality show life. Then back to BAU. Most journalists who don't work for an avowedly conservative outlet lean to the Left to varying degrees, and they now see it as their job to not just report the news, but rather, to "guide" the public in the proper direction.
  180. @eah
    https://twitter.com/AnechoicMedia_/status/1158365408476454913

    America may have been “founded on immigration”, but objective reality is that the country tends to do better after a sustained immigration stoppage. Furthermore, beyond a certain point increased pop. growth via any method, including immigration, becomes negative for the well-being and security of society, as it causes competition to reach dangerous levels, worsens over-crowding, and corrodes social trust and camaraderie.

    • Replies: @eah
    America may have been “founded on immigration”

    To correct the terminology: America was founded by settlers, people who got on a boat with practically nothing, then sailed across an ocean (a big risk in itself), not really knowing exactly what they would find (except hardship and a struggle to survive) -- this was an act of raw courage unimaginable to most people today -- these settlers created (western) civilization where there was none before -- the dome of St Peters in Rome was finished in 1589 -- the first (English) settlers arrived in America approx 20 years after that (perhaps many of them had seen an illustration of St Peters, and were therefore not too impressed with whatever "civilization" they found in America).

    Later they declared/created a new nation, which they deemed to be for themselves and their "posterity", which was rather narrowly (but not inappropriately) defined.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBNAYoOWkAAyZzV.jpg
  181. @L Woods
    CNN is surreal to behold: it really is the most naked and relentless sort of propaganda. I don't remember it being this bad even just a few years ago (or maybe I'm just even more estranged from the mainstream than I was then).

    CNN actually had some of the best election coverage in 2015 and much of 2016, but as we got to the last couple months of that campaign season their coverage and analysis got much worse, and has only been getting worse ever since. The Mainstream media is under increasing pressure from the Left to not “normalize” anything or anyone who is pro-Trump, which translates to non-stop bashing of the Trumpian Right, and repeating mantras about the rise of “white supremacy”.

    My hunch is that Trump winning the GOP nomination, and then winning the whole thing, robbed the Left of it’s confidence and arrogant sense of superiority, and they’ve since been desperately exaggerating any tactic they can think of to boot Trump out and snuff out the movement that inspired him. Prior to Trump gaining serious momentum, they just assumed that he was a joke (or a criminal) who would be voted against (or busted), and then would go back to his reality show life. Then back to BAU. Most journalists who don’t work for an avowedly conservative outlet lean to the Left to varying degrees, and they now see it as their job to not just report the news, but rather, to “guide” the public in the proper direction.

    • Replies: @L Woods

    repeating mantras about the rise of “white supremacy”.
     
    No shortage of that from trump himself this week, sad to say. There’s no escaping the stupidity.
  182. @Feryl
    CNN actually had some of the best election coverage in 2015 and much of 2016, but as we got to the last couple months of that campaign season their coverage and analysis got much worse, and has only been getting worse ever since. The Mainstream media is under increasing pressure from the Left to not "normalize" anything or anyone who is pro-Trump, which translates to non-stop bashing of the Trumpian Right, and repeating mantras about the rise of "white supremacy".

    My hunch is that Trump winning the GOP nomination, and then winning the whole thing, robbed the Left of it's confidence and arrogant sense of superiority, and they've since been desperately exaggerating any tactic they can think of to boot Trump out and snuff out the movement that inspired him. Prior to Trump gaining serious momentum, they just assumed that he was a joke (or a criminal) who would be voted against (or busted), and then would go back to his reality show life. Then back to BAU. Most journalists who don't work for an avowedly conservative outlet lean to the Left to varying degrees, and they now see it as their job to not just report the news, but rather, to "guide" the public in the proper direction.

    repeating mantras about the rise of “white supremacy”.

    No shortage of that from trump himself this week, sad to say. There’s no escaping the stupidity.

    • Replies: @216
    One thing Trump doesn't do is grovel.

    But a groveling Trump disavowal of his base would probably earn tremendous rewards from the left; as the base quickly swerves to calling him "cuck di tutti cuck"

    So the only think that can stop the attacks, also requires him to anathemize his base.

    A Hobson's Choice in the Adorno world.
  183. @Achmed E. Newman
    Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of internet commenters get every thing they (think they) know off of the internet and just haven't been out in the real world. You, Feryl, 216, and lots of the Socialists I read from on-line are missing some experience from the world I think. I believe that it's because you are young people. I don't want to impugn a "generation" (per my discussions above), but man, young people need to get out more. At least the Boomers didn't spend their lives in front of 3 x 5" pieces of glass.

    Listen, a big portion of small businesses are single-man operations. There often is family involved, but they DON'T HAVE employees. It's a lot of trouble to have employees. Why is that? Maybe excessive regulations, the most recently Øb☭ma-care ones being the latest massive blow, have taught them that it's not worth it. It's hard to expand to compete with the big admittedly-terrible BigBiz companies when you can't hire people.

    House developers are one part of the private sector that do indeed hire lots of illegal aliens. One could ask himself why, perhaps. Is it that he'll lose the bid to another company if he hires Americans and has to deal with paperwork, as the next guy has all illegals? (BTW, I had one big job done on my place, and I made it a point to hire a crew of 3 white guys? Do you all do the same?) When the rules are made by Big Biz in concert with their butt-buddies in Big Feral Gov, the small guy is stuck.

    I get the feeling you all have never been involved in any small business. I've had my own, for a short while, but worked at companies ranging from 4 employees to > 100,000. I can tell you that the small ones work more efficiently, work harder, allow the use of common sense, and best of all, don't have the scourge of the BigBiz world, the HR Ladies*.

    .

    * Part 2 and Part 3 and Exhibit A: Toby Flenderson.

    House developers are one part of the private sector that do indeed hire lots of illegal aliens. One could ask himself why, perhaps. Is it that he’ll lose the bid to another company if he hires Americans and has to deal with paperwork, as the next guy has all illegals? (BTW, I had one big job done on my place, and I made it a point to hire a crew of 3 white guys? Do you all do the same?) When the rules are made by Big Biz in concert with their butt-buddies in Big Feral Gov, the small guy is stuck.

    Well, here’s the thing: if you have to stoop to hiring illegals (which is legally and morally questionable from a number of angles) when their are native workers capable of doing the job, then just close up shop. Don’t sacrifice ethics/integrity/virtue/loyalty just to make money. Also, it’s called “the race to the bottom”. Back in the New Deal era, many accepted lower profit margins in return for keeping their conscience intact. Workers and customers were treated better, even if that meant that more time and money would have to be spent to achieve it. That was in important part of keeping the social fabric intact. But once enough people say “fuck it”, I just want more money and convenience , then ethics quickly erode and alienation throughout society grows.

    I mean, I dunno how many times I have to say that my patience for many sectors of neo-liberal society has worn thin. Everything, and everyone, has failed. And it took a decline in ethics among many for this condition to be possible.

  184. @216
    Low status white men in the US still have higher living standards than most residents of Central America.

    Low status white men in the US still have higher living standards than most residents of Central America.

    And are the ones with the most legitimate grievance, as their living standards are far below what their productivity merits.

    • Replies: @216
    I express this in manosphere terms:

    As a male it is acceptable to have preferences, but not to express them verbally (increasingly nonverbally).

    Expressing preference as a male is a guarunteed loss, often the only way to do it without sanction is through a female proxy.
  185. @L Woods

    Modern white men are also pretty shitty
     
    You got me there. In fact, I fling invective at white women largely because it so scandalizes useless white men -- how better to show contempt for them than to profane their stupid idol.

    And yeah, I actually preferred the people at my (private Evangelical) high school to the mouth breathers I came across at State U. That said of course, I fucked up royally while there -- things will only get worse afterwards, so do everything you can to claw your way into those strategic social network nodes. There won't be another chance.

    I actually preferred the people at my high school to the mouth breathers I came across at State U

    same

    so do everything you can to claw your way into those strategic social network nodes

    what do you mean? Are you talking about with respect to friendships, or career networks?

    There won’t be another chance.

    i will be moving far away once I graduate, guess you’re saying I’m fucked. But it sounds like you really don’t do anything that can make connections. Sports and church is a big one.

    Of course, the WN movement is not quite known for its social scene.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    After college, your access to women is largely limited to swipe apps. Moreover, whatever residual network you can build there seems to be most of what you can hope for in atomized adult life. It’s a very bleak picture if you don’t have some kind of good network position or subcultural niche. There is church I suppose, if your gag reflex is muted enough.
  186. @L Woods

    repeating mantras about the rise of “white supremacy”.
     
    No shortage of that from trump himself this week, sad to say. There’s no escaping the stupidity.

    One thing Trump doesn’t do is grovel.

    But a groveling Trump disavowal of his base would probably earn tremendous rewards from the left; as the base quickly swerves to calling him “cuck di tutti cuck”

    So the only think that can stop the attacks, also requires him to anathemize his base.

    A Hobson’s Choice in the Adorno world.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Earn tremendous rewards from the left? Are you trolling us?
  187. @Rosie

    Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 – below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.

    However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.
     
    Something has got to be done about the cost of living. Obviously, immigration is the major factor, but I wonder if the anti-teleworking boomer die-off will result in more opportunities for couples to live cheaply on one income in lower COL areas.

    If we get a handle on immigration then yes, it will. Where already past saturation on existing housing stock. Absent the fed artificially keeping rates absurdly low for more than a decade now, there’d be millions of fewer homes than there are now. The upshot of this is that when the boomers pass on and the population begins declining in absolute terms, it will be a buyer’s market the likes of which haven’t been seen since the days of Levitown.

  188. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Irrelevant.

    From the Turner diaries: it doesnt matter WHY or HOW the white race died. History doesn't care about excuses. We either survive or we don't.

    Favorably referencing an absurd work of fiction days after two high-profile mass shootings, one by a person who probably also likes said absurd work of fiction, is imprudent.

  189. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    White Canadians and immigrants have always gotten along pretty well.

    In the past 4 years, since Trudeau came in, that has started to change and now we are seeing random Africans, Somalians and also a change in attitude amongst East and South Asians, who now resent whites.

    But overall, most Canadians are still in the firmly cucked stage with respect to race. However, more and more are waking up. It's like we're still in 2010 USA or something.

    There is a new party, the PPC, which will slash legal immigration by 50%. We shall see how he performs in the October election.

    If the PPC achieves power and doesn’t slash immigration by 95% (if not 99.5%) it will be a failure.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    the plan is to slash it to between 100,000 and 150,000

    plus cut down on refugees, legal and illegal

    cut down on the old grandparents coming in and getting free healthcare.

    it's not good enough, but it's getting my vote. The fucking CONservative party sent me an email lamenting that the number of Canadians opposed to immigration is the highest it's ever been, and they will crack down on "illegal border hoppers" so we regain trust in the immigration system!
    , @BengaliCanadianDude
    This is true. He's a decent candidate, but the numbers need to be reduced even more. What he's suggesting may not be enough
  190. @Mr. Rational

    Low status white men in the US still have higher living standards than most residents of Central America.
     
    And are the ones with the most legitimate grievance, as their living standards are far below what their productivity merits.

    I express this in manosphere terms:

    As a male it is acceptable to have preferences, but not to express them verbally (increasingly nonverbally).

    Expressing preference as a male is a guarunteed loss, often the only way to do it without sanction is through a female proxy.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    I really can’t fathom why you just roll over to these things.
  191. @iffen
    You are going to need to work out your differences with other WNs on your own without my help.

    It's not the fact that he wasn't entitled to his political views; it's the fact that he killed a lot of innocent people.

    it’s the fact that he killed a lot of innocent people.

    If Whites in formerly-White cities (that are now no-go zones) are not innocent, not one single Mexican on American soil is innocent.

    • Replies: @216
    I wish there was a stronger tag than Troll, something like FED
  192. @Mr. Rational

    it’s the fact that he killed a lot of innocent people.
     
    If Whites in formerly-White cities (that are now no-go zones) are not innocent, not one single Mexican on American soil is innocent.

    I wish there was a stronger tag than Troll, something like FED

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    The USA is MY country, you SOB, and its territory belongs to me and mine.  Mexicans do NOT belong here.  Faq yew.
    , @iffen
    I wish there was a stronger tag than Troll, something like FED.

    Unz would dole them out like an old maid handing out cookies to the neighborhood kids. We wouldn't be able to tag all of the Feds, which would give some sort of approval to those not tagged.
  193. @216
    I express this in manosphere terms:

    As a male it is acceptable to have preferences, but not to express them verbally (increasingly nonverbally).

    Expressing preference as a male is a guarunteed loss, often the only way to do it without sanction is through a female proxy.

    I really can’t fathom why you just roll over to these things.

    • Replies: @216
    Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.
  194. @Mark G.
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren't disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office. This means they'll reward those who help them in doing this and punish those who don't. So the alternative to the profit motive is to have your ability to continue to live to be based on the whim of some government official. You can only hope that he decides someone else is less important in keeping him in power than you.

    The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians.

    False dichotomy. Ethical and long-term oriented leaders in business and government can opt to run a system in which private sector enterprises are afforded a certain latitude as long as certain ethical and legal norms are obeyed. This is the “mixed” model that Western countries employed to increasing success from the 1930’s-early 1970’s. When the economy began to slowdown in the 70’s, that became the excuse to strip out many social and legal norms which had prevented economic inequality, frenzied speculation and booms, spectacular busts, and toxic reliance on usurious practices by finance, insurance, and real estate. The removal of these restraints caused an initial boom, that seemed fairly healthy, in the 80’s and 90’s. However, the end result of this free-for-all is that by the late 2000’s a massive chunk of the populace was engulfed in debt, with mounting living expenses, and many of the available jobs paying like crap and not providing benefits or pensions.

    Micheal Lind is an interesting guy. I believe he started out with conventional “pro-market” views that became trendy in the 70’s, but after the New Deal was destroyed in the 80’s and 90’s, he became a New Deal proponent, and is one of the few academics in economics who has been sounding the alarm loudly about the trap we set for ourselves after Reagan was elected. Most of the others are still clinging to the view that FDR corrupted the system, and it’s not the government’s job to interfere with trade or how a bank uses it’s costumer’s money. So if want to understand this stuff better, I suggest reading Lind’s stuff. Most people since the 70’s have to some degree bought into the mythology that less government is always better, not understanding that “private actors” in the total absence of public regulators will often succumb to reckless greed and fraud.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    A major problem with banking deregulation was that the regulations were repealed but there was an implicit guarantee that remained in place that they would be bailed out if they got in trouble. This was crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. The crony capitalists largely took over in 1987 after Volcker was forced out at the Fed and replaced by Greenspan. Around the same time the neocons got control of our foreign policy and a few years later dragged us into the first of two Iraq wars. That this happened under a Republican president shows that the Democrats aren't completely to blame for our current situation. The New Deal consensus largely ended in the sixties. Eisenhower left the New Deal intact and under his administration the country continued to have steady economic growth with low spending and balanced budgets while at the same time providing a modest welfare safety net. When the New Deal was replaced by the Great Society in the sixties we started having increasing budget deficits due to increased domestic and military spending. The country could afford an FDR style welfare state but it couldn't afford an LBJ style welfare-warfare state.
  195. @216
    I wish there was a stronger tag than Troll, something like FED

    The USA is MY country, you SOB, and its territory belongs to me and mine.  Mexicans do NOT belong here.  Faq yew.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Of course. But in terms of productivity towards a goal, targeting these random Mexicans is not very good. In our current framework, they have done nothing wrong. The problematic and influential people are the ones who create the framework.

    The removal of aliens from our territories, through mass deportation, has to come AFTER we gain power in government (which will probably not happen).

  196. @Mr. Rational
    If he could have slaughtered a million random Mexicans-in-America, that might have been worthwhile.

    I, for one, am not aiming to go to the RCMP Gulag, so I will refrain from making a comment.

  197. @Mr. Rational
    If the PPC achieves power and doesn't slash immigration by 95% (if not 99.5%) it will be a failure.

    the plan is to slash it to between 100,000 and 150,000

    plus cut down on refugees, legal and illegal

    cut down on the old grandparents coming in and getting free healthcare.

    it’s not good enough, but it’s getting my vote. The fucking CONservative party sent me an email lamenting that the number of Canadians opposed to immigration is the highest it’s ever been, and they will crack down on “illegal border hoppers” so we regain trust in the immigration system!

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    hey will crack down on “illegal border hoppers” so we regain trust in the immigration system!
     
    That's not even a bad policy though
  198. @Mr. Rational
    The USA is MY country, you SOB, and its territory belongs to me and mine.  Mexicans do NOT belong here.  Faq yew.

    Of course. But in terms of productivity towards a goal, targeting these random Mexicans is not very good. In our current framework, they have done nothing wrong. The problematic and influential people are the ones who create the framework.

    The removal of aliens from our territories, through mass deportation, has to come AFTER we gain power in government (which will probably not happen).

  199. @dfordoom

    The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.
     
    The corporate sector doesn't have to be destroyed. But it does need to be controlled. It needs to get its head kicked when it steps out of line. And small business sometimes needs its head kicked just as much as big business. If capitalism won't serve society voluntarily (and it won't) then it will have to be forced to do so.

    The tricky question is whether there is any way you can stop capitalism from becoming uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic and plutocratic. And is there any other actor other than the state capable of keeping capitalism under control? I'm damned if I can think of one.

    One way might be the method adopted with Hollywood in the 30s - scare the living daylights out of them that they're about to be subjected to savage government control so that fear drives them to self-regulate. I don't think it would work today though. The Hollywood moguls of the 30s were appalling but they were angels compared to the scum running the corporate sector today.

    One way might be the method adopted with Hollywood in the 30s – scare the living daylights out of them that they’re about to be subjected to savage government control so that fear drives them to self-regulate. I don’t think it would work today though. The Hollywood moguls of the 30s were appalling but they were angels compared to the scum running the corporate sector today.

    Elites back then were more populist. Instead of saying “fuck you” to the tastes of conservatives, which is what many people were back then, they gave them what they wanted. Contrast that with how Hollywood elites now openly hurl contempt at much of the mass audience today.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Elites back then were more populist. Instead of saying “fuck you” to the tastes of conservatives, which is what many people were back then, they gave them what they wanted.
     
    Yes, to a considerable extent that's true. The elitists in those days were less arrogant. They were more aware of the dangers of becoming arrogant.
  200. @iffen
    The problem with capitalism isn’t the scale of the enterprise. The profit motive is inherently dehumanising and anti-social and corrupting.

    Greed is a human trait so it cannot be described as dehumanizing. The problem is that its place in culture has evolved from being a vice to a being a near virtue. The problem is uncontrolled, globalized, monopolistic, plutocratic capitalism, not capitalism.

    In practice, this mythical “pure” form of capitalism has scarcely ever existed. It’s been observed, throughout history, that power and wealth tend to seek more of the same in the absence of of a restraining force. So in practice, “free” capitalism tends to produce feudalism, monopolies, and social Darwinism.

    Instead of letting either capitalist or communist lords create a two-tier society of a handful of have-lots and many have-littles, we instead need the “mixed” model of Capital having to answer to public interest protecting regulators, which prevents monopolies, cronyism, fraud, and abuse by those who run businesses and own many assets.

  201. @anon
    "when reparations hits, and it will, immigration of white people might drop. finally, immigration of one group will voluntarily decline."

    I expect white emigration to become a thing within the next few decades. How long until China realizes they can destroy the US by simply importing a mere 10 million white guys? Goodbye US military. Goodbye US cultural cohesion. Goodbye many scientists, airline pilots, civil engineers, electrical line workers etc etc etc. Goodbye self-less patriots. Goodbye all the best artists and purveyors of Western culture, what remains of it.

    "Maybe they’re coming for UR sooner than we thought."

    They will. The US is a police state. Don't think otherwise. As the empire spirals down, expect authoritarian impulses to increase in a vain attempt to keep it all together. Within the next 15 years, 80 million Boomers - disproportionately white - will retire, and many of the immigrants they've imported tend to peter out below the white level of academic achievement by the second generation. Combine that with a falling white TFR and the democrats opening up the floodgates to African immigration and the POC coalition voting to cut military spending in favor of free social services (and they will) and you can kiss US primacy goodbye.

    The US is a police state.

    It’s a new type of police state. The repression is left mostly to private corporations rather than being done by the state itself. Many of the functions of government are in the hands of the corporate sector. The corporate sector doesn’t just wield influence, it’s in control. There’s no need for a secret police apparatus. The functions of the secret police have been privatised.

    And were discovering that corporate repression is more total and more ruthless, and more effective, than state repression.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Too many conservatives think still we’re “free” because the government probably will not directly repress you if you violate orthodoxy. I’ve heard it said that one enjoys more practical, day-to-say freedom in the PRC; I would not be at all surprised.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It also elicits less sympathy from normies than government repression does.
  202. @Achmed E. Newman
    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound here. Big Biz will not be controlled by the Feral Government. They run the thing. The only threats to the big corporate world that you and I hate will come from below, individuals who buck the system and do their own thing, and small business, supported by people who don't like the Big Box, Amazonian, Goolag world, and put their money where their big internet keyboard fingers are.

    I'm starting to agree more with our commenter Thomm. If you people are in any way white nationalists, and you think Socialism is the answer, with no clue in your heads of what the "Great" part of MAGA was based on, then I don't expect anything worthwhile out of you all. No, there are no WN Whiggers (I truly don't get where Thomm gets that bit), and I don't think your IQs are low at all. You all write well, but with no background in reality. My man Ronnie had something to say about this too: "It isn't so much that liberals [ Socialists ] are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

    RIP, Ronald Reagan.

    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound

    OK, I see. The problems with capitalism don’t count because capitalism in the real world isn’t “real” capitalism.

    That’s very similar to the argument that the problems with communism don’t count because communism as it has been practised in the real world isn’t “real” communism. In both cases we’re asked to believe that an idealised imaginary pure version of the ideology in question would perfectly.

    Of course an idealised imaginary version of any ideology works wonderfully well, in theory.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Feryl
    It's also like saying that we shouldn't give up on a quarterback whose lost 10 straight games because he theoretically has the talent to win games.

    It doesn't matter what something can, or should do; we judge based on performance, not on potential.

    Neo-liberal corporatism is the natural result of market "de-regulation", union-breaking, and so forth. I've always wondered why the purists out there don't just find some part of Northern Canada, or Siberia, and try to start their own "pure" free market nation, instead of whining that no current society ever allows them to have their dream version of capitalism.

    It's just going to be quite hard to convince a lot of older people who came of age being told that New Dealism was the last stop before hard-core communism, and in order to "prove" that we are better than the commies, we need to gut the fundamental elements of New Dealism (strong unions, a tight labor market, suppression of large booms and busts, and low economic inequality) to realize the full potential of The Market.
  203. @Oblivionrecurs
    I'll have you know in North Carolina 1-2% of blacks are registered libertarian. Truly remarkable

    I’ll have you know in North Carolina 1-2% of blacks are registered libertarian. Truly remarkable

    Because there are blacks as well as whites who want legalised dope?

  204. @Audacious Epigone
    That's a glass-half-full reading of the situation. My glass-half-empty reading is that immigration restrictionism was low-hanging fruit that other pols could've picked up and run with after 2001, but no Republicans would pick it because of fear from donors and media. Trump finally walked up and grabbed the fruit just as it was being raised up out of reach.

    If people keep going on about “civic nationalist cucks”, “muh Constitution Boomers” and “individualists” as the problem rather than plumbing the depths of European culture of individual integrity, they’ll miss out on the invincible power of such a culture when individuals of integrity deliberately come to a conscious consensus that war must be declared, and waged, against a supremacist mob aggressing against individual consent.

    When white nationalists realize the reason they’re characterized as “white supremacists” is projective preemption by the supremacist mob — capable only of instinctive mob behavior — and that there are far worse sins than isolated individuals being cowed by a zombie apocalypse, that’s when America will stand a fighting chance.

    The vast majority of “civic nationalist cucks”, “muh Constitution Boomers” and “individualists” are not only white, they’d fight to the death if the declaration of war were to recognize that individual men, in a state of nature, have a fighting chance, against other individual men, to acquire the necessities of life, including quality mates — and that legitimate government must compensate its able-bodied young men before it can expect them to sign on to any so-called “non-aggression principle”.

    In my estimation, the so-called Libertarians may well have been cooked up in a Soviet, or more likely, Maoist think tank (if not a CIA corrupted by Frankfurt School agents).

    Don’t take the bait.

    • Replies: @notanon

    the depths of European culture of individual integrity, they’ll miss out on the invincible power of such a culture when individuals of integrity deliberately come to a conscious consensus that war must be declared, and waged, against a supremacist mob aggressing against individual consent.
     
    right - it's not going to be incels or alt-right (at least not initially)

    it's going to be normiecon family men who want the institutions of their corrupted republic to actually do what they are supposed to do i.e. be a mechanism for redress of grievance.
  205. @216
    IIRC, iffen is a leftist

    The left is currently "reactive" not "hunter-killer", we dread the day they become the latter, but I digress.

    The typical leftjourno is adept at sniffing out anything problematic or a "dog whistle", and then signalling to concerned moderates that such-and-such is to be excised from polite society.

    In order for this to work, you actually have to blow the dog whistle.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to racial slurs, yes.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to useage of flags of defeated govt's, yes

    Can we accomplish our activity without attracting or provoking a leftist reaction, yes.

    What does the left do when everything to the right of Bin Shapiro is banned as "Nazi" ?

    Answer: they have to call Shapiro a Nazi

    As we slip towards demographic irrelevancy, the use of the "Tony Leon" strategy should explored.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to racial slurs, yes.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to useage of flags of defeated govt’s, yes

    In theory, yes. In practice there’s a lunatic fringe of white nationalists that you can’t reason with. The ones who think it’s cool to welcome being called a Nazi. Any immigration restrictionist movement that allies itself with white nationalists is going to be perceived as, and portrayed as, being associated with those idiots. In practice white nationalists are probably not going to be useful allies.

  206. @Mark G.
    Capitalism encourages you to serve your fellow man by providing goods and services he desires. The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians. Politicians aren't disinterested persons solely interested in your welfare. Their primary goal is to get elected and then stay in office. This means they'll reward those who help them in doing this and punish those who don't. So the alternative to the profit motive is to have your ability to continue to live to be based on the whim of some government official. You can only hope that he decides someone else is less important in keeping him in power than you.

    The bottom line is a country with a non-existent public sector is a worse country to live in than a country with a sizable public sector. The data is in: a mixed economy works. No amount of libertardian economic flapdoodle is ever going to change that reality.

    • Replies: @eah
    The bottom line is a country with a non-existent public sector...

    Vanishingly few people (if any) want "a non-existent public sector" -- that's a particularly dumb straw man -- proper is to see government as a necessary evil, to be developed and financed as long as what it does is clearly needed and clearly in the common interest -- using those criteria, modern government, including/especially the federal government in the US, which, I believe, has grown in size and influence far beyond what the 'founding fathers' would ever have imagined, can now not unfairly be seen as more evil than necessary -- due to both its size, ie the amount of wealth it siphons off to finance and further itself (not to mention the unpayable inter-generational debt), as well as what it does (and doesn't do).

    The data is in: a mixed economy works.

    A meaningless statement (dare I call it 'statist economic strawman flapdoodle'?) -- for the reason it's meaningless, see above.
  207. @L Woods
    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters. They see you as no different from any other "Nazi," an unfair characterization indeed as "Nazis" at least have some spine in stark contrast to a decrepit coward like yourself.

    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters.

    How the left sees us is less important than how the non-left sees us. Not everyone who might want to restrict immigration has an interest in going full nazi (they might even have severe reservations about it). This is just elementary.

    “The left’s gonna call me a nazi no matter what I do, so I may as well be a nazi” is just braindead, shit-tier, blackpilled WN logic.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    “The left’s gonna call me a nazi no matter what I do, so I may as well be a nazi” is just braindead, shit-tier, blackpilled WN logic.
     
    Ys. It's loser thinking.
    , @L Woods
    I’m not asking anyone to “be a Nazi;” I’m asking that they quit scrambling to throw “Nazis” under the bus when any idiot can see that the definition of “Nazi” will inevitably expand into their own ideological perch before long at all.
  208. @Feryl
    America may have been "founded on immigration", but objective reality is that the country tends to do better after a sustained immigration stoppage. Furthermore, beyond a certain point increased pop. growth via any method, including immigration, becomes negative for the well-being and security of society, as it causes competition to reach dangerous levels, worsens over-crowding, and corrodes social trust and camaraderie.

    America may have been “founded on immigration”

    To correct the terminology: America was founded by settlers, people who got on a boat with practically nothing, then sailed across an ocean (a big risk in itself), not really knowing exactly what they would find (except hardship and a struggle to survive) — this was an act of raw courage unimaginable to most people today — these settlers created (western) civilization where there was none before — the dome of St Peters in Rome was finished in 1589 — the first (English) settlers arrived in America approx 20 years after that (perhaps many of them had seen an illustration of St Peters, and were therefore not too impressed with whatever “civilization” they found in America).

    Later they declared/created a new nation, which they deemed to be for themselves and their “posterity”, which was rather narrowly (but not inappropriately) defined.

  209. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    since I escaped State U hell (you know, that time that was supposed to be “the best years of your life”)
     
    One of the most massive Boomer lies ever, is that University is the best part of your life. God damn, I regret listening to those cocksuckers. From what I was told, once you go to uni, everyone became open minded, friendly, the girls became easy and there were wild parties every night (all while still learning the rigorous curriculum).

    WRONG. The few white people that I'm around are just as shitty as they were in High School. I've learned about how much white people are hated by Indians, Chinamen, Ayrabs, Negroes, and Latins, and to never trust them. Haven't learned much of anything else.

    And modern white women are, in all earnest, probably the most debased women that have ever lived
     
    Many are, but not all. Modern white men are also pretty shitty.

    WRONG. The few white people that I’m around are just as shitty as they were in High School.

    Much of that is what you make of it. If you focus too much on the negatives, you’ll miss opportunities to meet new people and to grow as a person. And really, what are the chances that everyone around you is an asshole and you are the only good person in the rooms? Come on.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Pretty good actually, sad to say. Still, I encourage (nay urge) anyone in that position to learn to relate to the normie at all costs; you can always disengage later.
  210. @silviosilver
    The bottom line is a country with a non-existent public sector is a worse country to live in than a country with a sizable public sector. The data is in: a mixed economy works. No amount of libertardian economic flapdoodle is ever going to change that reality.

    The bottom line is a country with a non-existent public sector…

    Vanishingly few people (if any) want “a non-existent public sector” — that’s a particularly dumb straw man — proper is to see government as a necessary evil, to be developed and financed as long as what it does is clearly needed and clearly in the common interest — using those criteria, modern government, including/especially the federal government in the US, which, I believe, has grown in size and influence far beyond what the ‘founding fathers’ would ever have imagined, can now not unfairly be seen as more evil than necessary — due to both its size, ie the amount of wealth it siphons off to finance and further itself (not to mention the unpayable inter-generational debt), as well as what it does (and doesn’t do).

    The data is in: a mixed economy works.

    A meaningless statement (dare I call it ‘statist economic strawman flapdoodle’?) — for the reason it’s meaningless, see above.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Vanishingly few people (if any) want “a non-existent public sector” — that’s a particularly dumb straw man
     
    Actually, such people exist, variously going by the name "libertarians" or "classical liberals." Their "necessary minimum" level of government is so close to no government that it's largely a distinction without a difference.

    They cannot quite seem to grasp that a country is more than just an economy - which is particularly tragic when the same people are pro-white, since so many of the problems they rightly bewail are the result of treating a country as merely an economy.
  211. @216
    IIRC, iffen is a leftist

    The left is currently "reactive" not "hunter-killer", we dread the day they become the latter, but I digress.

    The typical leftjourno is adept at sniffing out anything problematic or a "dog whistle", and then signalling to concerned moderates that such-and-such is to be excised from polite society.

    In order for this to work, you actually have to blow the dog whistle.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to racial slurs, yes.

    Can we accomplish our arguments without resorting to useage of flags of defeated govt's, yes

    Can we accomplish our activity without attracting or provoking a leftist reaction, yes.

    What does the left do when everything to the right of Bin Shapiro is banned as "Nazi" ?

    Answer: they have to call Shapiro a Nazi

    As we slip towards demographic irrelevancy, the use of the "Tony Leon" strategy should explored.

    IIRC, iffen is a leftist

    The left is currently “reactive” not “hunter-killer”, we dread the day they become the latter, but I digress.

    The typical leftjourno is adept at sniffing out anything problematic or a “dog whistle”

    iffen is old school Left (at least that’s how he strikes me). The typical leftjourno is New Left. Totally different animals. The New Left worships bankers and billionaires and obsesses over identity politics (because identity politics is good for bankers and billionaires). Old school leftists have no interest in identity politics and are decidedly suspicious of capitalism.

    You can’t make sense of the world today unless you always keep in mind the differences between Old Left and New Left.

    • Agree: iffen, Talha
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    An easy way to keep this straight for the younger readers out there is Old Left = Bernie Sanders through 2015; New Left = Bernie Sanders from 2016 onward.
  212. @216
    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism. That was a tactical posture in the 1970s to get pron decriminalized. If the law must tolerate Neo-Nazis, then it can surely tolerate hardcore pron.

    Now that pron is normalized, along with GayPride, they no longer need free speech absolutism.

    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism.

    Free speech is a weapon, not a principle. And not just for the Left. Free speech is useful when you don’t have actual power. Dissident rightists today love free speech because they have no actual power. If they gained power they would lose interest in free speech. The purpose of free speech is to undermine authority.

    Just as the purpose of freedom of religion is to undermine religion.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Seems to me the ancien regime here was reasonably tolerant of free speech, despite having the power. What motivation did the Founders have to enshrine the principle in the Constitution by that logic? After all, they had the power. You can’t escape that the left is in fact morally inferior.
    , @iffen
    Free speech is a tool; a weapon as you say. Once the project no longer requires the tool for its completion, it is no longer necessary to "fight" for the tool. Free speech was enshrined as one of our founding ideals. It was believed by some that free speech would get at the "truth." It was believed that letting the people have unfetterred access to information would somehow magically allow them to make "good" decisions and keep our democracy strong. Obviously, someone needs to inform Houston that there is a problem. Free speech was from a particular social and political configuration and like its cousin, the ideal of a "free" and unbiased press, they are rapidly passing from the scene. Future generations will look at it the way we do the cult of the Vestial Virgins and ask themselves; "How could those people have believed in that?"
  213. @Audacious Epigone
    That immigration has gone from a distant 4th or 5th among Republicans a decade ago to the top issue today is encouraging. Otoh, many (non-elite) white liberals used to be reasonable about immigration. Now they are nearly all open borders zealots.

    That immigration has gone from a distant 4th or 5th among Republicans a decade ago to the top issue today is encouraging.

    Ah yes, but how many of those Republicans will assure you that they’re only concerned by illegal immigration and that legal immigration is of course A-OK?

    Just like Trump. Reduce illegal immigration and massively increase legal immigration. You still get replaced but it’s done in a nice orderly manner.

  214. @Feryl

    One way might be the method adopted with Hollywood in the 30s – scare the living daylights out of them that they’re about to be subjected to savage government control so that fear drives them to self-regulate. I don’t think it would work today though. The Hollywood moguls of the 30s were appalling but they were angels compared to the scum running the corporate sector today.
     
    Elites back then were more populist. Instead of saying "fuck you" to the tastes of conservatives, which is what many people were back then, they gave them what they wanted. Contrast that with how Hollywood elites now openly hurl contempt at much of the mass audience today.

    Elites back then were more populist. Instead of saying “fuck you” to the tastes of conservatives, which is what many people were back then, they gave them what they wanted.

    Yes, to a considerable extent that’s true. The elitists in those days were less arrogant. They were more aware of the dangers of becoming arrogant.

  215. @silviosilver

    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters.
     
    How the left sees us is less important than how the non-left sees us. Not everyone who might want to restrict immigration has an interest in going full nazi (they might even have severe reservations about it). This is just elementary.

    "The left's gonna call me a nazi no matter what I do, so I may as well be a nazi" is just braindead, shit-tier, blackpilled WN logic.

    “The left’s gonna call me a nazi no matter what I do, so I may as well be a nazi” is just braindead, shit-tier, blackpilled WN logic.

    Ys. It’s loser thinking.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    And yet, it seems, rather accurate. After all, we now have a “white supremacist” in the white house, apparently.
  216. @dfordoom

    The US is a police state.
     
    It's a new type of police state. The repression is left mostly to private corporations rather than being done by the state itself. Many of the functions of government are in the hands of the corporate sector. The corporate sector doesn't just wield influence, it's in control. There's no need for a secret police apparatus. The functions of the secret police have been privatised.

    And were discovering that corporate repression is more total and more ruthless, and more effective, than state repression.

    Too many conservatives think still we’re “free” because the government probably will not directly repress you if you violate orthodoxy. I’ve heard it said that one enjoys more practical, day-to-say freedom in the PRC; I would not be at all surprised.

  217. @216
    When the budget for "informers" is massively hiked, you won't be laughing as people are hauled away on "sting operations".

    IRL groups were routed by Antifa, and never managed to adapt their tactics; or move to favorable terrain.

    Anitfa can't be realistically described as even semi-pro, its mostly amateurs.

    Now imagine going up against FBI and RCMP special agents, the professionals.

    We won't last more than a couple weeks.

    IRL groups were routed by Antifa

    IRL groups beat antifa on the streets – that’s why the courts stepped in to lock people up for self-defense.

    Anitfa can’t be realistically described as even semi-pro, its mostly amateurs. Now imagine going up against FBI and RCMP special agents, the professionals. We won’t last more than a couple weeks.

    “we”

    if boomerwaffen takes off it won’t be the alt-right – it’ll be 40-something veteran normiecons mad at not being allowed any avenue for redress of grievances.

  218. @silviosilver

    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters.
     
    How the left sees us is less important than how the non-left sees us. Not everyone who might want to restrict immigration has an interest in going full nazi (they might even have severe reservations about it). This is just elementary.

    "The left's gonna call me a nazi no matter what I do, so I may as well be a nazi" is just braindead, shit-tier, blackpilled WN logic.

    I’m not asking anyone to “be a Nazi;” I’m asking that they quit scrambling to throw “Nazis” under the bus when any idiot can see that the definition of “Nazi” will inevitably expand into their own ideological perch before long at all.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    So whether you're ruled by say, a Peter Brimelow or an Andrew Anglin is all much of a muchness, is that what you're claiming? We should quit being so harsh on nutzis like Anglin because there really aren't any important differences in what we want, right?
  219. @silviosilver

    WRONG. The few white people that I’m around are just as shitty as they were in High School.
     
    Much of that is what you make of it. If you focus too much on the negatives, you'll miss opportunities to meet new people and to grow as a person. And really, what are the chances that everyone around you is an asshole and you are the only good person in the rooms? Come on.

    Pretty good actually, sad to say. Still, I encourage (nay urge) anyone in that position to learn to relate to the normie at all costs; you can always disengage later.

  220. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    I actually preferred the people at my high school to the mouth breathers I came across at State U
     
    same

    so do everything you can to claw your way into those strategic social network nodes
     
    what do you mean? Are you talking about with respect to friendships, or career networks?

    There won’t be another chance.
     
    i will be moving far away once I graduate, guess you're saying I'm fucked. But it sounds like you really don't do anything that can make connections. Sports and church is a big one.

    Of course, the WN movement is not quite known for its social scene.

    After college, your access to women is largely limited to swipe apps. Moreover, whatever residual network you can build there seems to be most of what you can hope for in atomized adult life. It’s a very bleak picture if you don’t have some kind of good network position or subcultural niche. There is church I suppose, if your gag reflex is muted enough.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    damn well now i'm a little blackpilled about the future, since I will be moving 14 hours away in 4 months.

    but i appreciate your honesty. i'm sure it's not as bleak as you say. but it's better advice than what the boomers were giving.
    , @eah
    After college, your access to women is largely limited to swipe apps.

    I wonder how young working men and women met before "swipe apps"? (whatever those are) -- "access to women" is limited more by your willingness to make an effort to go out and meet them (since they're not going to knock on your fucking door), and most importantly whether you have the guts and self-confidence to approach and talk to a woman you find attractive, including in perhaps uncomfortable circumstances, eg she is with a group (fear of rejection is psychologically intimidating and uncomfortable enough for most men) -- so generally, these two things are what have always (not just today) held men back: lack of effort and fear of rejection -- relatively few men are willing to admit that though -- and today, via the internet there are actually more ways to make the initial contact.

    There is church I suppose, if your gag reflex is muted enough.

    This kind of attitude can't and won't help either.
  221. @dfordoom

    “The left’s gonna call me a nazi no matter what I do, so I may as well be a nazi” is just braindead, shit-tier, blackpilled WN logic.
     
    Ys. It's loser thinking.

    And yet, it seems, rather accurate. After all, we now have a “white supremacist” in the white house, apparently.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    How many non-leftards actually take that charge seriously though? (Or don't such considerations matter to you?)
  222. @dfordoom

    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism.
     
    Free speech is a weapon, not a principle. And not just for the Left. Free speech is useful when you don't have actual power. Dissident rightists today love free speech because they have no actual power. If they gained power they would lose interest in free speech. The purpose of free speech is to undermine authority.

    Just as the purpose of freedom of religion is to undermine religion.

    Seems to me the ancien regime here was reasonably tolerant of free speech, despite having the power. What motivation did the Founders have to enshrine the principle in the Constitution by that logic? After all, they had the power. You can’t escape that the left is in fact morally inferior.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Seems to me the ancien regime here was reasonably tolerant of free speech, despite having the power. What motivation did the Founders have to enshrine the principle in the Constitution by that logic? After all, they had the power.
     
    The Founding Fathers included quite a few people who were not exactly orthodox Christians. Theists and pantheists and such like things. Functionally atheist. America was in many ways a product of the Enlightenment, which was fundamentally anti-Christian. So there were plenty of reasons to want to undermine religion. Freedom of speech is perfectly suited for such a purpose.

    Had the Revolution occurred half a century earlier it would have had a much more Christian character and freedom of speech might not have been seen as so desirable.
  223. Nice of everyone to deliberately misunderstand me though. Can’t pass up an opportunity to call some random on the Internet a loser! This normier than thou dickery is why the right (all of it) is doomed.

  224. @dfordoom

    Leftists are not committed to free speech absolutism.
     
    Free speech is a weapon, not a principle. And not just for the Left. Free speech is useful when you don't have actual power. Dissident rightists today love free speech because they have no actual power. If they gained power they would lose interest in free speech. The purpose of free speech is to undermine authority.

    Just as the purpose of freedom of religion is to undermine religion.

    Free speech is a tool; a weapon as you say. Once the project no longer requires the tool for its completion, it is no longer necessary to “fight” for the tool. Free speech was enshrined as one of our founding ideals. It was believed by some that free speech would get at the “truth.” It was believed that letting the people have unfetterred access to information would somehow magically allow them to make “good” decisions and keep our democracy strong. Obviously, someone needs to inform Houston that there is a problem. Free speech was from a particular social and political configuration and like its cousin, the ideal of a “free” and unbiased press, they are rapidly passing from the scene. Future generations will look at it the way we do the cult of the Vestial Virgins and ask themselves; “How could those people have believed in that?”

    • Replies: @notanon

    Free speech was enshrined as one of our founding ideals. It was believed by some that free speech would get at the “truth.”
     
    and they were right - which is why the people who wanted to destroy America initially focused their efforts on media and academia so they could filter the truth and now they have the power they want to remove free speech completely so they can shut out the truth permanently.
  225. @Feryl
    It's strange how infrequently they target government or notable corporate locations*. I really do wonder if the "divide and conquer" strategy is being pursued to good effect by the globalist cultural commie elite. By dwelling non-stop on ID politics since the Obama era, they've caused economic issues and government corruption issues to be over-looked in favor of ethnic and "cultural" ones.

    *A sustained campaign by violent radicals against the government or corporate America could very well lead to a 1920's style elite movement to clean up our society, which is the opposite of what we are going through now, where CNN anchors egg on Left-wing brown-shirts.

    It’s strange how infrequently they target government or notable corporate locations

    most of these shooters aren’t WN.

    the ruling class have created a multi-ethnic pressure cooker which no one is adapted to (except the people doing it) so certain particularly susceptible individuals are cooking off – mostly mental health issues and mostly mixed ancestry (which i assume makes them more sensitive to these issues?) – and hugely magnified by a toxic media who *want* these attacks to take place as an excuse for getting rid of the #1A and #2A.

    they’re more media shootings than anything else.

    if they were more consciously ideological they’d be more targeted and more hit and run.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Part of what's going is that there is far less well-organized, and ideologically coherent, activism going on these days compared to certain historical periods. Whereas in 1915 or 1970, you had a lot of (primarily young) activists meeting up because they shared a common goal (like ending Vietnam), and were passionate about achieving that goal.

    But these days, we have a lot of extremely isolated and depressed people who just want to vent their frustration on random targets.

    The current public mood is at it's lowest point since the Civil War era. Back in the 2000's, a lot of people had GW Bush stickers, and it wasn't that big a deal. Whereas nowadays, most Trump voters in my areas are afraid to be upfront about their support.
  226. @L Woods
    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters. They see you as no different from any other "Nazi," an unfair characterization indeed as "Nazis" at least have some spine in stark contrast to a decrepit coward like yourself.

    The left will cast you in the same mold no matter how slavishly and how cravenly you punch right to impress your masters.

    yes – concern about “optics” is a debatable issue but crawling to the media whenever they call you names is not debatable – it’s always pathetic and bad.

  227. @iffen
    Free speech is a tool; a weapon as you say. Once the project no longer requires the tool for its completion, it is no longer necessary to "fight" for the tool. Free speech was enshrined as one of our founding ideals. It was believed by some that free speech would get at the "truth." It was believed that letting the people have unfetterred access to information would somehow magically allow them to make "good" decisions and keep our democracy strong. Obviously, someone needs to inform Houston that there is a problem. Free speech was from a particular social and political configuration and like its cousin, the ideal of a "free" and unbiased press, they are rapidly passing from the scene. Future generations will look at it the way we do the cult of the Vestial Virgins and ask themselves; "How could those people have believed in that?"

    Free speech was enshrined as one of our founding ideals. It was believed by some that free speech would get at the “truth.”

    and they were right – which is why the people who wanted to destroy America initially focused their efforts on media and academia so they could filter the truth and now they have the power they want to remove free speech completely so they can shut out the truth permanently.

  228. @216
    I wish there was a stronger tag than Troll, something like FED

    I wish there was a stronger tag than Troll, something like FED.

    Unz would dole them out like an old maid handing out cookies to the neighborhood kids. We wouldn’t be able to tag all of the Feds, which would give some sort of approval to those not tagged.

  229. @James Bowery
    If people keep going on about "civic nationalist cucks", "muh Constitution Boomers" and "individualists" as the problem rather than plumbing the depths of European culture of individual integrity, they'll miss out on the invincible power of such a culture when individuals of integrity deliberately come to a conscious consensus that war must be declared, and waged, against a supremacist mob aggressing against individual consent.

    When white nationalists realize the reason they're characterized as "white supremacists" is projective preemption by the supremacist mob -- capable only of instinctive mob behavior -- and that there are far worse sins than isolated individuals being cowed by a zombie apocalypse, that's when America will stand a fighting chance.

    The vast majority of "civic nationalist cucks", "muh Constitution Boomers" and "individualists" are not only white, they'd fight to the death if the declaration of war were to recognize that individual men, in a state of nature, have a fighting chance, against other individual men, to acquire the necessities of life, including quality mates -- and that legitimate government must compensate its able-bodied young men before it can expect them to sign on to any so-called "non-aggression principle".

    In my estimation, the so-called Libertarians may well have been cooked up in a Soviet, or more likely, Maoist think tank (if not a CIA corrupted by Frankfurt School agents).

    Don't take the bait.

    the depths of European culture of individual integrity, they’ll miss out on the invincible power of such a culture when individuals of integrity deliberately come to a conscious consensus that war must be declared, and waged, against a supremacist mob aggressing against individual consent.

    right – it’s not going to be incels or alt-right (at least not initially)

    it’s going to be normiecon family men who want the institutions of their corrupted republic to actually do what they are supposed to do i.e. be a mechanism for redress of grievance.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    The “normiecon family men” think they’are above it all, apparently. I propose a new name for their righteous brand of True Conservatism:

    “Eat me last conservatism”
    “Do it to Julia! conservatism”

    Any other suggestions?

    You know, even the subversive ACLU defended (actual, literal) Nazis back in the day. They displayed more spine and did more for America by a country mile than abject creatures that call themselves “conservatives” these days (yes, I know it was a tactical ploy).

  230. @Feryl

    The alternative to the profit motive is to have decisions made by politicians.
     
    False dichotomy. Ethical and long-term oriented leaders in business and government can opt to run a system in which private sector enterprises are afforded a certain latitude as long as certain ethical and legal norms are obeyed. This is the "mixed" model that Western countries employed to increasing success from the 1930's-early 1970's. When the economy began to slowdown in the 70's, that became the excuse to strip out many social and legal norms which had prevented economic inequality, frenzied speculation and booms, spectacular busts, and toxic reliance on usurious practices by finance, insurance, and real estate. The removal of these restraints caused an initial boom, that seemed fairly healthy, in the 80's and 90's. However, the end result of this free-for-all is that by the late 2000's a massive chunk of the populace was engulfed in debt, with mounting living expenses, and many of the available jobs paying like crap and not providing benefits or pensions.

    Micheal Lind is an interesting guy. I believe he started out with conventional "pro-market" views that became trendy in the 70's, but after the New Deal was destroyed in the 80's and 90's, he became a New Deal proponent, and is one of the few academics in economics who has been sounding the alarm loudly about the trap we set for ourselves after Reagan was elected. Most of the others are still clinging to the view that FDR corrupted the system, and it's not the government's job to interfere with trade or how a bank uses it's costumer's money. So if want to understand this stuff better, I suggest reading Lind's stuff. Most people since the 70's have to some degree bought into the mythology that less government is always better, not understanding that "private actors" in the total absence of public regulators will often succumb to reckless greed and fraud.

    A major problem with banking deregulation was that the regulations were repealed but there was an implicit guarantee that remained in place that they would be bailed out if they got in trouble. This was crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. The crony capitalists largely took over in 1987 after Volcker was forced out at the Fed and replaced by Greenspan. Around the same time the neocons got control of our foreign policy and a few years later dragged us into the first of two Iraq wars. That this happened under a Republican president shows that the Democrats aren’t completely to blame for our current situation. The New Deal consensus largely ended in the sixties. Eisenhower left the New Deal intact and under his administration the country continued to have steady economic growth with low spending and balanced budgets while at the same time providing a modest welfare safety net. When the New Deal was replaced by the Great Society in the sixties we started having increasing budget deficits due to increased domestic and military spending. The country could afford an FDR style welfare state but it couldn’t afford an LBJ style welfare-warfare state.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    LBJ's big mistake was that he simultaneously tried to placate the heavily Southern base of militarism while also upping welfare and opportunities for blacks. You see the problem here? LBJ inadvertantly re-aligned the South to the Republicans, while solidifying black support of the Democrats.

    The North hated Vietnam, the South hated the Great Society. That's why LBJ is such an unpopular president. After LBJ, the GOP would increasingly be the War party, and the Dems would be the POC party.

    A major problem with banking deregulation was that the regulations were repealed but there was an implicit guarantee that remained in place that they would be bailed out if they got in trouble. This was crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.
     
    But, you do realize how naive it is to think that the Masters of the Universe would not try and game the system? And if, by 1987, it had become fashionable to dismiss mid-century New Dealism as pork for unions and whiny entitled workers, then pretty much by default it only stands to reason that most people would start to look the other way as we began to give more pork to companies willing to do anything to increase profit margins.

    Either we have profit reducing stability measures, or we have runaway greed that will gain momentum until the train derails. Start hyping up the glory of "the market", and the next thing you know it's off to the race to the bottom.
  231. @L Woods
    Seems to me the ancien regime here was reasonably tolerant of free speech, despite having the power. What motivation did the Founders have to enshrine the principle in the Constitution by that logic? After all, they had the power. You can’t escape that the left is in fact morally inferior.

    Seems to me the ancien regime here was reasonably tolerant of free speech, despite having the power. What motivation did the Founders have to enshrine the principle in the Constitution by that logic? After all, they had the power.

    The Founding Fathers included quite a few people who were not exactly orthodox Christians. Theists and pantheists and such like things. Functionally atheist. America was in many ways a product of the Enlightenment, which was fundamentally anti-Christian. So there were plenty of reasons to want to undermine religion. Freedom of speech is perfectly suited for such a purpose.

    Had the Revolution occurred half a century earlier it would have had a much more Christian character and freedom of speech might not have been seen as so desirable.

    • Replies: @Talha
    If I recall, the UK doesn’t necessarily have the same history with freedom of speech and thus allows for more restrictions. One wonders why this nonsense is allowed to occur publicly in tax-payer funded venues like libraries:
    https://twitter.com/amoozeboosh/status/1158724006616469504

    Peace.
  232. @notanon

    the depths of European culture of individual integrity, they’ll miss out on the invincible power of such a culture when individuals of integrity deliberately come to a conscious consensus that war must be declared, and waged, against a supremacist mob aggressing against individual consent.
     
    right - it's not going to be incels or alt-right (at least not initially)

    it's going to be normiecon family men who want the institutions of their corrupted republic to actually do what they are supposed to do i.e. be a mechanism for redress of grievance.

    The “normiecon family men” think they’are above it all, apparently. I propose a new name for their righteous brand of True Conservatism:

    “Eat me last conservatism”
    “Do it to Julia! conservatism”

    Any other suggestions?

    You know, even the subversive ACLU defended (actual, literal) Nazis back in the day. They displayed more spine and did more for America by a country mile than abject creatures that call themselves “conservatives” these days (yes, I know it was a tactical ploy).

    • Replies: @notanon
    it's always the quiet ones
    , @James Bowery

    "more spine and did more for America by a country mile than abject creatures that call themselves 'conservatives' these days"
     
    As I said:

    there are far worse sins than isolated individuals being cowed by a zombie apocalypse
     
    This means SYNCHRONIZED ACTION, down to the second if possible. Initially, action must be limited to VISIBLE PROTEST which is LEGAL. As isolated individuals perceive they will not be isolated, and that all that is required is to SYNCHRONIZE their online actions, they will gain courage.

    I suggest DAILY SYNCHRONIZED ONLINE PROTEST AT NOON CENTRAL TIME.

    Choose what you want to protest. Consensus will build around the most motivating protests and scare the bejesus out of the supremacist zombie mob.
    , @Feryl
    The neo-lib GOP is mostly ethically and intellectually bankrupt. They sell out on most cultural/national ID issues faster than you can say "Nazi". Other than guns, abortions, and tax cuts for the rich, the modern GOP is basically worthless. And saying that the Dems would've been worse is like saying that it would be better to have your left hand cut off than you right hand. Either way, we lose.
  233. @L Woods
    The “normiecon family men” think they’are above it all, apparently. I propose a new name for their righteous brand of True Conservatism:

    “Eat me last conservatism”
    “Do it to Julia! conservatism”

    Any other suggestions?

    You know, even the subversive ACLU defended (actual, literal) Nazis back in the day. They displayed more spine and did more for America by a country mile than abject creatures that call themselves “conservatives” these days (yes, I know it was a tactical ploy).

    it’s always the quiet ones

  234. anon[332] • Disclaimer says:

    “I wish there was a stronger tag than Troll, something like FED”

    Agree. I like the term “glowing” myself. You can expect more of these double agents now that the National Review has endorsed the concept of using the secret police to bust up dissident groups … like they weren’t already doing that. Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, for instance, has been infested with obvious ADL/FBI trolls for years; this included some moderators who were accused of improprieties. Even level-headed websites now have several suspicious posters. For example, The Z-blog has a regular poster going by the handle “Lineman”. He’s obviously a federal agent of some sort:

    1) The poster baits people to meet up with him outside of the site at every opportunity even though a) this is impractical and prohibitively expensive considering the enormous size of the country b) he had the opportunity to meet people in person at a public conference but turned down the opportunity (so his face wouldn’t be made available to others – obvious doxing effort on his part).

    2) He uses terms like “brother” in his posts even though this language is inappropriate for his audience. It’s the kind of thing Feds think neo-Nazis would say, which is how they label all white ethnomoderates – very broad brush stuff.

    3) He’s included a couple of references in his posts which could be taken as inside jokes. One I recall was a sly reference to interrogating posters on the website.

    4) The handle “lineman” is a reference to the early days of the FBI where they would tap bootlegger’s phone lines – another inside joke by the poster about what he’s doing.

    5) He usually responds to posts rather than making his own points. Many of these responses are reformulations of what other people have already said or attempts to get people to meet up with him using the content of the post he’s responding to.

    Pro tip: NEVER exchange contact information with anyone on the internet, including what you think are private email accounts; they aren’t really private as the government has back doors to all this stuff. Also, never accept a private meet up request in the real world and be aware that any time you go to any controversial conference there is someone in the audience recording the entire thing. They later personally identify attendees and build files on them, so unless you’re rich or retired or some kind of crazy revolutionary, you might want to stay away. Anonymously posting on the internet is probably a more effective tactic anyway. Also, as a general rule I favor website owners banning posters who bait commenters into meeting up on the outside world. Same for exchanging personal information.

  235. @eah
    The bottom line is a country with a non-existent public sector...

    Vanishingly few people (if any) want "a non-existent public sector" -- that's a particularly dumb straw man -- proper is to see government as a necessary evil, to be developed and financed as long as what it does is clearly needed and clearly in the common interest -- using those criteria, modern government, including/especially the federal government in the US, which, I believe, has grown in size and influence far beyond what the 'founding fathers' would ever have imagined, can now not unfairly be seen as more evil than necessary -- due to both its size, ie the amount of wealth it siphons off to finance and further itself (not to mention the unpayable inter-generational debt), as well as what it does (and doesn't do).

    The data is in: a mixed economy works.

    A meaningless statement (dare I call it 'statist economic strawman flapdoodle'?) -- for the reason it's meaningless, see above.

    Vanishingly few people (if any) want “a non-existent public sector” — that’s a particularly dumb straw man

    Actually, such people exist, variously going by the name “libertarians” or “classical liberals.” Their “necessary minimum” level of government is so close to no government that it’s largely a distinction without a difference.

    They cannot quite seem to grasp that a country is more than just an economy – which is particularly tragic when the same people are pro-white, since so many of the problems they rightly bewail are the result of treating a country as merely an economy.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    It is a problem that libertarians sometimes focus solely on economics and don't consider that the types of people in a country influence the success of that country. A libertarian Switzerland would end up better off than a libertarian Somalia. Government at the local level usually works better than at the national level. If your town or city is poorly run you can easily move out. This restrains most city governments from increasing taxes too much or providing poor quality government services. If they can't do this, they end up like Detroit or Baltimore with their tax base, meaning the white middle class, gone. Poorly run cities will usually try to get bailed out at the state level. Then, when the state government starts to have financial problems from bailing out cities, it runs to the federal government for help. The federal government has the capability to either borrow large amounts of money or even just print up whatever is needed. They can also tax someone who has fled one state to subsidize the state they left behind. This is where your serious problems with government start to show itself. We seem to be entering that stage now.
  236. @L Woods
    And yet, it seems, rather accurate. After all, we now have a “white supremacist” in the white house, apparently.

    How many non-leftards actually take that charge seriously though? (Or don’t such considerations matter to you?)

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Far too many, to one degree or another, but that is entirely besides the point in any case. The point is that in calling Trump a “white nationalist” (or whatever), they are demonstrating that they employ that tar far and wide — they will not stop with The Bad People you’re so eager to toss to the wolves. The left never demobilizes — they find another foe to run into the ground. By acquiescing to repression for them, you are opening yourself to it in the near future — this is overwhelmingly obvious to all but the willfully blind. I suppose you were one of those that thought the iconoclasty would stop with “racist” dead confederates.
  237. @L Woods
    I’m not asking anyone to “be a Nazi;” I’m asking that they quit scrambling to throw “Nazis” under the bus when any idiot can see that the definition of “Nazi” will inevitably expand into their own ideological perch before long at all.

    So whether you’re ruled by say, a Peter Brimelow or an Andrew Anglin is all much of a muchness, is that what you’re claiming? We should quit being so harsh on nutzis like Anglin because there really aren’t any important differences in what we want, right?

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Again, you’re playing dumb. You don’t have to “be” an Anglin or be ruled by one (a highly unlikely event to say the least) to understand the prudence of outpost defense. After the present crop of “Nazis,” they will come for the next — it’s what they’ve done since the start of the post-war era at least. They can’t possibly be make it plainer — in calling anyone to the right of McCain “white nationalist,” they’re all but telling you what they’re going to do: they’re coming for you next. That is, if they bother to draw any distinction to begin with. Continuing to treat with these people is the very definition of insanity. They are a manichean menace to freedom and civilization itself, and as appeasable as a starving, rabid dog.
  238. @silviosilver
    How many non-leftards actually take that charge seriously though? (Or don't such considerations matter to you?)

    Far too many, to one degree or another, but that is entirely besides the point in any case. The point is that in calling Trump a “white nationalist” (or whatever), they are demonstrating that they employ that tar far and wide — they will not stop with The Bad People you’re so eager to toss to the wolves. The left never demobilizes — they find another foe to run into the ground. By acquiescing to repression for them, you are opening yourself to it in the near future — this is overwhelmingly obvious to all but the willfully blind. I suppose you were one of those that thought the iconoclasty would stop with “racist” dead confederates.

    • Replies: @216

    The left never demobilizes — they find another foe to run into the ground.
     
    At several times throughout history, the left has vanquished the local variant of the Right. There is then a period of leftist hegemony until it dissolves into factionalism. One of those leftist factions eventually gets identified as the new Right.

    Being that in many cases the Right is moribund (most of Bluestan, college campuses), it is foolish to put new wine into old wineskins.

    We have to wait for the left to breakup, which they will not do as long as the legacy Right is present as Sailer's KKKrazy Glue.

    (In other areas, the Right may be able to exercise self-determination, like a Redstan).
  239. @silviosilver
    So whether you're ruled by say, a Peter Brimelow or an Andrew Anglin is all much of a muchness, is that what you're claiming? We should quit being so harsh on nutzis like Anglin because there really aren't any important differences in what we want, right?

    Again, you’re playing dumb. You don’t have to “be” an Anglin or be ruled by one (a highly unlikely event to say the least) to understand the prudence of outpost defense. After the present crop of “Nazis,” they will come for the next — it’s what they’ve done since the start of the post-war era at least. They can’t possibly be make it plainer — in calling anyone to the right of McCain “white nationalist,” they’re all but telling you what they’re going to do: they’re coming for you next. That is, if they bother to draw any distinction to begin with. Continuing to treat with these people is the very definition of insanity. They are a manichean menace to freedom and civilization itself, and as appeasable as a starving, rabid dog.

  240. @silviosilver

    Vanishingly few people (if any) want “a non-existent public sector” — that’s a particularly dumb straw man
     
    Actually, such people exist, variously going by the name "libertarians" or "classical liberals." Their "necessary minimum" level of government is so close to no government that it's largely a distinction without a difference.

    They cannot quite seem to grasp that a country is more than just an economy - which is particularly tragic when the same people are pro-white, since so many of the problems they rightly bewail are the result of treating a country as merely an economy.

    It is a problem that libertarians sometimes focus solely on economics and don’t consider that the types of people in a country influence the success of that country. A libertarian Switzerland would end up better off than a libertarian Somalia. Government at the local level usually works better than at the national level. If your town or city is poorly run you can easily move out. This restrains most city governments from increasing taxes too much or providing poor quality government services. If they can’t do this, they end up like Detroit or Baltimore with their tax base, meaning the white middle class, gone. Poorly run cities will usually try to get bailed out at the state level. Then, when the state government starts to have financial problems from bailing out cities, it runs to the federal government for help. The federal government has the capability to either borrow large amounts of money or even just print up whatever is needed. They can also tax someone who has fled one state to subsidize the state they left behind. This is where your serious problems with government start to show itself. We seem to be entering that stage now.

  241. @dfordoom

    Seems to me the ancien regime here was reasonably tolerant of free speech, despite having the power. What motivation did the Founders have to enshrine the principle in the Constitution by that logic? After all, they had the power.
     
    The Founding Fathers included quite a few people who were not exactly orthodox Christians. Theists and pantheists and such like things. Functionally atheist. America was in many ways a product of the Enlightenment, which was fundamentally anti-Christian. So there were plenty of reasons to want to undermine religion. Freedom of speech is perfectly suited for such a purpose.

    Had the Revolution occurred half a century earlier it would have had a much more Christian character and freedom of speech might not have been seen as so desirable.

    If I recall, the UK doesn’t necessarily have the same history with freedom of speech and thus allows for more restrictions. One wonders why this nonsense is allowed to occur publicly in tax-payer funded venues like libraries:

    Peace.

  242. @Talha

    such as one recording disgust towards interracial couples
     
    Where was this done? What was the sample size? I can show societies where people show disgust at eating cats and others find it mouth-watering.

    such as one with findings that interracial marriages are more dysfunctional than proper ones
     
    Depends on which ones. I can cite evidence that White-male/Black-female marriages are stronger and less prone to divorce than White-male/White-female. The case that defeated anti-miscegenation laws (Loving vs. Virginia) in the US was on behalf of a White man/Colored woman couple.

    example of South Asia
     
    Well, there's plenty dysfunctional in South Asia to be honest.

    Polygamy is dysfunctional by design
     
    This statement seems blind to the dysfunctions in strictly monogamous societies. Polygamous societies aren't currently in retro-grade fertility numbers nor finding themselves confused about gender. And polygamous societies run the spectrum from being highly polygamous (like where one tribal chief marries like 50 women in the surrounding villages) to occasional polygamy (which is usually a way to deal with exceptional circumstances like widows or usually only practiced by alpha-male elites) so it's not easy to pin it down to one kind of practice.

    in regards to regulations.
     
    Well, I certainly do not mind people wanting to bring back anti-miscegenation laws if that is what the society wishes. In Muslim lands we have laws allowing us to interdict an attempted marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man.

    I took my kids to a water park over the weekend. There was a younger White man there, solid guy - built like a tank, who had two mixed-looking little Black kids with him - I would assume his children though I didn't actually ask. He was looking after them like any other father, slopping on the sunscreen, drying them off and what not. Anti-miscegenation laws tend to butt heads with a patriarchal model; if a White man decided to marry a Black woman and her father had no qualms about it (this is an agreement between two males, one passing off the guardian/caretaker role to another), where exactly does your authority come in to prevent the marriage? I mean, we have our authority; God says non-Muslim men are not lawful for our women and vice versa - simple, done.

    Compromise who can squat in your country even once and you make future attempts at regulation extra dead in the water.

     

    I agree here; very difficult to roll back these kinds of things. My point was that the Irish were later additions; plenty of French and Spanish were already on the continent and mixing it up with Native women.

    Peace.

    Where was this done? What was the sample size? I can show societies where people show disgust at eating cats and others find it mouth-watering.

    https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/08/17/study-finds-bias-disgust-toward-mixed-race-couples/

    >Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans. That suggests that interracial couples are more likely to be dehumanized than same-race couples, the researchers write, and previous studies have shown that people tend to exhibit more antisocial behavior and are more likely to use aggression and even violence toward dehumanized targets.

    There wouldn’t be such a use of cuck as insult if there wasn’t about a man permitting enemy races to breed with his children that was revolting.

    Depends on which ones. I can cite evidence that White-male/Black-female marriages are stronger and less prone to divorce than White-male/White-female. The case that defeated anti-miscegenation laws (Loving vs. Virginia) in the US was on behalf of a White man/Colored woman couple.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699190057I

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/25/three-quarters-of-whites-dont-have-any-non-white-friends/

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/08/many-u-s-congregations-are-still-racially-segregated-but-things-are-changing-2/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/abstract

    https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html

    Among other studies.

    Well, there’s plenty dysfunctional in South Asia to be honest.

    The point of listing them was to show they too regulated miscegenation.

    This statement seems blind to the dysfunctions in strictly monogamous societies. Polygamous societies aren’t currently in retro-grade fertility numbers nor finding themselves confused about gender. And polygamous societies run the spectrum from being highly polygamous (like where one tribal chief marries like 50 women in the surrounding villages) to occasional polygamy (which is usually a way to deal with exceptional circumstances like widows or usually only practiced by alpha-male elites) so it’s not easy to pin it down to one kind of practice.

    The degeneracy you speak of is traces to the failure to maintain monogamy. Read Jim for more:

    https://blog.jim.com/culture/marriage/

    who had two mixed-looking little Black kids with him

    Those will grow up hating Whtey ala Coline Kaepernick.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Participants
     
    "152 college students..."
    "19 undergraduate students..."
    "more than 200 participants..."
    A study of around 152, 19 and 200 participants? Really? You're willing to build public policy around that?

    Thanks for posting the various links on studies, many of which simply show in-group preferences which honestly don't need much research as far as I'm concerned - you can find places in the world where in-group preference gets as granular as tribe and clan. If you are simply stating that most people will choose to marry people of their own background, then I completely agree - but this is not what the issue is about.

    Now, as far as stats, regarding dysfunctional marriage; it is well known that Black male/White female pairings are shown to have major issues. But White male/Black female pairings are significantly stronger than White/White pairings.
    "Marriages involving a white husband and black wife were substantially less likely to end in divorce than marriage involving a white husband and white wife; the former pairing’s divorce rate was 44 percent less than the latter."
    https://www.divorcesource.com/blog/interracial-marriage-and-divorce/

    So if we want that to be a metric to claim legitimacy by, why shouldn't we allow the exceptionally strong marriage combinations while blocking the weak and dysfunctional ones?

    they too regulated miscegenation
     
    Sure, and they did it by using religion to legitimize it. And then you get this stuff:
    "More than 2,000 Dalits from Aligarh have threatened to give up Hinduism and convert to Islam, alleging constant persecution by members of the local Thakur community, identified as an 'upper caste'."
    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/over-2000-dalits-threaten-to-convert-to-islam-in-up/articleshow/58781064.cms

    the failure to maintain monogamy.
     
    Sure - and it can be posited that strictly monogamous societies are simply more vulnerable to feminism and the Poz.

    Coline Kaepernick
     
    Where did he state that he hates Whites? If he didn't, aren't you simply engaging in the same rhetoric when the Left-liberals say that Trump supporters hate colored people or are White supremacists?

    Another point; why would the kids turn out like a man that was abandoned by both his parents to foster care?

    See, the problem with viewing everything by a racial lens is that one becomes myopic to all other factors at play. If that White father raises those kids up well and is an upstanding role model, why would their association to Blackness be stronger than their familial bond? I am reminded of Strom Thurmond's illegitimate half-Black daughter who could have tanked his career at any time for decades, but did not do so and kept quiet out of respect for him as her father, even while he was supporting segregationist policies.

    And the crux of the situation again shows the tension between a patriarchal model and what you are proposing. If - say - a White man has decided to marry a Black woman (or vice versa) and her father/guardian has accepted the proposal; what right do you have to interdict it using the state's legal power? In fact, this seems to have a lot in common with Leftist positions - to prevent something you do not like or approve of due to feelz (that's basically what that study that you cited boils down to; feelz). The genetic line is the man's business (both the husband and the wife's father, who is concerned about his later generations), he is the one expending effort into investing in it and its perpetuation. Does the father (who has expended time and effort into raising his daughter) have more of a right over who she marries or does the state? Why?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here - and maybe I'm dead wrong - but, are you actually married and have kids? Specifically a daughter? If not, why should your opinion even be considered in the matter since it it would seem you're interested in regulating the decisions of other people regarding their daughters without any skin in the game. If you are married and have a daughter, great! Then my question applies to you directly; should the legal system give you a larger impact on who gets to marry your daughter or grant it to the state?

    Peace.
    , @eah
    Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans.

    What the hell? -- what kind of "study" either seeks or somehow elicits that kind of worthless, pejorative (even disgraceful) response from "participants"?

    I have no doubt every major dating site keeps track of who contacts whom and also the nature of the initial response and/or interaction (some academics and others do studies or surveys) -- occasionally this data is either published or leaks out, and when it does, it seems to generally confirm what everyone can see when they are out and about: black women are not attractive to white and Asian men (and/or vice versa), white men and Asian women seem to find each other attractive, white women prefer white men -- those are the dominant relationship dynamics (concerning race/ethnicity).

    My view of miscegenation is probably similar to most: I don't like seeing it -- I have a mild visceral reaction against it -- but I am quick to add: it is really none of my business -- and I don't see why anyone should really care about my personal opinion, especially any two people involved in such a relationship -- if two people can find each other and manage to be happy, then good for them.

    Those will grow up hating Whtey ala Coline Kaepernick.

    You should resist the temptation to extrapolate from Kaepernick, despite how obnoxious he is -- I don't think he is typical.

  243. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    the plan is to slash it to between 100,000 and 150,000

    plus cut down on refugees, legal and illegal

    cut down on the old grandparents coming in and getting free healthcare.

    it's not good enough, but it's getting my vote. The fucking CONservative party sent me an email lamenting that the number of Canadians opposed to immigration is the highest it's ever been, and they will crack down on "illegal border hoppers" so we regain trust in the immigration system!

    hey will crack down on “illegal border hoppers” so we regain trust in the immigration system!

    That’s not even a bad policy though

  244. @Mr. Rational
    If the PPC achieves power and doesn't slash immigration by 95% (if not 99.5%) it will be a failure.

    This is true. He’s a decent candidate, but the numbers need to be reduced even more. What he’s suggesting may not be enough

  245. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    White Canadians and immigrants have always gotten along pretty well.

    In the past 4 years, since Trudeau came in, that has started to change and now we are seeing random Africans, Somalians and also a change in attitude amongst East and South Asians, who now resent whites.

    But overall, most Canadians are still in the firmly cucked stage with respect to race. However, more and more are waking up. It's like we're still in 2010 USA or something.

    There is a new party, the PPC, which will slash legal immigration by 50%. We shall see how he performs in the October election.

    and South Asians, who now resent whites

    I don’t see the change in attitude you’re talking about, we get along quite well with whites, and our relationship is quite amicable.

    • Replies: @216
    Unless your people start giving the Conservative Party landslide margins, it is not "amicable".
  246. @L Woods
    The “normiecon family men” think they’are above it all, apparently. I propose a new name for their righteous brand of True Conservatism:

    “Eat me last conservatism”
    “Do it to Julia! conservatism”

    Any other suggestions?

    You know, even the subversive ACLU defended (actual, literal) Nazis back in the day. They displayed more spine and did more for America by a country mile than abject creatures that call themselves “conservatives” these days (yes, I know it was a tactical ploy).

    “more spine and did more for America by a country mile than abject creatures that call themselves ‘conservatives’ these days”

    As I said:

    there are far worse sins than isolated individuals being cowed by a zombie apocalypse

    This means SYNCHRONIZED ACTION, down to the second if possible. Initially, action must be limited to VISIBLE PROTEST which is LEGAL. As isolated individuals perceive they will not be isolated, and that all that is required is to SYNCHRONIZE their online actions, they will gain courage.

    I suggest DAILY SYNCHRONIZED ONLINE PROTEST AT NOON CENTRAL TIME.

    Choose what you want to protest. Consensus will build around the most motivating protests and scare the bejesus out of the supremacist zombie mob.

  247. @iffen
    These shootings demonize WN, which as you know doesn't bother me, but they are also taking immigration restriction and gun rights (which I do care about) along with them. Of course the SJWs think immigration restriction is for practical purposes WN anyway.

    The floodgates have opened with blue checkmarks calling Trump–and all his supporters–“white supremacists”.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Yes, but if we throw the REAL “white supremacists” to the wolves, the wolves will be satisfied and leave me to my sportsball!
  248. @iffen
    Internet services provider Cloudflare to drop 8chan after El Paso shooting

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/network-provider-cloudflare-drop-8chan-after-el-paso-shooting-n1039151

    Maybe they’re coming for UR sooner than we thought.

    tick-tock?

    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it’s important to keep a lid on the irresponsible rhetoric.

    The provider may not drop UR, but it may demand an end to the comments section to continue to provide service.

    • Replies: @iffen

    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it’s important


    Seriously, you don't really think this way, do you?
    , @dfordoom

    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it’s important to keep a lid on the irresponsible rhetoric.
     
    But they won't. The trouble with lunatic fringes is that they're composed of - lunatics. Or at least they're composed of people with serious psychological problems. And some of them really are Feds.

    Freedom of speech is great in theory. In practice, if you're trying to achieve something politically, it means you get overrun by lunatic fringers who will totally discredit and eventually destroy your movement.
  249. @L Woods
    After college, your access to women is largely limited to swipe apps. Moreover, whatever residual network you can build there seems to be most of what you can hope for in atomized adult life. It’s a very bleak picture if you don’t have some kind of good network position or subcultural niche. There is church I suppose, if your gag reflex is muted enough.

    damn well now i’m a little blackpilled about the future, since I will be moving 14 hours away in 4 months.

    but i appreciate your honesty. i’m sure it’s not as bleak as you say. but it’s better advice than what the boomers were giving.

  250. @Audacious Epigone
    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it's important to keep a lid on the irresponsible rhetoric.

    The provider may not drop UR, but it may demand an end to the comments section to continue to provide service.


    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it’s important

    Seriously, you don’t really think this way, do you?

  251. @L Woods
    I really can’t fathom why you just roll over to these things.

    Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

  252. @BengaliCanadianDude

    and South Asians, who now resent whites
     
    I don't see the change in attitude you're talking about, we get along quite well with whites, and our relationship is quite amicable.

    Unless your people start giving the Conservative Party landslide margins, it is not “amicable”.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    It has and always will be amicable, regardless of election results.

    Anyways, large portions of browns voted for Doug Ford in the provincial elections, and many did voted for Rob Ford when he was Toronto's mayor.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    CPC are globalist mass immigration traitors.

    at least the socialist NDP puts taxes on foreign home buying and shit.
  253. @L Woods
    Far too many, to one degree or another, but that is entirely besides the point in any case. The point is that in calling Trump a “white nationalist” (or whatever), they are demonstrating that they employ that tar far and wide — they will not stop with The Bad People you’re so eager to toss to the wolves. The left never demobilizes — they find another foe to run into the ground. By acquiescing to repression for them, you are opening yourself to it in the near future — this is overwhelmingly obvious to all but the willfully blind. I suppose you were one of those that thought the iconoclasty would stop with “racist” dead confederates.

    The left never demobilizes — they find another foe to run into the ground.

    At several times throughout history, the left has vanquished the local variant of the Right. There is then a period of leftist hegemony until it dissolves into factionalism. One of those leftist factions eventually gets identified as the new Right.

    Being that in many cases the Right is moribund (most of Bluestan, college campuses), it is foolish to put new wine into old wineskins.

    We have to wait for the left to breakup, which they will not do as long as the legacy Right is present as Sailer’s KKKrazy Glue.

    (In other areas, the Right may be able to exercise self-determination, like a Redstan).

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Burn the village to save the village (in the indefinite future, maybe). Bold move? Didn’t work out too well for the Tsarists.
    , @dfordoom

    At several times throughout history, the left has vanquished the local variant of the Right. There is then a period of leftist hegemony until it dissolves into factionalism. One of those leftist factions eventually gets identified as the new Right.
     
    But what's happening now is quite different. The group that now has almost total power is not the Left but big business. They're the ones pulling all the strings. The actual Left has been defeated and destroyed almost completely.

    The politicians (of all stripes) and the crazies in academia and the crazies in the media all in the final analysis dance to the tune of big business.

    We now have a plutocracy. What we're heading towards is not leftwing totalitarianism but plutocratic totalitarianism. Which has never been done before. There have been authoritarian plutocracies, some of them quite nasty, but never a full-blown plutocratic totalitarianism.
  254. @216
    Unless your people start giving the Conservative Party landslide margins, it is not "amicable".

    It has and always will be amicable, regardless of election results.

    Anyways, large portions of browns voted for Doug Ford in the provincial elections, and many did voted for Rob Ford when he was Toronto’s mayor.

  255. @Audacious Epigone
    The floodgates have opened with blue checkmarks calling Trump--and all his supporters--"white supremacists".

    Yes, but if we throw the REAL “white supremacists” to the wolves, the wolves will be satisfied and leave me to my sportsball!

  256. @216

    The left never demobilizes — they find another foe to run into the ground.
     
    At several times throughout history, the left has vanquished the local variant of the Right. There is then a period of leftist hegemony until it dissolves into factionalism. One of those leftist factions eventually gets identified as the new Right.

    Being that in many cases the Right is moribund (most of Bluestan, college campuses), it is foolish to put new wine into old wineskins.

    We have to wait for the left to breakup, which they will not do as long as the legacy Right is present as Sailer's KKKrazy Glue.

    (In other areas, the Right may be able to exercise self-determination, like a Redstan).

    Burn the village to save the village (in the indefinite future, maybe). Bold move? Didn’t work out too well for the Tsarists.

  257. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, will do.

    Also, please do Jews as well.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Will do.
  258. @dfordoom


    a very nasty class war
     
    To think that, you have to ignore the fact that the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white — which means it’s also, perhaps more than anything else, a mad scramble to prove how non-racist you are by endorsing it.
     
    The fact that, as you say, the vast majority of immigrants over the last 50 years have been non-white is further evidence that this is a class war. The idea of non-white immigration is to destroy working-class culture and to demoralise the working class. Bringing in white immigrants would serve the capitalists' purpose of depressing wages and undermining working conditions but bringing in non-whites does all that and as a bonus destroys the culture and morale of the working class.

    It also makes criticizing immigration impossible without bringing on accusations of “racism” and “white supremacy”.

  259. @eah
    I’d think he would know that is not a good route to take;...

    I'm not aware of any downside to criticizing Trump, or any member of his family (with the possible exception of Barron Trump, who is 13 y/o), even in vile terms.

    ...how will he respond if people do the same to Muslims condemning terrorism at the hands of Muslims.

    Similar to black-on-black violence (eg how many where shot in Chicago last weekend?), I don't think anyone really cares about (sectarian) muslim violence, which for all practical purposes does not happen in the US -- and I have no idea what this nobody would say about it, or the reaction of other muslims to it -- however in this scenario, I assume: criticism by other muslims would be editorially encouraged; any lack of actual criticism ignored; any criticism would of course be praised -- in general, the only constant in the media's reaction to muslim terrorism in white countries is concern about a "backlash" against muslims by racist Whites (somewhat redundant perhaps).

  260. @216
    Unless your people start giving the Conservative Party landslide margins, it is not "amicable".

    CPC are globalist mass immigration traitors.

    at least the socialist NDP puts taxes on foreign home buying and shit.

  261. @Mark G.
    A major problem with banking deregulation was that the regulations were repealed but there was an implicit guarantee that remained in place that they would be bailed out if they got in trouble. This was crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. The crony capitalists largely took over in 1987 after Volcker was forced out at the Fed and replaced by Greenspan. Around the same time the neocons got control of our foreign policy and a few years later dragged us into the first of two Iraq wars. That this happened under a Republican president shows that the Democrats aren't completely to blame for our current situation. The New Deal consensus largely ended in the sixties. Eisenhower left the New Deal intact and under his administration the country continued to have steady economic growth with low spending and balanced budgets while at the same time providing a modest welfare safety net. When the New Deal was replaced by the Great Society in the sixties we started having increasing budget deficits due to increased domestic and military spending. The country could afford an FDR style welfare state but it couldn't afford an LBJ style welfare-warfare state.

    LBJ’s big mistake was that he simultaneously tried to placate the heavily Southern base of militarism while also upping welfare and opportunities for blacks. You see the problem here? LBJ inadvertantly re-aligned the South to the Republicans, while solidifying black support of the Democrats.

    The North hated Vietnam, the South hated the Great Society. That’s why LBJ is such an unpopular president. After LBJ, the GOP would increasingly be the War party, and the Dems would be the POC party.

    A major problem with banking deregulation was that the regulations were repealed but there was an implicit guarantee that remained in place that they would be bailed out if they got in trouble. This was crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.

    But, you do realize how naive it is to think that the Masters of the Universe would not try and game the system? And if, by 1987, it had become fashionable to dismiss mid-century New Dealism as pork for unions and whiny entitled workers, then pretty much by default it only stands to reason that most people would start to look the other way as we began to give more pork to companies willing to do anything to increase profit margins.

    Either we have profit reducing stability measures, or we have runaway greed that will gain momentum until the train derails. Start hyping up the glory of “the market”, and the next thing you know it’s off to the race to the bottom.

  262. @notanon

    It’s strange how infrequently they target government or notable corporate locations
     
    most of these shooters aren't WN.

    the ruling class have created a multi-ethnic pressure cooker which no one is adapted to (except the people doing it) so certain particularly susceptible individuals are cooking off - mostly mental health issues and mostly mixed ancestry (which i assume makes them more sensitive to these issues?) - and hugely magnified by a toxic media who *want* these attacks to take place as an excuse for getting rid of the #1A and #2A.

    they're more media shootings than anything else.

    if they were more consciously ideological they'd be more targeted and more hit and run.

    Part of what’s going is that there is far less well-organized, and ideologically coherent, activism going on these days compared to certain historical periods. Whereas in 1915 or 1970, you had a lot of (primarily young) activists meeting up because they shared a common goal (like ending Vietnam), and were passionate about achieving that goal.

    But these days, we have a lot of extremely isolated and depressed people who just want to vent their frustration on random targets.

    The current public mood is at it’s lowest point since the Civil War era. Back in the 2000’s, a lot of people had GW Bush stickers, and it wasn’t that big a deal. Whereas nowadays, most Trump voters in my areas are afraid to be upfront about their support.

  263. @dfordoom

    Again, the confusion between actual capitalism and the Big Biz crony capitalism (basically fascism without the armbands) is profound
     
    OK, I see. The problems with capitalism don't count because capitalism in the real world isn't "real" capitalism.

    That's very similar to the argument that the problems with communism don't count because communism as it has been practised in the real world isn't "real" communism. In both cases we're asked to believe that an idealised imaginary pure version of the ideology in question would perfectly.

    Of course an idealised imaginary version of any ideology works wonderfully well, in theory.

    It’s also like saying that we shouldn’t give up on a quarterback whose lost 10 straight games because he theoretically has the talent to win games.

    It doesn’t matter what something can, or should do; we judge based on performance, not on potential.

    Neo-liberal corporatism is the natural result of market “de-regulation”, union-breaking, and so forth. I’ve always wondered why the purists out there don’t just find some part of Northern Canada, or Siberia, and try to start their own “pure” free market nation, instead of whining that no current society ever allows them to have their dream version of capitalism.

    It’s just going to be quite hard to convince a lot of older people who came of age being told that New Dealism was the last stop before hard-core communism, and in order to “prove” that we are better than the commies, we need to gut the fundamental elements of New Dealism (strong unions, a tight labor market, suppression of large booms and busts, and low economic inequality) to realize the full potential of The Market.

  264. @MikeatMikedotMike
    AE,

    I suggest you read this if you haven't already:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-american-race-war-of-1968

    Opened in the next tab.

  265. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I remember seeing lefties mocking "Yall-Quada" a few years ago. Now that it's actually becoming a thing they seem a little scared.

    I almost enjoy it, I almost like that all these stupid foreigners in my life might be scared of me due to media brainwashing. Lord knows, if you only watched the MSM (and most non-whites do), every white male is a potential mass shooting threat.

    The elites are not scared, though. They are happy to manufacture fear and then leverage that manufactured fear to do whatever the hell they want to.

    • Replies: @216
    Revealed preferences are indicative

    Were the elites as scared as they pretend, many would already be living full time in those New Zealand bunkers.
  266. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yeah,it's not a bunch of random Mexican's fault at Wal-Mart that the USA has open borders. It would be slightly less stupid to go after the people who actually make the decisions (bankers, politicians, refugee resettlement agencies, etc).

    WN Victims:

    - 100 year old Jews at a Synagogue
    - Muslims praying in NZ (peacefully)
    - More random Muslims (in Quebec City)
    - Cross-border Mexican shoppers at Wal-Mart
    - Nice black ladies at Church (this is especially painful, since blacks who are devout Christians are the only functional subset of blacks I know).

    THIS DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.

    These shootings achieve nothing, because the victims have nothing to do with causing the problems.

    They achieve less than nothing–it’s almost as if they are intended to be entirely counterproductive.

  267. @L Woods
    “Self-improvement” is masturbation. In any case, women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

    women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

    I think this is exactly backwards.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Maybe if you’re dealing with Asians or hipsters (even the latter is optimistic).
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    He has depression and needs help. No shame in this, but the conversation must be had.
  268. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Yeah, this guy is full on 1488. Some of the more shocking bits of his Nazi screed/manifesto:

    unchecked corporations

    Republican Party are pro-corporation

    America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty

    The lower the unemployment rate, the better

    They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees

    Corporations need to ... keep wages down

    a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market

    American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life

    our lifestyle is destroying the environment

    this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”

    Fresh water is being polluted from ...oil drilling operations

    Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities

    We even use...many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands

    the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle

     

    Excessive paper towel usage. Main Nazi concern.

    Has Andrew Yang disavowed yet?

    • LOL: 216
  269. @Audacious Epigone
    The elites are not scared, though. They are happy to manufacture fear and then leverage that manufactured fear to do whatever the hell they want to.

    Revealed preferences are indicative

    Were the elites as scared as they pretend, many would already be living full time in those New Zealand bunkers.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @notanon
    right but they bought those bunkers in New Zealand in preparation for something yes - preparation for what - preparation for the civil war they intended to start.

    lefties being hysterical and elites being chilled is consistent once you accept the elites are taking America down deliberately.
  270. @L Woods
    “Self-improvement” is masturbation. In any case, women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

  271. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    There's literally nothing wrong with his manifesto. He is 100% accurate in everything except his path forward, which involves needlessly slaughtering 20 random Mexicans.

    His manifesto talks about the weapons and the act. It is literally disastrous for people who actually care about national sovereignty and living in a functional country, because he’s poisoning the intellectual well by associating some perceptive observations with the slaughtering of innocents.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Giving this young man far too much credit. He is not the national spokesperson for US national sovereignty.
  272. @216
    One thing Trump doesn't do is grovel.

    But a groveling Trump disavowal of his base would probably earn tremendous rewards from the left; as the base quickly swerves to calling him "cuck di tutti cuck"

    So the only think that can stop the attacks, also requires him to anathemize his base.

    A Hobson's Choice in the Adorno world.

    Earn tremendous rewards from the left? Are you trolling us?

  273. @dfordoom

    The US is a police state.
     
    It's a new type of police state. The repression is left mostly to private corporations rather than being done by the state itself. Many of the functions of government are in the hands of the corporate sector. The corporate sector doesn't just wield influence, it's in control. There's no need for a secret police apparatus. The functions of the secret police have been privatised.

    And were discovering that corporate repression is more total and more ruthless, and more effective, than state repression.

    It also elicits less sympathy from normies than government repression does.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Are you sure about that? I see a lot of platitudes about “muh private sector can hire/deplatform whoever it wants).
  274. @L Woods
    After college, your access to women is largely limited to swipe apps. Moreover, whatever residual network you can build there seems to be most of what you can hope for in atomized adult life. It’s a very bleak picture if you don’t have some kind of good network position or subcultural niche. There is church I suppose, if your gag reflex is muted enough.

    After college, your access to women is largely limited to swipe apps.

    I wonder how young working men and women met before “swipe apps”? (whatever those are) — “access to women” is limited more by your willingness to make an effort to go out and meet them (since they’re not going to knock on your fucking door), and most importantly whether you have the guts and self-confidence to approach and talk to a woman you find attractive, including in perhaps uncomfortable circumstances, eg she is with a group (fear of rejection is psychologically intimidating and uncomfortable enough for most men) — so generally, these two things are what have always (not just today) held men back: lack of effort and fear of rejection — relatively few men are willing to admit that though — and today, via the internet there are actually more ways to make the initial contact.

    There is church I suppose, if your gag reflex is muted enough.

    This kind of attitude can’t and won’t help either.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Ok dude, whatever. Sure, nothing’s changed. I’m just a “loser.” Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.” All it takes is a little hard work and gumption, like when you walked to school in the snow uphill both ways. Cool. Nothing to see here.

    And if you’re not nauseated by the state of the modern church, I don’t know what to tell you either.

  275. @Audacious Epigone
    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it's important to keep a lid on the irresponsible rhetoric.

    The provider may not drop UR, but it may demand an end to the comments section to continue to provide service.

    Hopefully now some of the loudmouth midwits realize why it’s important to keep a lid on the irresponsible rhetoric.

    But they won’t. The trouble with lunatic fringes is that they’re composed of – lunatics. Or at least they’re composed of people with serious psychological problems. And some of them really are Feds.

    Freedom of speech is great in theory. In practice, if you’re trying to achieve something politically, it means you get overrun by lunatic fringers who will totally discredit and eventually destroy your movement.

  276. @216

    The left never demobilizes — they find another foe to run into the ground.
     
    At several times throughout history, the left has vanquished the local variant of the Right. There is then a period of leftist hegemony until it dissolves into factionalism. One of those leftist factions eventually gets identified as the new Right.

    Being that in many cases the Right is moribund (most of Bluestan, college campuses), it is foolish to put new wine into old wineskins.

    We have to wait for the left to breakup, which they will not do as long as the legacy Right is present as Sailer's KKKrazy Glue.

    (In other areas, the Right may be able to exercise self-determination, like a Redstan).

    At several times throughout history, the left has vanquished the local variant of the Right. There is then a period of leftist hegemony until it dissolves into factionalism. One of those leftist factions eventually gets identified as the new Right.

    But what’s happening now is quite different. The group that now has almost total power is not the Left but big business. They’re the ones pulling all the strings. The actual Left has been defeated and destroyed almost completely.

    The politicians (of all stripes) and the crazies in academia and the crazies in the media all in the final analysis dance to the tune of big business.

    We now have a plutocracy. What we’re heading towards is not leftwing totalitarianism but plutocratic totalitarianism. Which has never been done before. There have been authoritarian plutocracies, some of them quite nasty, but never a full-blown plutocratic totalitarianism.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    The left seems to have been granted the run of the social sphere (and of course, the usual buyoff of its leadership) in return for total surrender in the economic sphere.
  277. @216
    Revealed preferences are indicative

    Were the elites as scared as they pretend, many would already be living full time in those New Zealand bunkers.

    right but they bought those bunkers in New Zealand in preparation for something yes – preparation for what – preparation for the civil war they intended to start.

    lefties being hysterical and elites being chilled is consistent once you accept the elites are taking America down deliberately.

  278. @dfordoom

    At several times throughout history, the left has vanquished the local variant of the Right. There is then a period of leftist hegemony until it dissolves into factionalism. One of those leftist factions eventually gets identified as the new Right.
     
    But what's happening now is quite different. The group that now has almost total power is not the Left but big business. They're the ones pulling all the strings. The actual Left has been defeated and destroyed almost completely.

    The politicians (of all stripes) and the crazies in academia and the crazies in the media all in the final analysis dance to the tune of big business.

    We now have a plutocracy. What we're heading towards is not leftwing totalitarianism but plutocratic totalitarianism. Which has never been done before. There have been authoritarian plutocracies, some of them quite nasty, but never a full-blown plutocratic totalitarianism.

    The left seems to have been granted the run of the social sphere (and of course, the usual buyoff of its leadership) in return for total surrender in the economic sphere.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The left seems to have been granted the run of the social sphere (and of course, the usual buyoff of its leadership) in return for total surrender in the economic sphere.
     
    Yes, that's precisely what the deal was.

    I can't help suspecting that part of the deal was also quite explicitly that the Left would switch to supporting mass immigration. The Left had always regarded immigration with extreme suspicion and even hostility, but the Right wanted immigration to drive down wages and keep workers disorganised and demoralised.
  279. @eah
    After college, your access to women is largely limited to swipe apps.

    I wonder how young working men and women met before "swipe apps"? (whatever those are) -- "access to women" is limited more by your willingness to make an effort to go out and meet them (since they're not going to knock on your fucking door), and most importantly whether you have the guts and self-confidence to approach and talk to a woman you find attractive, including in perhaps uncomfortable circumstances, eg she is with a group (fear of rejection is psychologically intimidating and uncomfortable enough for most men) -- so generally, these two things are what have always (not just today) held men back: lack of effort and fear of rejection -- relatively few men are willing to admit that though -- and today, via the internet there are actually more ways to make the initial contact.

    There is church I suppose, if your gag reflex is muted enough.

    This kind of attitude can't and won't help either.

    Ok dude, whatever. Sure, nothing’s changed. I’m just a “loser.” Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.” All it takes is a little hard work and gumption, like when you walked to school in the snow uphill both ways. Cool. Nothing to see here.

    And if you’re not nauseated by the state of the modern church, I don’t know what to tell you either.

    • Replies: @eah
    Actually, I didn't say 'nothing had changed' (except that it still, as it always has, takes effort to meet women, and guts to risk rejection by approaching them) -- and I did not call you a "loser" (? -- maybe you are, or feel you are, at least with women -- ?) -- the rest of the first paragraph is just "LOL" pathetic.

    Also I did not say anything about how I feel about "the state of the modern church" -- I just implied that it is a place where one might meet decent women (if one were willing to make the effort, and meeting decent women was high enough on your priority list); also that if you were willing to reject church or church-sponsored events as somewhere to meet women, what other ways might you be rejecting? -- and why? -- because being cynical about it is not going to help.

    You need to grow up, "Ok dude" -- because yeah, here you do come off as a thin-skinned "loser".

    , @eah
    If it helps your hurt feelings, substitute "one" or "one's" for "you"or "your" in my earlier comment -- this works just as well; I was not talking about "you" personally anyway (which should have been obvious) -- since I don't know "you" personally, I have no reason to call "you" a "loser" -- "Ok, dude"?
    , @Toronto Russian

    Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.”
     
    Not a library, museum, park, animal shelter, hobby group or dancing class? Lol, that's revealing of your preferences. I guess you get what you choose.

    What about oldschool dating sites where you need to write walls of text about you and your expectations? It's a great filter for intelligence, culture, and literacy skills. Just writing coherent personal messages with proper grammar and etiquette will be catnip for "trad" girls, many of whom miss Jane Austen novel style gentlemen in their lives.
  280. @Audacious Epigone
    It also elicits less sympathy from normies than government repression does.

    Are you sure about that? I see a lot of platitudes about “muh private sector can hire/deplatform whoever it wants).

  281. @Audacious Epigone
    women like empty creatine bro-muscle, not the lean physique practicing martial arts will build.

    I think this is exactly backwards.

    Maybe if you’re dealing with Asians or hipsters (even the latter is optimistic).

  282. @L Woods
    The left seems to have been granted the run of the social sphere (and of course, the usual buyoff of its leadership) in return for total surrender in the economic sphere.

    The left seems to have been granted the run of the social sphere (and of course, the usual buyoff of its leadership) in return for total surrender in the economic sphere.

    Yes, that’s precisely what the deal was.

    I can’t help suspecting that part of the deal was also quite explicitly that the Left would switch to supporting mass immigration. The Left had always regarded immigration with extreme suspicion and even hostility, but the Right wanted immigration to drive down wages and keep workers disorganised and demoralised.

  283. @L Woods
    Ok dude, whatever. Sure, nothing’s changed. I’m just a “loser.” Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.” All it takes is a little hard work and gumption, like when you walked to school in the snow uphill both ways. Cool. Nothing to see here.

    And if you’re not nauseated by the state of the modern church, I don’t know what to tell you either.

    Actually, I didn’t say ‘nothing had changed’ (except that it still, as it always has, takes effort to meet women, and guts to risk rejection by approaching them) — and I did not call you a “loser” (? — maybe you are, or feel you are, at least with women — ?) — the rest of the first paragraph is just “LOL” pathetic.

    Also I did not say anything about how I feel about “the state of the modern church” — I just implied that it is a place where one might meet decent women (if one were willing to make the effort, and meeting decent women was high enough on your priority list); also that if you were willing to reject church or church-sponsored events as somewhere to meet women, what other ways might you be rejecting? — and why? — because being cynical about it is not going to help.

    You need to grow up, “Ok dude” — because yeah, here you do come off as a thin-skinned “loser”.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Gee, I’ve never thought of “risking rejection” before. Eureka! Brb, off to a get my “decent woman” from church. Didn’t seem to serve a lot of my high school peers too well, what with the cheating and divorce, but like everyone blessed with an indelible winner’s bias, I’m sure it won’t happen to me! Of course I’ll undoubtedly be foisted on some rapidly aging Churchian, very possibly with racially ambiguous children in toe, but no matter — I’m sure there’s a good reason why a woman in 2019 is still single at 29.
  284. @L Woods
    Ok dude, whatever. Sure, nothing’s changed. I’m just a “loser.” Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.” All it takes is a little hard work and gumption, like when you walked to school in the snow uphill both ways. Cool. Nothing to see here.

    And if you’re not nauseated by the state of the modern church, I don’t know what to tell you either.

    If it helps your hurt feelings, substitute “one” or “one’s” for “you”or “your” in my earlier comment — this works just as well; I was not talking about “you” personally anyway (which should have been obvious) — since I don’t know “you” personally, I have no reason to call “you” a “loser” — “Ok, dude”?

  285. @L Woods
    Ok dude, whatever. Sure, nothing’s changed. I’m just a “loser.” Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.” All it takes is a little hard work and gumption, like when you walked to school in the snow uphill both ways. Cool. Nothing to see here.

    And if you’re not nauseated by the state of the modern church, I don’t know what to tell you either.

    Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.”

    Not a library, museum, park, animal shelter, hobby group or dancing class? Lol, that’s revealing of your preferences. I guess you get what you choose.

    What about oldschool dating sites where you need to write walls of text about you and your expectations? It’s a great filter for intelligence, culture, and literacy skills. Just writing coherent personal messages with proper grammar and etiquette will be catnip for “trad” girls, many of whom miss Jane Austen novel style gentlemen in their lives.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Have any you people actually dealt with this recently? Like, the library? Really? I hope you’re into porn-addicted.

    Really, I’m not trying to be rude (not this morning), but this is just delusional on every level. Old school dating sites, as another example, went out of vogue around 2012. And there’s no chick on earth for whom “good grammar” is “catnip.”

  286. “Restrictionism” died in 1965.

  287. @Toronto Russian

    Your trad waifu is standing around a bar or shopping mall and will totally pry herself away from Instagram if you just “approach.”
     
    Not a library, museum, park, animal shelter, hobby group or dancing class? Lol, that's revealing of your preferences. I guess you get what you choose.

    What about oldschool dating sites where you need to write walls of text about you and your expectations? It's a great filter for intelligence, culture, and literacy skills. Just writing coherent personal messages with proper grammar and etiquette will be catnip for "trad" girls, many of whom miss Jane Austen novel style gentlemen in their lives.

    Have any you people actually dealt with this recently? Like, the library? Really? I hope you’re into porn-addicted.

    Really, I’m not trying to be rude (not this morning), but this is just delusional on every level. Old school dating sites, as another example, went out of vogue around 2012. And there’s no chick on earth for whom “good grammar” is “catnip.”

    • Replies: @notanon

    Have any you people actually dealt with this recently?
     
    i must admit i did find the attitude of younger guys on this topic strange and excessive a while back but being on twitter has gradually made me aware of how different the dating scene is from my time.

    i still think the blame should be laid at the feet of the cultural poisoners rather than women but when you read about the love life of the Ohio shooter you can see how nuts it all is.
    , @Toronto Russian

    Like, the library? Really? I hope you’re into porn-addicted.
     
    You're afraid to meet a girl who watches porn from a library computer? I haven't even seen members of the underclass doing it from food bank computers that they allow them to use while waiting for free food. It just doesn't happen, let alone in public libraries where there are little kids around. Or that she's addicted to literary porn like Shades of Gray? This kind of women are staying at home writing and reading NC-rated fanfiction. You're unlikely to cross paths with them, and they aren't interested anyway. When they're in a real life relationship, it's most likely with another woman with the same hobby (they deny they're lesbians, as both roleplay as fictional male characters they think are "gay for each other", e.g Holmes and Watson or Thor and Loki). Yes, I've been to some weird corners of the internet to know this. See for yourself:

    https://archiveofourown.org/tags/Sexual%20Content/works

    Old school dating sites, as another example, went out of vogue around 2012.
     
    Follow the crowd and you'll get what's no higher than the level of the crowd. I've always aimed higher. For example, I don't drink alcohol for health and fitness reasons and thus couldn't be found in a bar in a lifetime (I'm a girl). My husband and I met through his co-worker who followed my Livejournal blog. All three of us had recently immigrated to Canada from different Eastern European countries. Gotta try unconventional ways if you want extraordinary results.

    And there’s no chick on earth for whom “good grammar” is “catnip.”
     
    It's part of the package that is "a cultured and sophisticated individual." From biographies of notable writers, poets, intellectuals we can see most of them were chick magnets, even when (yet) unrecognised and starving, even if ugly and alcoholic. Dante Gabriel Rossetti had probably the most striking contrast between his looks/financial position/lifestyle and the number and beauty of women who were his lovers. And I've seen a meme about Sartre that said something like: "This ugly bastard knows one weird trick to get laid with lots of chicks, and his philosophy isn't even that good.":)
  288. @The Alarmist
    We are The New Romans.

    What an insult to Rome! America did nothing but spread the virus of pop culture, Hollywood, vulgarity and cultural trash across the world. Rome civilized what it touched; America degraded everything. Rome built the infrastructure of the West; America carpet bombed the world, either literally or through blackmail to impose its genocidal cultural agenda. Don’t flatter yourself. Rome indeed!

    • Replies: @notanon
    Rome didn't invent TV/cinema - that's the source of the cultural poisoning.
  289. @eah
    Actually, I didn't say 'nothing had changed' (except that it still, as it always has, takes effort to meet women, and guts to risk rejection by approaching them) -- and I did not call you a "loser" (? -- maybe you are, or feel you are, at least with women -- ?) -- the rest of the first paragraph is just "LOL" pathetic.

    Also I did not say anything about how I feel about "the state of the modern church" -- I just implied that it is a place where one might meet decent women (if one were willing to make the effort, and meeting decent women was high enough on your priority list); also that if you were willing to reject church or church-sponsored events as somewhere to meet women, what other ways might you be rejecting? -- and why? -- because being cynical about it is not going to help.

    You need to grow up, "Ok dude" -- because yeah, here you do come off as a thin-skinned "loser".

    Gee, I’ve never thought of “risking rejection” before. Eureka! Brb, off to a get my “decent woman” from church. Didn’t seem to serve a lot of my high school peers too well, what with the cheating and divorce, but like everyone blessed with an indelible winner’s bias, I’m sure it won’t happen to me! Of course I’ll undoubtedly be foisted on some rapidly aging Churchian, very possibly with racially ambiguous children in toe, but no matter — I’m sure there’s a good reason why a woman in 2019 is still single at 29.

    • LOL: eah
  290. What a bunch of bullshit non sequiturs — you’re pathetic “dude”, absolutely pathetic — and yes, probably a “loser” with women, hence the bitterness and cynicism.

    Didn’t seem to serve a lot of my high school peers too well

    Why do you especially care and/or want to generalize about the negative outcomes of others?

    Of course I’ll undoubtedly be foisted

    What a surprise — you see yourself as the kind of beta who can be “foisted” on a woman — “LOL” — and seem to think this is the way others may see you as well — ?

    very possibly with racially ambiguous children in toe

    Uh-huh, OK — see my remark about bitterness and cynicism above — you’re pretty messed up in the head “dude”.

    • Replies: @notanon
    how old are you? (roughly)

    not a dig i'm just curious if a lot of us are out of touch with how things are now.
    , @L Woods
    Yes, you seem like just the type to be judging the mental soundness of others.

    In any case, as always, “bitterness and cynicism” is just used as a sloppy dismissal in itself — irrespective of its reflectiveness of reality. Your two-bit posturing is tedious. Yawn.

  291. @L Woods
    Have any you people actually dealt with this recently? Like, the library? Really? I hope you’re into porn-addicted.

    Really, I’m not trying to be rude (not this morning), but this is just delusional on every level. Old school dating sites, as another example, went out of vogue around 2012. And there’s no chick on earth for whom “good grammar” is “catnip.”

    Have any you people actually dealt with this recently?

    i must admit i did find the attitude of younger guys on this topic strange and excessive a while back but being on twitter has gradually made me aware of how different the dating scene is from my time.

    i still think the blame should be laid at the feet of the cultural poisoners rather than women but when you read about the love life of the Ohio shooter you can see how nuts it all is.

    • Replies: @eah
    you read about the love life of the Ohio shooter

    Holy shit, don't tell me you're going to draw some kind of general conclusion from that? -- from some guy who just shot up a bunch of people? -- this guy? -- get a grip man.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBQND1UXkAEzsli.jpg
    , @Talha

    the love life of the Ohio shooter
     
    Do you have a link for this? Wondering if homeboy fits the incelqaeda profile...

    Peace.
  292. @SebastianX1/9
    What an insult to Rome! America did nothing but spread the virus of pop culture, Hollywood, vulgarity and cultural trash across the world. Rome civilized what it touched; America degraded everything. Rome built the infrastructure of the West; America carpet bombed the world, either literally or through blackmail to impose its genocidal cultural agenda. Don't flatter yourself. Rome indeed!

    Rome didn’t invent TV/cinema – that’s the source of the cultural poisoning.

  293. @eah
    What a bunch of bullshit non sequiturs -- you're pathetic "dude", absolutely pathetic -- and yes, probably a "loser" with women, hence the bitterness and cynicism.

    Didn’t seem to serve a lot of my high school peers too well

    Why do you especially care and/or want to generalize about the negative outcomes of others?

    Of course I’ll undoubtedly be foisted

    What a surprise -- you see yourself as the kind of beta who can be "foisted" on a woman -- "LOL" -- and seem to think this is the way others may see you as well -- ?

    very possibly with racially ambiguous children in toe

    Uh-huh, OK -- see my remark about bitterness and cynicism above -- you're pretty messed up in the head "dude".

    how old are you? (roughly)

    not a dig i’m just curious if a lot of us are out of touch with how things are now.

    • Replies: @eah
    not a dig

    I know it's not a dig, and would not take it that way -- this whole discussion is way OT and I did not mean for it to go on so long, but certain replies annoyed me -- let me say this: I am not of what most would see as typical dating age; I'm older, and married -- what I have written here is based on my own experience when I was younger; and yes, also the mistakes I made (and to some extent regret, in the 'youth is wasted on the young' sense).

    out of touch with how things are now

    I think it's a mistake to think things were different or better before -- that it was somehow easier to meet women, or meet 'the right woman': someone attractive, appealing, with whom you feel the chance of a genuine connection, and then to make that connection -- it's not easy, and never has been really.

  294. eah says: